According to a person-affecting theory of beneficence, our welfare-based reasons depend entirely on what is good or bad for individuals. This view can explain the Procreation Asymmetry, the claim that we do not have reasons to create individuals whose life would be good for them, but that we do have reasons to refrain from creating an individual whose life would be bad for them. But it struggles with the Non-Identity Problem: Why ought we create a better-off rather than a worse-off individual in a choice between two good lives? Recently, several authors have argued that we can provide a person-affecting answer to this question by appealing to asymmetries between the good and the bad: while we do not have reasons to promote the good, we do have reasons to avoid, prevent or reduce the bad. In the talk, I discuss and reject several versions of this proposal.