ABSTRACT
The nonidentity problem (NIP) is one of the great moral discoveries of the twentieth century and a philosophical classic. It is a single, simple, powerful, philosophical conundrum. The different moral perspectives help to show that defending wrongness and blameworthiness despite the NIP does not depend only on a general utilitarianlike position and that such a defense has many diverse philosophical resources to build upon. Melinda Roberts and David Wasserman seek to provide a general NIP-based argument, and that would allow a very broad range of disturbing decisions in procreation, as long as no one could complain. Accepting the couple's decision in the case Roberts and Wasserman present is only a token of a broad type of cases, which are morally unacceptable in the familiar ways in which many cases of moral indulgence are unacceptable, from deontological and virtue ethical perspectives.
