Article info
PDFTheoretical ethics
Response
The Moorean argument for the full moral status of those with profound intellectual disability: a rejoinder to Roberts
- Correspondence to Dr Benjamin Curtis, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK; benjamin.curtis{at}ntu.ac.uk
Citation
The Moorean argument for the full moral status of those with profound intellectual disability: a rejoinder to Roberts
Publication history
- Received February 4, 2016
- Accepted February 18, 2016
- First published March 10, 2016.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Other content recommended for you
- A Moorean argument for the full moral status of those with profound intellectual disability
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Having hands and moral status: a reply to Curtis and Vehmas
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- What moral status should be accorded to those human beings who have profound intellectual disabilities? A reply to Curtis and Vehmas
- Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock
- Genetic Enhancement, Post-persons, and Moral Status: Author reply to commentaries
- Egalitarianism, moral status and abortion: a reply to Miller
- Pregnancy and superior moral status: a proposal for two thresholds of personhood
- In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma