When Intuition is Not Enough. Why the P rinciple of P rocreative B eneficence Must Work Much Harder to Justify Its Eugenic Vision

The P rinciple of P rocreative B eneficence ( PPB ) claims that we have a moral obligation, where choice is possible, to choose to create the best child we can. The existence of this moral obligation has been proposed by J ohn H arris and J ulian S avulescu and has proved controversial on many levels, not least that it is eugenics, asking us to produce the best children we can, not for the sake of that child's welfare, but in order to make a better society. These are strong claims that require robust justification that can be open to scrutiny and debate. This article argues that robust justifications are currently lacking in the work of S avulescu and H arris. The justifications provided for their conclusions about this obligation to have the best child possible rely heavily on D erek P arfit's N on‐ I dentity P roblem and the intuitive response this provokes in many of us. Unfortunately H arris and S avulescu do not embrace the entirety of the N on‐ I dentity P roblem and the puzzle that it presents. The N on‐ I dentity P roblem actually provides a refutation of PPB . In order to establish PPB as a credible and defendable principle, H arris and S avulescu need to find what has eluded P arfit and many others: a solution to the N on‐ I dentity P roblem and thus an overturning of the refutation it provides for PPB . While H arris and S avulescu do hint at possible but highly problematic solutions to the N on‐ I dentity P roblem, these are not developed or defended. As a result their controversial is left supported by little more than intuition.