Responses to the Non-Identity Problem

[Student’s Name] [Institution’s Name] [Submission Date] Responses to the Non-Identity Problem Introduction In this research essay I will critically reflect upon the concept of non-identity problem using the risk policy by Parfit (36) as the case illustration and then it will further define the proposed solution towards it by Parfit (37). Last but not least, it will also define how the Rival Medical Programs case (i.e., Preconception Testing vs. Pregnancy Testing) works as a support for the solution recommended by Parfit. In response to the identity problem, this research essay will also highlight the reasons why the problem of non-identity arises only in different choices of people. Further, it will also highlight the three moral intuitions that make up the non-identity problem and will reflect upon the risky policy case as an example of the non-identity problem. What is Non-Identity Problem? According to Parfit (35), there is an irregularity between future and present generations. The existence of future generations can be influenced by present generations in terms of their particular identity and their numbers. In addition, decisions that limit the decisions of future generations can also be made by present generations (for example – nuclear power). When moral obligations are considered to future generations of people, it is referred to as the nonidentity problem. For much of the debate related to our obligations to future people with the discussion of NIP (non-identity problem), an agenda was set by Parfit (35). As a set of three inconsistent, collectively, appealing, and independently intuitions were considered under NIP. However, one of the primary concern raised by NIP was that: can some action be wrong even if its consequences do not result in worsening off of any specific individual (future or present)? Further to respond to the identity problem, different cases or thought experiments were used by Parfit (35) such as the trolley problem and experience machine. Further, he also made extensive use of intuitions, including philosophy that helps in constructing a unified system. Further Parfit (37) reflected upon the different people choices vs. similar people choices. The choice of the nuclear technician to be negligent is a similar people choice because those who come into existence are not influenced by it. Whereas the risk policy is a different people choice because those who come into existence are also not influenced by it. However, both the choice of risky policy and the negligence of nuclear technician appear to be wrong. However, in the case of risky policy, it cannot be assumed that the individuals influenced by the devastation are worse than those who have selected the safe policy. Besides, their very existence depends upon the selected risk policy (Woollard 675). The Intuitions Parfit (112) also linked it with the example of a nuclear technician. Injuries of thousands of individuals are resulted along with leakage of radiation if the tank is not properly checked by some lazy technicians in the past. Parfit (11) also highlighted the risk policy factor. He assumed the example of us as a community with a choice between two policies related to energy. Although both of these policies will be safe completely at least for two centuries, however, one of them will have certain risks in the future. If the risk policy is selected, then over the next two centuries there will be an increase in our living standard. However, such policy may also result as a consequence of injuring and killing thousands of people. Further Parfit (35) also compared the risk policy factor with the example of a nuclear technician. Whether the nuclear technician acts diligently or acts negligently, it will impact those who will be born shortly. It cannot be claimed that negligence of the nuclear technician can result in ...