David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 114 (1-2):173 - 198 (2003)
Many people face a problem about potentiality: their moral beliefs appear to dictate inconsistent views about the signiﬁcance of the potentiality to become a healthy adult. Brieﬂy, the problem arises as follows. Consider the following two claims. First, both human babies and cats have moral status, but harms to babies matter more, morally, than similar harms to cats. Second, early human embryos lack moral status. It appears that the ﬁrst claim can only be true if human babies have more moral status than cats. Among the properties that determine moral status, human babies have no properties other than their potentiality that could explain their having more moral status than cats. So human babies’ potentiality to become adult persons must explain their having more moral status than cats. But then potentiality must raise moral status generally. So early human embryos must have some moral status. It appears that the view that must underlie the ﬁrst claim implies that the second claim is false.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Religion|
|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
Elizabeth Harman (2004). Can We Harm and Benefit in Creating? Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):89–113.
Elizabeth Harman (2007). How is the Ethics of Stem Cell Research Different From the Ethics of Abortion? Metaphilosophy 38 (2-3):207–225.
David Degrazia (2007). Human-Animal Chimeras: Human Dignity, Moral Status, and Species Prejudice. Metaphilosophy 38 (2-3):309–329.
David DeGrazia (2014). Persons, Dolphins, and Human–Nonhuman Chimeras. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (2):17-18.
D. B. Hershenov & R. J. Hershenov (2015). Morally Relevant Potential. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (3):268-271.
Similar books and articles
Lawrence J. Nelson & Michael J. Meyer (2005). Confronting Deep Moral Disagreement: The President's Council on Bioethics, Moral Status, and Human Embryos. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (6):33 – 42.
Christian Munthe (2001). Divisibility and the Moral Status of Embryos. Bioethics 15 (5-6):382-397.
S. Matthew Liao (2010). The Basis of Human Moral Status. Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (2):159-179.
Alfonso Gómez-Lobo (2005). On Potentiality and Respect for Embryos: A Reply to Mary Mahowald. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (2):105-110.
David DeGrazia (2007). Must We Have Full Moral Status Throughout Our Existence? A Reply to Alfonso Gomez-Lobo. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):297-310.
P. Tully (2011). Researchers and Firing Squads: Questions Concerning the Use of Frozen Human Embryos. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (5):516-528.
Phillip Montague (2011). Stem Cell Research and the Problem of Embryonic Identity. Journal of Ethics 15 (4):307-319.
Lisa Bortolotti & John Harris (2005). Stem Cell Research, Personhood and Sentience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10:68-75.
David DeGrazia (2008). Moral Status as a Matter of Degree? Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):181-198.
John P. Lizza (2010). Potentiality and Persons at the Margins of Life. Diametros 26:44-57.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads124 ( #29,510 of 1,793,093 )
Recent downloads (6 months)19 ( #39,705 of 1,793,093 )
How can I increase my downloads?