Abstract

In this paper some very fundamental attitudes we have and assumptions we make in the US about persons, what they owe and what they are owed, are scrutinized and found to be indefensibly ageist. It is argued that these assumptions and the attitudes they engender are supported by logically and ethically suspect methods and conclusions. These errors are summarized and some remedial steps by which we might better protect against such illicit and unwarranted methods and conclusions in the future are suggested