Brain-Damaged Babies and Brain-Damaged Kittens: A Reexamination of the Argument From Marginal Cases

Given the existence of “marginal human cases”, it is often argued that we must either acknowledge that some human beings have less moral status than some non-human animals, or commit to the idea that moral status is held by humans qua human. In this paper, the moves available on both sides are shown to be unsatisfactory, and an argument for moral status that avoids both of the standard positions is suggested. Ultimately, it is argued that the discussion of moral status is confused when marginal human cases are seen as posing a unique, rather than a general, theoretical problem.