Non-Identity Problem (NIP) Cases Paper

Non-Identity Cases Paper The non-identity problem (NIP) according to Derek Parfit is a philosophy that explains how a man makes decisions in relations to the moral of the society. Parfit elaborates that the present decision does not affect the decision of the unborn in anyway because at the time of the decision they are not present. On the other hand, I will also explain James Woodward’s argument and answer to the NIP, and use the example of Racist Airline Case to support his point of view. This paper analyses the nature of Parfit’s theory of moral decision is negative because the decision of risky policy or 14-years old mother can still be wrong, even it doesn’t harm any specific person but the world as a whole. In this paper, I am going to explain the NIP, three public moral intuitions, Risky Policy Case and its solution, as well as Woodward’s opinion of NIP and Racist Airline Case According to Parfit, 2019 the non-identity problem also known as the paradox of future individuals argues that an act is wrong even if it does not affect anyone. For example, the environmental degradation as a result of a present development affects the future of the unborn who will leave have unsustainable environmental conditions to survive. The present decision is beneficial and does not harm anyone at the moment but the future generations are worse off. The non-identity problem elaborates the unborn are not affected by the present decision because they do not exist. When people are allowed to make choices on their own, most of the general public will generate options which befit them or useful and fulfill self-aggrandizement. Therefore, everyone would choose without considering that so long it does not affect anyone the choice is to write. The public moral intuitions that exist in the problem of the non-identity problem affect the decision of a person or the policymakers to check on the benefits of the law but not on the future impacts of the regulation. The first indicates that our choices are never wrong if one is aware that the decision does not make the life of another worse. The first moral intuition person-affecting principle, presented by Parfit is on the choosing where decisions seem wrong despite that no particular people are any worse off than they would have been if the safe policy were selected. For example, if we point a gun toward the sky and fire it. There is nothing wrong with our decision of firing the gun because it doesn’t hurt any people and making their life worse. The second moral principle considers an act that brings a person in existence whose existence is unavoidably flawed cannot harm the person, because we can’t make a nonexistent person’s life any worse off. The third intuition argues that bringing existence to life with flawed could somehow be wrong, even though it is not hurting anyone who is existed. For instance, if we know ahead that this particular upcoming baby would have a congenital disease, and still decide to have the baby. Our choice could be wrong because the existence of the child may harm the people who are existing. The three moral intuitions are not compatible because the intuitions have different principles and standpoints when applied in making a decision. The critical policy is a process of...