Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review

Rethinking our Assumptions about Moral Status

In: Rethinking Moral Status [Internet]. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2021 Aug. Chapter 1.
Free Books & Documents
Review

Rethinking our Assumptions about Moral Status

Steve Clarke et al.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

When a being or entity has moral status its interests matter morally, for its own sake (Jaworska and Tannenbaum 2018). If a being or entity has moral status, then an act that is morally bad, in at least one respect, is committed when an agent harms that being or entity. Any all-things-considered moral justification for such an act must take into account the harm committed by the agent against that being or entity. Ordinary adult humans are usually supposed to have a specific and equal level of moral status – often referred to as ‘full moral status’ (FMS). Non-human animals are usually accorded some moral status, but this is typically understood to be a lesser level or degree of moral status than FMS.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Agar, Nicholas (2013). ‘Why is it Possible to Enhance Moral Status and Why Doing so is Wrong?’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 2, 67–74. - PubMed
    1. Agar, Nicholas (2013. b). ‘Still Afraid of Needy Post-Persons’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 2, 81–83. - PubMed
    1. Baker, L. R. (2000). Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Basl, John. (2014). ‘Machines as Moral Patients We Shouldn’t Care About (Yet): The Interests and Welfare of Current Machines’, Philosophy and Technology, 27, 79–96.
    1. Bok, Hilary (2003). ‘What’s Wrong with Confusion?’, American Journal of Bioethics, 3, 3, 25–26. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources