Here's a relevant passage from "The Diner's Defence": "The implication of this argument is that it is not wrong for harm-based reasons to cause someone to exist who is then abused by someone else, provided that her life is worth living, and there was no alternative act that would have caused her to exist with a better life. This is the t…
Here's a relevant passage from "The Diner's Defence":
"The implication of this argument is that it is not wrong for harm-based reasons to cause someone to exist who is then abused by someone else, provided that her life is worth living, and there was no alternative act that would have caused her to exist with a better life. This is the typical position of the diner in relation to the animals that their purchase affects.
"This principle, I claim, is plausible even when applied to uncontroversial full-moral-status human beings..."
Here's a relevant passage from "The Diner's Defence":
"The implication of this argument is that it is not wrong for harm-based reasons to cause someone to exist who is then abused by someone else, provided that her life is worth living, and there was no alternative act that would have caused her to exist with a better life. This is the typical position of the diner in relation to the animals that their purchase affects.
"This principle, I claim, is plausible even when applied to uncontroversial full-moral-status human beings..."
Perfect, thanks! I'll be sure to cite this if I end up expanding this post into a paper.