So-called “social egg freezing” allows a woman to retain the possibility of trying to have a child with her own oocytes later in life, even after having become infertile in the strict sense of the word.There is a debate about whether it is morally permissible at all, the extent to which it should be permitted legally or even supported, and whether it is ethically desirable. This paper contributes some thoughts to the issue of ethical desirability. More precisely it deals with (...) the question of whether there is any valuable argument to be made on the basis of the idea of life phases and normative expectations related to them. So the question is: Is there a right time in life to have a child, and does this speak against or in favor of social freezing? This question is answered in three steps. First, I will give an overview of ethical arguments that are mostly put forward in favor or against the use of social egg freezing and show that and why the question of life phases should be taken into account. Second, I will sketch what I understand by phases of life, more precisely, what I understand by normatively conceptualized life stages, that are to be distinguished from other kinds of life phases, and how they relate to a good life. Third, I will present two arguments that rely on the idea of life stages and speak against social egg freezing. However, I will criticize them and instead show that from the perspective of life stages nothing speaks against using the technique within certain limits. (shrink)

The neo-Aristotelian virtue theory of Philippa Foot is presented here as an alternative framework that is arguably more useful than deontological approaches and that relies less on the assertions of moral claims about the intrinsic goodness of foundational principles. Instead, this project focuses more on cultivating a true ethic; that is, a set of tools and propositions to enable individuals to negotiate inevitable conflicts among moral values and challenges posed by cultural contexts and technology use. Foot's ?natural normativity? connects the (...) conditions of human flourishing and objective reasons for acting morally, providing a framework for a digital media ethic to address three critical categories: virtuality and authenticity, privacy and autonomy, and exchange and discourse. (shrink)

This paper involves constructive exegesis. I consider the contrast between morality and art as sketched in Philippa Foot's 1972 paper of the same name, ‘Morality and Art’. I then consider how her views might have shifted against the background of the conceptual landscape afforded by Natural Goodness, though the topic of the relation of art and morality is not explicitly explored in that work. The method is to set out some textual fragments from Natural Goodness that can be arranged for (...) a tentative Footian ‘aesthetics’. I bring them into conversation with some ideas from Iris Murdoch to elucidate what I think the import may be, for Foot, of depicting human form. (shrink)