A Moorean argument for the full moral status of those with profound intellectual disability

Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (1):41-45 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is about the moral status of those human beings with profound intellectual disabilities (PIDs). We hold the common sense view that they have equal status to ‘normal’ human beings, and a higher status than any non-human animal. We start with an admission, however: we don’t know how to give a fully satisfying theoretical account of the grounds of moral status that explains this view. And in fact, not only do we not know how to give such an account, but the most satisfying account of moral status that we know (which we call ‘the standard account’) entails that our view is false. It entails that those with PIDs have a lower status than ordinary human beings and an equal status to non-human animals. Now, in this paper, we do absolutely nothing to try to show where the standard account goes wrong, and we do absolutely nothing to resolve the difficulties we see in developing an alternative account that supports our view. Indeed, we do not give any argument against the standard account or in favour of our own view. Instead, we raise the following question: in order to be justified in continuing to hold our view, are we obliged to give such an account? Our answer will be that we are not.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Moral Worth and Severe Intellectual Disability – A Hybrid View.Benjamin L. Curtis & Simo Vehmas - 2013 - In Jerome E. Bickenbach, Franziska Felder & Barbara Schmitz (eds.), Disability and the Good Human Life. Cambridge University Press. pp. 19-49.
The Grounds of Moral Status.Julie Tannenbaum & Agnieszka Jaworska - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:0-0.
Disability and Moral Responsibility.Simo Vehmas - 2011 - TRAMES 15 (2):156-167.
Mary Anne Warren on “Full” Moral Status.Robert P. Lovering - 2004 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (4):509-30.
Responsibility and disability.David Shoemaker - 2009 - Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):438-461.
Narrative Ethics and Vulnerability: Kristeva and Ricoeur on Interdependence.Elizabeth Purcell - 2013 - Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy 21 (1):43-59.
Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons.Richard Rowland - 2012 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (1):1-24.
Responsibility, Agency, and Cognitive Disability.David Shoemaker - 2010 - In Eva Feder Kittay & Licia Carlson (eds.), Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 201--223.
Speciesism and moral status.Peter Singer - 2009 - Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):567-581.
Debating disability.Tom Shakespeare - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (1):11-14.
Moral status and the treatment of dissociative identity disorder.Timothy J. Bayne - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (1):87-105.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-10-12

Downloads
135 (#137,001)

6 months
12 (#216,527)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Benjamin L. Curtis
Nottingham Trent University

References found in this work

The moral problem.Michael Smith - 1994 - Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.
Practical Ethics.Peter Singer - 1979 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Susan J. Armstrong & Richard George Botzler.
Ethics and Intuitions.Peter Singer - 2005 - The Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):331-352.

View all 30 references / Add more references