The nonidentity problem is the issue of how to justify the belief that it is wrong to bring a person into existence if they would have a flawed life, though still worth living, instead of bringing another, nonidentical person into existence who would have a better life. To have an impaired life that is worth living seems to be a good existence, at least for the person in question. The nonidentity problem was made known mostly by Derek Parfit. The problem draws attention to three intuitions that seemingly cannot all be correct. How we respond to this predicament and which intuitions a solution depends on have severe implications primarily in population ethics but it will also affect other areas, to mention a few; genetic engineering, if and how to correct historical wrongdoing, and just resource management. In this essay, I will discuss David Boonin’s objections to previously proposed approaches to handle the nonidentity problem and his proposal on a solution. The conclusion I will draw is that although Boonin presents an answer based on a strategy of biting the bullet he fails to show how this is a plausible response to the nonidentity problem. Instead, I argue for my preferred strategy to tackle the problem by referring to a consequentialist moral theory such as utilitarianism. I intend to show that such a theory provides the most plausible solution and make the case that Boonin’s critique of such an approach is unjustified.

No description available.

Dans le contexte utilitariste de l’éthique des populations, deux positions s’opposent naturellement à propos de ce qui a de la valeur et de ce que nous devons faire afin de bénéficier au plus grand nombre. Là où certaines intuitions nous invitent à chercher la maximisation totale du bien-être, d’autres soulignent l’importance de faire de notre mieux pour parvenir à la plus haute moyenne possible. Ce document a pour vocation de traiter le débat théorique qui oppose ces deux avenues. Il s’agira donc de décrire et de préciser le fonctionnement et les conséquences de ces positions, afin de tenter d’apporter des éléments de réponses sur la solidité et la robustesse de ces deux axiologies. Dans ce but, nous évaluerons et répondrons aux objections qui leurs sont présentées, et ferons la lumière sur leurs lacunes respectives. Plus précisément, ce document s’intéressera principalement aux problèmes de la Conclusion Répugnante et de la Conclusion Sadique, qui ont fait couler beaucoup d’encre, mais également à d’autres objections couramment discutées dans la littérature. Nous conclurons que contrairement à ce qu’ils peuvent laisser croire, ce ne sont pas des arguments décisifs à l’encontre de ces positions. Il s’agira de surcroît d’interroger et d’expliquer les intuitions qui fondent ces positions, les biais qui les menacent mais également les conséquences contre-intuitives qui en découlent. / In the utilitarian context of population ethics, two positions are naturally opposed about what has value and what we ought to do to benefit the greatest number. Where some intuitions invite us to seek total well-being, others stress the importance of doing our best to achieve the highest possible average. This paper aims to adress the theoretical debate between these two avenues. It will therefore be necessary to describe and clarify the functioning and consequences of these positions, in order to try to provide elements of answers about the solidity and robustness of these two axiologies. To this end, we will assess and respond to the objections presented to them, and shed light on their respective shortcomings. More precisely, this paper will focus on the problems of the Repugnant Conclusion and the Sadistic Conclusion, which have caused a lot of ink to flow, but also on other objections commonly discussed in the litterature. We will conclude that contrary to what they may suggest, these are not decisive arguments against these positions. In addition, the document will question and explain the intuitions that underlie these positions, the biases that threaten them but alo the counter-intuitive consequences thats follow.