David Archard

Philosophers who publish articles that make practical ethical recommendations are thereby offering advice. I consider what obligations they incur in advising. I analyse the giving of advice as a communicative act whose defining and characteristic aim is to secure acceptance of what is advised. Such advice need not be solicited or taken up. I distinguish advice from incitement and threats and specify the scope of the adviser's responsibility for others acting upon the advice. I explore how advice can be bad in how it is given and what is given. I consider, and criticise, various pleas for exemption from the responsibilities of philosophical advising: that advice was not meant; that it wouldn't make any difference anyway; and that the writing was not for those who might act on it. I examine the offering of philosophical advice to policy makers, comparing the views on this of Mary Warnock and Dan Brock. I conclude by asking practical normative philosophers to consider what they should do inasmuch as they are advising.

Filial regard is the special consideration that children, even as adults, show their parents and filial morality the demonstration that such a regard is demanded of them. The three main accounts of filial morality, based upon ideas of gratitude, role obligations, and friendship, are shown to be unsatisfactory. The article explores the idea, found in traditional Chinese thinking, that filial regard is the 'root' of goodness, and suggests that the Chinese model has been viewed unsympathetically due to an understanding both of the family's role in moral education and of the nature of modern morality.

I contrast a liberal and a conservative approach to the morality of sex, endorsing the former with a concession as to the special nature of sex, and note Pruss' philosophical and theological endorsement of the latter. I criticize his argumentative strategy in three regards: first, he defends Christian love as equivalent to benevolence; second, he allows for only a moral evaluation of sex; third, he moves too quickly from some factual claims to others, and thence to normative conclusions. His account of the moral impermissibility of non-veridical pleasures trades on ambiguities in 'real' pleasure. I respond to three arguments Pruss offers against IVF: gamete donors can discharge their parental obligations; reproduction need not only be by coitus; and those who use fertility treatment need not thereby do wrong in treating any resultant child as an 'artefact'. I conclude with critical observations about the distance between Pruss' views and those commonly held by most people, including increasing numbers of Catholics.

In the case of Townsend v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal upheld the longstanding position that individual clinicians cannot be compelled to provide treatment that they consider clinically inappropriate, while holding that there is ‘no carve out for clinical decisions’ from the best interests framework for adults lacking mental capacity. Subsequent questions about who sets the treatment options; when and in what form there may be judicial scrutiny of their exclusion; and what follows if a court and clinicians disagree will be considered by the Supreme Court in January 2027. We argue that these questions are also pertinent to paediatric treatment disputes and warrant a consistent approach. Drawing on paediatric case law, we examine the boundaries of best interests decision-making to show that the breadth of best interests does not erase the different functions that contribute to a treatment decision. We invite the Supreme Court to recognise a distinct role for collective professional judgement in determining clinical appropriateness, while preserving the authority of the Court of Protection and Family Division of the High Court to scrutinise disputed exclusions. Judicial scrutiny should be proportionate to the nature of the dispute, protecting both patient welfare and professional integrity.

This article provides a philosophical analysis of a putative right of the child to have their expressed views considered in matters that affect them. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 is an influential and interesting statement of that right. The article shows that the child’s ‘right to a voice’ is complex. Its complexity lies in the problem of contrasting an adult’s normative power of choice with a child’s weighted views, in the various senses in which we might consider the child’s views, and in the questions of how to weight those views and how their weighting makes a practical difference in coming to a decision. In so doing we criticise other accounts that simply regard a child’s views as having consultative value. We also make better sense of how we might weight a child’s views. The philosophical issues addressed in the article carry implications for how we might understand Article 12 that are not satisfactorily identified and addressed in the voluminous literature on Article 12 within childhood studies. These issues also have implications for how we might understand the distinction between adults and children in respect of powers of personal choice. We conclude by emphasising the importance and value of the right that Article 12 seeks to formally identify.

On 20 May 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the Pandemic Agreement at the World Health Assembly in Geneva. After nearly three years of negotiations and after failing to adopt it in 2024, this is a decisive step towards more combined efforts to address future pandemics. The final text of the treaty highlights the need for equitable access to pandemic-related health products and aims to improve the ability of international health regulators to guide countries during future pandemics. There is hope that by learning from mistakes made during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Agreement can be used to address global inequities and make globally equitable resource sharing the norm, preventing harmful practices, such as vaccine hoarding and barriers to data sharing. However, while the current Pandemic Agreement puts equitable access to surveillance, therapeutics, vaccines, and other pandemic-related products at the forefront, many important questions are yet to be answered. The authors of this paper draw attention to ethics preparedness efforts. The piece considers the importance of building the necessary infrastructure for the provision of ethical advice on health-related matters as part of the implementation phases of the WHO Pandemic Agreement to ensure that we learn from the mistakes made during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article examines what is wrong with some expressive acts, ‘insults’. Their putative wrongfulness is distinguished from the causing of indirect harms, aggregated harms, contextual harms, and damaging misrepresentations. The article clarifies what insults are, making use of work by Neu and Austin, and argues that their wrongfulness cannot lie in the hurt that is caused to those at whom such acts are directed. Rather it must lie in what they seek to do, namely to denigrate the other. The causing of offence is at most evidence that an insult has been communicated; it is not independent grounds of proscription or constraint. The victim of an insult may know that she has been insulted but not accept or agree with the insult, and thereby submit to the insulter. Hence insults need not, as Waldron argues they do, occasion dignitary harms. They do not of themselves subvert their victims' equal moral status. The claim that hateful speech endorses inequality should not be conflated with a claim that such speech directly subverts equality. Thus, ‘wounding words’ should not unduly trouble the liberal defender of free speech either on the grounds of preventing offence or on those of avoiding dignitary harms.

The alleged problem of the dirty hands of politicians has been much discussed since Michael Walzer’s original piece (Walzer 1974). The discussion has concerned the precise nature of the problem or sought to dissolve the apparent paradox. However there has been little discussion of the putative complicity, and thus also dirtying of hands, of a democratic public that authorizes politicians to act in its name. This article outlines the sense in which politicians do get dirty hands and the degree to which a democratic public may also get dirty hands. It separates the questions of secrecy, authorisation, and wrongfulness in order to spell out the extent of public complicity. Finally it addresses the ways in which those who do and those who do not acknowledge the problem of dirty hands erroneously discount or deny the problem of complicity by an appeal to the nature of democracy, a putatively essential need for political openness or to the scope of ideal theory.

Whether children have rights is a debate that in recent years has spilled over into all areas of public life. It has never been more topical than now as the assumed rights of parents over their children is challenged on an almost daily basis. David Archard offers the first serious and sustained philosophical examination of children and their rights. Archard reviews arguments for and against according children rights. He concludes that every child has at least the right to the best possible upbringing. Denying that parents have any significant rights over their children, he is able to challenge current thinking about the proper roles of state and family in rearing children. Crucially, he considers the problem of how to define and understand `child abuse'.

John O'Neill argues in a recent article, ‘Should Communitarians be Nationalists?’, that communitarians are wrong to be committed to the defence of ties of nationhood, both because the nation‐state's rise is associated with the disappearance of the ties of community and because the nation is an illusory community. I argue that the evidence that communitarianism is committed as charged to the defence of nationality is unconvincing. Further, the familiar accusation that the nation is a false or unreal community is neither perspicuous nor obviously true. It is important to evaluate the significance and worth of the nation as a community independently of the nationalist prescription that the nation and the state should coincide. The important question is not whether the political community should be a nation, but what sort of community the nation should be.

ABSTRACT I criticise the ‘liberal’view of the proper relationship between the family and State, namely that, although the interests of the child should be paramount, parents are entitled to rights of both privacy and autonomy which should be abrogated only when the child suffers a specifiable harm. I argue that the right to bear children is not absolute, and that it only grounds a right to rear upon an objectionable proprietarian picture of the child as owned by its producer. If natural parents have any rights to rear they derive from duties to bring their children into rational maturity where they can exercise rights for themselves. The presumption that natural parents are best suited to rear their own children should be discounted, as should the assumption that alternatives to natural parenting are unacceptably bad. I reject the suggestion that parents should be ‘licensed’but argue for a much closer monitoring of the family. Familial privacy, which such monitoring breaches, is shown to have a culturally specific and, given the facts of abuse, dubious value. In conclusion, I briefly specify the forms of monitoring I approve.

ABSTRACT Mary Midgley asserts that my argument concerning the problem of child‐abuse was inappropriately framed in the language of rights, and neglected certain pertinent natural facts. I defend the view that the use of rights‐talk was both apposite and did not misrepresent the moral problem in question. I assess the status and character of the natural facts Midgley adduces in criticism of my case, concluding that they do not obviously establish the conclusions she believes they do. Finally I briefly respond to the charge that my suggestions were illiberal.

Whether children have rights is a debate that in recent years has spilled over into all areas of public life. It has never been more topical than now as the assumed rights of parents over their children is challenged on an almost daily basis. David Archard offers the first serious and sustained philosophical examination of children and their rights. Archard reviews arguments for and against according children rights. He concludes that every child has at least the right to the best possible upbringing. Denying that parents have any significant rights over their children, he is able to challenge current thinking about the proper roles of state and family in rearing children. Crucially, he considers the problem of how to define and understand `child abuse'.

_Children: Rights and Childhood_ is widely regarded as the first book to offer a detailed philosophical examination of children’s rights. David Archard provides a clear and accessible introduction to a topic that has assumed increasing relevance since the book’s first publication. Divided clearly into three parts, it covers key topics such as: John Locke’s writings on children Philippe Ariès’s _Centuries of Childhood_ children’s moral and legal rights a child’s right to vote and to sexual choice parental rights to privacy and autonomy defining and understanding child abuse. The third edition has been fully revised and updated throughout with a new chapter providing an in-depth analysis of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and Part 2 has been restructured to move the reader from general theoretical considerations of children’s rights through to practical issues. This volume is ideal reading for advanced studies across Philosophy, Social Work, Law, Childhood Studies, Politics, and Social Policy.