David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):305 - 326 (2008)
The literature of bioethics suffers from two serious problems. (1) Most authors are unable to take seriously both the rights of the great apes and of severely disabled human infants. Rationalism—moral status rests on rational capacities—wrongly assigns a higher moral status to the great apes than to all severely disabled human infants with less rational capacities than the great apes. Anthropocentrism—moral status depends on membership in the human species—falsely grants all humans a higher moral status than the great apes. Animalism—moral status is dependent on the ability to suffer—mistakenly equates the moral status of humans and most animals. (2) The concept person is widely used for justificatory purposes, but it seems that it cannot play such a role. It seems that it is either redundant or unable to play any justificatory role. I argue that we can solve the second problem by understanding person as a thick evaluative concept. This then enables us to justify assigning a higher moral status to the great apes than to simple animals: the great apes are persons. To solve the first problem, I argue that certain severely disabled infants have a higher moral status than the great apes because they are dependent upon human relationships for their well-being. Only very limited abilities are required for such relationships, and the question who is capable of them must be based on thick evaluative concepts. Thus, it turns out that to make progress in bioethics we must assign thick evaluative concepts a central role.
|Keywords||Animal rights Disability Fellow human Great ape Human relationship Moral status Person Thick evaluative concepts|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jukka Varelius (2009). Minimally Conscious State and Human Dignity. Neuroethics 2 (1):35-50.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Hart & M. P. Karmel (1996). Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge in Humans, Apes, and Monkeys. In A. Russon, Kim A. Bard & S. Parkers (eds.), Reaching Into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes. Cambridge University Press.
Mark Greene, Kathryn Schill, Shoji Takahashi, Alison Bateman-House, Tom Beauchamp, Hilary Bok, Dorothy Cheney, Joseph Coyle, Terrence Deacon, Daniel Dennett, Peter Donovan, Owen Flanagan, Steven Goldman, Henry Greely, Lee Martin & Earl Miller (2005). Moral Issues of Human-Non-Human Primate Neural Grafting. Science 309 (5733):385-386.
Paul Shapiro (2006). Moral Agency in Other Animals. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (4):357-373.
Robert Spaemann (2006). Persons: The Difference Between 'Someone' and 'Something'. Oxford University Press.
A. Russon, Kim A. Bard & S. Parkers (eds.) (1996). Reaching Into Thought: The Minds of the Great Apes. Cambridge University Press.
Patrick Kain (2009). Kant's Defense of Human Moral Status. Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (1):pp. 59-101.
Thaddeus Metz (2012). An African Theory of Moral Status: A Relational Alternative to Individualism and Holism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):387-402.
Adam Kolber (2002). Standing Upright: The Moral and Legal Standing of Humans and Other Apes. Stanford Law Review 54:163-204.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads57 ( #27,903 of 1,102,881 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #62,002 of 1,102,881 )
How can I increase my downloads?