Article Text
Abstract
DeGrazia argues that post-persons have as much justification in believing that they have higher moral status than persons as persons have in believing that they have higher moral status than animals. DeGrazia's claim presupposes that what Buchanan calls the “moral equality assumption” is false. This article argues that DeGrazia has given us no reason to disbelieve the moral equality assumption. Further, even if DeGrazia's arguments about moral status were sound, it is unclear that his first-order normative claims about how we should weigh human against animal interests would follow.
- Informed consent
- translational research
- justice in healthcare
- moral theory
- public health
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Linked article 100126.
Funding UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Feature article
- Commentary
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- The biomedical enhancement of moral status
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong?
- Highlights from this issue
- Self-serving bias and the structure of moral status
- Genetic Enhancement, Post-persons, and Moral Status: Author reply to commentaries
- The ethical justification for the use of non-human primates in research: the Weatherall report revisited
- Still afraid of needy post-persons
- A flimsy case for the use of non-human primates in research: a reply to Arnason