David DeGrazia

Some people contend that fetuses have moral status but less than that of paradigm persons. Many people hold views implying that sentient animals have moral status but less than that of persons. These positions suggest that moral status admits of degrees. Does it? To address this question, we must first clarify what it means to speak of degrees of moral status. The paper begins by clarifying the more basic concept of moral status and presenting two models of degrees of moral status. It then sketches several significant considerations in favor of, and several against, the assertion of degrees of moral status. The paper concludes by drawing lessons from the discussion.

The idea of a patient's best interests raises issues in prudential value theory–the study of what makes up an individual's ultimate (nonmoral) good or well‐being. While this connection may strike a philosopher as obvious, the literature on the best interests standard reveals almost no engagement of recent work in value theory. There seems to be a growing sentiment among bioethicists that their work is independent of philosophical theorizing. Is this sentiment wrong in the present case? Does value theory make a significant difference in interpreting best interests? In pursuing this question, I begin with a quick sketch of broad kinds of value theories, identifying representatives that are plausible enough to count as contenders. I then explore what each account suggests in (1) neonatal treatment decisions, and (2) decisions for patients in persistent vegetative states. I conclude that while these accounts converge somewhat in their interpretations of best interests, they also have importantly different implications.

Many critics of American gun culture and policy argue that the public health benefits of stricter regulations compensate for the associated loss of freedom: a bit less freedom is an acceptable cost for the expected gains in public safety. By contrast, gun advocates sometimes claim that freedom to own guns underlies all other important freedoms and therefore deserves priority over considerations of public health. In this volume, philosopher Firmin DeBrabander takes a distinct critical approach, denying any significant loss of freedom associated with gun control. Widespread gun ownership in the context of lax regulation makes Americans—and anyone else similarly situated—less free. In developing his...

In this essay I attempt to shed some light on the moral status of animals and provide a framework for further illumination. I attempt in chapter one to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for having moral status, which I tie to having interests. My conclusion is that the key characteristic is conation. ;In chapter two I distinguish the concepts of equal moral status and equal consideration of identical interests--which have not been clearly distinguished, leading to confusion. Moral status is the degree of moral resistance to having one's interests thwarted. Crucially, the principle of equal consideration --which I defend--is consistent with the thesis that differences in moral status exist. ;In chapter three I defend a moral methodology that employs both an intuitive method and a principle of maximizing interests. In doing so I attempt to refute various misconceptions regarding intuition. I then examine categories of judgments I call 'fixed intuitions' and 'strong intuitions' and assess their epistemological strength. ;In chapter four I endeavor to identify the most important interests--experiential welfare, freedom, autonomy, and life--and the characteristics that underlie them. Then I make suggestions regarding which animals possess these interests . I also discuss various interests typically had by humans that substantially add to the value of their lives. I reach various normative conclusions by interest-maximization. While some are general in character, concerning, for example, the comparative values of different kinds of lives, others are more specific and concern the harmful use of animals in research. For example, I contend that research animals are usually provided inadequate living space. ;Finally, I test these conclusions in chapter five with the intuitive method, using fixed and strong intuitions, before concluding. I contend that differences in moral status show up mainly with respect to life-interests and freedom-interests, but that the principle of equal consideration evens out moral status to a greater degree than is generally acknowledged

Most theories of parenthood assume, at least implicitly, that a child will grow up to be an independent, autonomous adult. However, some children with cognitive limitations or psychiatric illness are unable to do so. For this reason, these accounts do not accommodate the circumstances and responsibilities of parents of such adult children. Our article attempts to correct this deficiency. In particular, we describe some of the common characteristics and experiences of this population of parents and children, examine the unique aspects of their relationships, review several philosophical accounts of parental obligations, consider how these accounts might be extrapolated to semiautonomous adult children, and provide suggestions about parental obligations to promote autonomy and independence in adult children with cognitive limitations or psychiatric illness. In extending accounts of parental responsibilities to the case of semiautonomous adults, we find that the parental role includes the duty to continue to provide care—indefinitely if necessary—while cultivating autonomy and independence.

We argue that the current ethical and regulatory framework for permissible risk levels in pediatric research can be helpfully understood in terms of children’s moral right to adequate protection from harm. Our analysis provides a rationale for what we propose as the highest level of permissible risk in pediatric research without the prospect of direct benefit: what we call “relatively minor” risk. We clarify the justification behind the usual standards of “minimal risk” and “a minor increase over minimal risk” and explain why it is permissible to impose any risks at all on child participants who do not stand to benefit directly from enrollment in research. Finally, we illuminate some aspects of the concept of “best interests.”

Kagan argues that human beings who are neither persons nor even potential persons — if their impairment is independent of genetic constitution — are modal persons: individuals who might have been persons. Moreover, he proposes a view according to which both personhood and modal personhood are sufficient for counting more, morally, than nonhuman animals. In response to this proposal, I raise one relatively minor concern about Kagan's reasoning — that he judges too quickly that insentient beings can have interests — before engaging the appeal to modal personhood. I challenge the thesis that modal personhood is relevant to one's moral status, first, by way of analogy to a kicker who misses a field goal though he might have made it; second, by casting doubt on implications for two impaired infants ; and, finally, by examining implications for dogs who would count as modal persons when genetic enhancements are capable of transforming them into persons

Transcending the overplayed debate between utilitarians and rights theorists, the book offers a fresh methodological approach with specific constructive conclusions about our treatment of animals. David DeGrazia provides the most thorough discussion yet of whether equal consideration should be extended to animals' interests, and examines the issues of animal minds and animal well-being with an unparalleled combination of philosophical rigor and empirical documentation. This book is an important contribution to the field of animal ethics.

As one of the most important ethicists to emerge since the Second World War, Alan Gewirth continues to influence philosophical debates concerning morality. In this ground-breaking book, Gewirth's neo-Kantianism, and the communitarian problems discussed, form a dialogue on the foundation of moral theory. Themes of agent-centered constraints, the formal structure of theories, and the relationship between freedom and duty are examined along with such new perspectives as feminism, the Stoics, and Sartre. Gewirth offers a picture of the philosopher's theory and its applications, providing a richer, more complete critical assessement than any which has occurred to date

Edited by Thomas A. Shannon, this series provides anthologies of critical essays and reflections by leading ethicists in four pivotal areas: reproductive technologies, genetic technologies, death and dying, and health care policy. The goal of this series is twofold: first, to provide a set of readers on thematic topics for introductory or survey courses in bioethics or for courses with a particular theme or time limitation. Second, each of the readers in this series is designed to help students focus more thoroughly and effectively on specific topics that flesh out the ethical issues at the core of bioethics. The series is also highly accessible to general readers interested in bioethics

It might be appropriate to begin my commentary by disclosing the fact that Brad Lewis and I are good friends. “Oh, no,” you might think, “this will be one of those cozy, mutual back-patting, insider sessions that so often take place in the American Philosophical Association group meetings.” But never fear. For one thing, I’m no insider to the intellectual circles represented in Dr. Lewis’ bibliog- raphy. Indeed, I’ve read only two of the 32 works listed there. (Depending on how you look at it, that may make me either completely unqualified to comment on this paper or exceptionally well-qualified for reasons of critical distance.) Also, friendship and constructive criticism are entirely compatible in my book. And, to paraphrase a philosopher of some importance, “Brad is dear, but the truth is dearer.” I will begin my commentary by identifying some of Brad’s theses that I find interesting, important, and well-supported. The second part of my commentary will elaborate my major concerns about the paper. This part will be longer, not because my overall reaction is more critical than favorable, but because exploring different viewpoints generally takes more space and time than noting points of agreement. In my conclusion, I will suggest that many of the paper’s insights are likely to sail better if some of the baggage from postmodernism and cultural studies is thrown overboard.

From the late 1970s through the mid-1980s, a number of philosophers carefully worked out theories of justice in health care. Most of those still working on these issues have turned to clinical applications of the philosophical frameworks developed earlier. Although theories have not received much recent attention in this debate, this paper will offer a new theoretical framework for approaching issues of justice in health care. There are two reasons for thinking that returning to theory would be worth- while. One concerns the fact that our society remains very far from realizing justice in health care. While there are several well-argued theories of just health care whose implementation would take us into the neighborhood of justice, it would also seem - in pluralistic spirit - that adding to the arsenal is helpful. The more good arguments there are for a given conclusion, the more likely it is to be correct and, ultimately, to persuade. It will be contended that a limited right to health care can be grounded in self-respect. The argument will exploit Rawls' key insight that self-respect is a primary social good and will depend on the assumption that, at least in moderately affluent nations, one has a right to the primary social goods. This assumption is not defended here. But it should be noted that a right to the primary social goods is not of interest only to Rawlsians and other liberal deontologists; an enlightened utilitarianism might also vindicate it. The second reason for advocating a return to theory is that self-respect is especially fruitful as a focal concept for addressing issues of justice in health care (and other issues).