Is Agar biased against 'post-persons'?

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):77-78 (2013)
Abstract
I shall discuss only one of Nicholas Agar's main claims,1 namely ‘that the bad consequences/of moral status enhancement/are, in moral terms, so bad that a moderate probability of their occurrence makes it wrong not to seek to prevent them’. His other main claim, which I grant, is that moral status enhancement to the effect of creating beings with a moral status higher than that of persons—post-persons—is possible. My chief objection to Agar's argument is that it is biased in favour of persons. This comes out when he sums it up: ‘the creation of post-persons would be a morally bad thing. It is likely to impose significant penalties on mere persons’. Suppose it is true that the creation of post-persons will impose such significant penalties on mere persons that they are worse off than they were before the creation of post-persons. Then it follows that the creation of post-persons is bad for mere persons, but it does not follow that it is bad overall. This follows only if it is not the case that post-persons receive benefits to an extent that morally outweighs the burdens to mere persons. As far as I can see, Agar does not show this—that is why I think he is biased towards mere persons, and simply assumes that what is bad for them is bad overall.I have, in fact, been too concessive to Agar …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 14,009
External links
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

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
N. Agar (2012). Why We Can't Really Say What Post-Persons Are. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (3):144-145.
N. Agar (2013). Still Afraid of Needy Post-Persons. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):81-83.
Nicholas Agar (2002). Agar's Review of Katz. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):123-139.
Robert Sparrow (2011). Liberalism and Eugenics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):499 - 517.
J. Wilson (2012). Persons, Post-Persons and Thresholds. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (3):143-144.
S. K. Wertz (2012). Persons and Collingwoods Account. Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 17 (2):189-202.
Lynne Baker (2007). Persons and Other Things. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (s 5-6):17-36.
Lynne Rudder Baker (2007). Persons and Other Things. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (5-6):5-6.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-10-11

Total downloads

4 ( #370,781 of 1,696,625 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #346,146 of 1,696,625 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.