Singer Replaceability Argument

Singer has argued that non-persons (both human and non-human) are replaceable, that is, we can kill them if we bring another similar being into existence to compensate for the net loss of utility in the universe. This, known as the replaceability argument, is Singer's most controversial argument, and has been used to justify the practice of animal husbandry when the animals live lives worth living.

Singer's position rests on three primary assumptions, two axiological and one metaphysical. First, the axiological presumptions are that death, at least in the case of non-persons, does not have negative value; and that coming into existence has, if the life is worth living, positive value. Additionally, Singer accepts the Total View. That is, the position that we should take into account the interests of contingent non-existent people as well as existent people when we aggregate utility. …show more content…
This view is commonly paired with the Person-Affecting Restriction, that is, the idea that we should only aggregate the welfare of necessary (independent of our decision) beings, actual or future. This position is commonly known as the Prior Existence View. However, even if this position could account for the Non-Identity problem, it is unable of accounting for the welfare of contingent beings, giving rise to counter-intuitive answers in common population problems. For instance, a couple decides to have a child that will surely inherit a serious genetic defect that will make its life short and miserable. Although most will condemn the act of conceiving such a child as immoral, the Prior Existence View lacks any grounds to do