Question

Question 2 (1 point) According to Dan Brock in "The Non-Identity Problem and Genetic Harms - The Case of Wrongful Handicaps," the common sense moral view tells us that failure to prevent a serious disability wrongs a child. In which of the following cases (taken from Derek Parfit) does Brock argue that this notion is incoherent? O A woman is pregnant with a child while afflicted with a condition that will seriously disable the child if she doesn't take a specific medicine. She doesn't take the medicine. O A woman has a child with a serious disability that can only be cured by a specific medication. She doesn't administer the medication. O A woman is considering getting pregnant while afflicted with a condition that would seriously disable any child that would be conceived at the time. She gets pregnant. O A woman is pregnant with twins while afflicted with a condition that will seriously disable one of the children if she doesn't take a specific medicine. She doesn't take the medicine. Question 3 (1 point) In the essay "The Non-Identity Problem and Genetic Harms - The Case of Wrongful Handicaps," Dan Brock states that the common person-affecting view assumes that it is wrong not to prevent a handicap in the case where getting pregnant would ultimately handicap the child. Why does Brock think this view is mistaken and that in fact it would not be better for the person with the handicap to have had it prevented? Because handicapped children are no less valuable than non-handicapped children. Because preventing the handicap would mean preventing the child from ever existing Because the alternative would be to abort the child. Because there's no way to measure what is better or worse before the child for a child prior to their experiencing it.

Answer 1

Question 2

Option 3 is correct option

The women can only harm to a child if she makes him worse than he could be. Here if she opts for not conceiving then child could not have existed. Only way she could have harmed him is by making him worse off than he otherwise would have been. You wronged someone when you violate his or her rights and or treat him or disrespect him or her. it's difficult to see how bringing child into existence could be a way of treating him unfairly it's also difficult to see why such an action is disrespectful and it's not immediately clear what right child would have that woman violates what if she opt for a different solution to the problem an alternative strategy. Thus in this case is a non-identity case it is a case in which an individual appears to be wronged by an action that is the condition of his own worthwhile existence

Three intuitions are at stake in the non identity problem.

The first is the person-affecting, or person-based, intuition itself. According to that intuition, an act can be wrong only if that act makes things worse for, or (we can say) harms, some existing or future person

Second intuition is that an act that confers on a person an existence that is, though flawed, worth having in a case in which that same person could never have existed at all in the absence of that act does not make things worse for, or harm, and is not “bad for,” that person.

The third intuition is what the non identity cases themselves seem clearly to show: that the existence-inducing acts under scrutiny in the various non identity cases are in fact wrong.

Hence

In option 1 woman has harmed the child by not taking the medication that could have prevented the disability.

In option 2 woman has harmed the child by not administering the medication that could have cured him.

In option 4 woman has harmed either of the twin by not taking the medication that could have prevented disability.

Question 3

Correct option is

Option 4

According to the Asymmetry, it is wrong (and makes an outcome morally worse) to bring a miserable child – a child whose life is less than worth living – into existence but it is perfectly permissible (and does not make an outcome worse) to leave the happy child out of existence. While leaving the happy child out of existence makes things worse for that child, the person-based intuition requires for wrongdoing not that things be made worse for a person who never exists but rather that things be made worse for a person who does or will exist. There is no way to predict it before experiencing.

Option 1 It is clear that many times in such cases, the impaired child’s life will be (or, at least, can be made to be) unambiguously in miserable but it is still worth living. It is thus very hard to say in such cases how the negligent act or omission, the act or omission to which the child owes his or her very existence, has harmed, or made things worse for, or otherwise been “bad for,” the child.

In option 2 and 3 to abort the child is wrong as it will prevent existence of child As Parfit put it: the “bad” act must be “bad for” someone. Existence remains worth having rayher than no existence at all. Because preventing handicap by wrong only if that act makes things worse for, or (we can say) harms, some existing or future person.