Online research in philosophy

Much work in contemporary bioethics defends a broadly liberal view of human reproduction. I shall take this view to comprise (but not to be exhausted by) the following four claims.1 First, it is permissible both to reproduce and not to reproduce, either by traditional means or by means of assisted reproductive techniques such as IVF and genetic screening. Second, it is permissible either to reproduce or to adopt or otherwise foster an existing child to which one is not biologically related. Third, it is permissible either to bring into existence a child with the greatest chance of a life of maximum human flourishing or to bring into existence a child with a life worth living but with less than the greatest chance of a life of maximum human flourishing. Fourth, it is impermissible to bring into existence a child whose life is either certain or likely to fall below some baseline of a human life minimally worth living.

In the December 2004 issue of Teaching Philosophy, readers were challenged to respond to Richard Schmitt’s essay, “Is the Unexamined Life Not Worth Living?” Here is one response.

Paul W. Taylor has defended a life-centered ethics that considers the inherent worth of all living things to be the same. l examine reasons for ascribing inherent worth to all living beings, but argue that there can be various levels of inherent worth. Differences in capacities among types of life are used to justify such levels. I argue that once levels of inherent worth are distinguished, it becomes reasonable torestrict rights to human beings.

The evaluation of whether an animal has a life worth living (LWL) has been suggested as a useful concept for farm animal policymaking. But there are a number of different ways in which the concept could be applied. This paper attempts to identify and evaluate candidate ethical principles based on the concept. It suggests that an appropriate principle by which to apply the concept is one that (1) is framed in terms of preventing an animal having a life worth avoiding (LWA), rather than ensuring they have LWL, (2) is based on a prospective, rather than retrospective, concept of a life’s worth, and (3) relates to both the perpetuation and creation of an animal at all times during its life. The paper concludes by endorsing an overarching principle that no animal should be unreasonably caused to be, or allowed to remain, in a position of having a prospective LWA.

Camus and James are not often thought to have much in common. But both agree that “Is life worth living?” is a fundamentalphilosophical question, and an examination of the views of each as to what constitutes a life that is worth living reveals strikingsimilarities. Although James freely uses the language of religion which Camus adamantly avoids, they agree that a life worth livingis marked by a sense of intimacy and communion with others and with the world itself—and by a resolve to fight against the evilsthat threaten well-being.

In this chapter I aim to clarify the conceptual and metaphysical relationships between a good life or a life worth living, on the one hand, and a meaningful life, on the other. There are some who maintain that talk of 'life's meaning' is by definition talk of a life worth living, and vice versa, but I argue against them, denying that these phrases connote the very same ideas. In addition to contending that the meanings of these phrases are different, I also argue that the properties these phrases refer to are different, i.e., that it is metaphysically possible for a life to be worth living and not meaningful, and even for a life to be meaningful but not worth living. In order to account for the close association theorists have tended to find between meaningfulness and worthwhileness, I suggest that there is overlap between the properties of a meaningful life and of a best life (as opposed to merely a good life).

Might it be morally wrong to procreate? David Benatar answers affirmatively in Better Never to Have Been , arguing that coming into existence is always a great harm. I counter this view in several ways. First, I argue against Benatar’s asserted asymmetry between harm and benefit—which would support the claim that any amount of harm in a human life would make it not worth starting—while questioning the significance of his distinction between a life worth starting and one worth continuing. I further contend that his understanding of hedonism and desire-fulfillment theories distorts their implications for the quality of human life; as for objective-list theories, I rebut his critique of their human-centered basis of evaluation. Notwithstanding this multi-tiered challenge to Benatar’s reasoning, I conclude with praise for his work and the intellectual virtues it embodies.

A life worth living--a good life--is a life 'better than nothing'. At least that is a common thought. But it is puzzling. What does 'nothing' mean here? It cannot be a quantifier in the familiar sense, yet nor, it seems, can it be a referring term. To what could it refer? This paper aims to resolve the puzzle by examining a number of analyses of the concept of a life worth living. It distinguishes 'temporal analyses', which exploit the temporal structure of lives, from non-temporal ones. And it concludes that one temporal analysis, which it calls the 'Truncation Analysis', is the best of all the analyses considered.

Some philosophers have noted that there is a difference between the questions “Is life meaningful or purposeful?” and “Is life worth living?” However, what it is that makes these questions different has not been explored. Although the famed question about the meaning of life has received most of the attention, I argue that the better and more fruitful question is “Is life worth living?” When addressing the question “Is life worth living?” one takes into account benefits and costs that are ignored when considering the question “Is life purposeful?” thereby explaining how life can be purposeful, but not worth living. After exploring the differences between these questions, I then evaluate various ways of determining whether life is worth living. I argue that the best method for making this determination is to ask oneself whether or not one would have chosen to live one's life.

Theories of well-being tell us what makes a life good for the one who lives it. But there is more to what makes a life worth living than just well-being. We care about the worth of our lives, and we are right to do so. I argue that a life worth living (LWL) should pass a pre-existence test—given a synoptic pre-view, a benevolent caretaker should allow one to be born rather than to never have been. A life worth avoiding (LWA) is one that a benevolent caretaker should disallow. I defend an objective list account of the worth of a life: The most worthwhile lives are those high in various objective goods. These principally include welfare and meaning.