A Response to McMahan
1 University of York
* Corresponding author:
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 24 Apr 2024 / Accepted: 25 Apr 2024 / Published: 29 Apr 2024
Abstract
In ‘Anti-Natalism and the Asymmetry’ I argue that the claim, starting good lives is permitted but not required, ultimately proves untenable. The inevitable bad parts of a life give reasons against starting, but the good parts give no reasons for. So don’t start, and if started, end. Jeff McMahan thinks this good/bad asymmetry is way too radical, and finds much to fault with my argument. Unsurprisingly I agree with some but not all of what he has to say. We agree, for example, that the concerns of persons to live on generally far outstrip those of babies and animals. We disagree about there being always some reason to start good lives.
Keywords: Anti-Natalism; the Asymmetry; persons; animals; desires; TRIA
OPEN ACCESS
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).
CITE
Belshaw, C. A Response to McMahan. Controversial_Ideas 2024, 4, 7.
Belshaw C. A Response to McMahan. Journal of Controversial Ideas. 2024; 4(1):7.
Belshaw, Christopher. 2024. "A Response to McMahan." Controversial_Ideas 4, no. 1: 7.
Not implemented
SHARE
