Search

In a recent commentary, John-Stewart Gordon points to the need for further elaboration of the pragmatic approach to moral status that I have defended. On the one hand, Gordon points to the need for a clearer account of when individualist and relational deliberative strategies should be employed. On the other hand, he observes that the pragmatic account appears to conflate two theoretical tasks that are typically understood as distinct: the task of determining the grounds of moral status, and the subsequent task of ethical decision-making. This article offers a reply to Gordon’s critical remarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This reply address two issues raised by Nancy Jecker’s commentary, “Robots With and Without Sophisticated Cognitive Capacities: Are They Persons?”. The first issue concerns the criteria for ascribing moral personhood to social robots. Whereas standard property-based accounts of personhood claim that sophisticated cognitive capacities are necessary conditions for personhood, Jecker contends that personhood is a cluster concept that may include various configurations of sufficient, but not necessary, conditions. While I am sympathetic to aspects of this proposal, I suggest that it potentially conflicts with some of Jecker’s other stated theoretical commitments. The second issue concerns how to best characterize relational approaches to moral personhood. Elsewhere, I have argued for a constrained moral relationalism which accepts that non-moral properties can play a limited role in justifying moral status ascription. Jecker contends that this intervention is unnecessary because relational views are already suitably constrained. In response, I suggest that moral relationalism is best described as a family of theoretical positions, some of which do not make sufficient room for appeals to properties in moral reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on human-animal chimeras have elicited alarms and prompted debates. Those involving the generation of chimeric brains, in which human brain cells become anatomically and functionally intertwined with their animal counterparts in varying ratios, either via xenografts or embryonic co-development, have been considered the most problematic. The moral issues stem from a potential for "humanization" of the animal brain, as well as speculative changes to the host animals' consciousness or sentience, with consequential alteration in the animal hosts' moral status. However, critical background knowledge appears to be missing to resolve these debates. Firstly, there is no consensus on animal sentience vis-à-vis that of humans, and no established methodology that would allow a wholesome and objective assessment of changes in animal sentience resulting from the introduction of human brain cells. Knowledge in interspecies comparative neuropsychology that could allow effective demarcation of a state of "humanization" is also lacking. Secondly, moral status as a philosophical construct has no scientific and objective points of reference. Either changes in sentience or humanization effects would remain unclear unless there are some neuroscientific research grounding. For a bioethical stance based on moral status of human-animal brain chimera to make meaningful contributions to regulatory policies, it might first need to be adequately informed by, and with its arguments constructed, in a manner that are factually in line with the science. In may be prudent for approved research projects involving the generation of human-animal brain chimera to have a mandatory component of assessing plausible changes in sentience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is fairly commonplace to think that the capacity for sentience need not be the only basis of moral status. Pluralists contend that moral status is grounded in several other valuable capacities as well as, or instead of, sentience, such as agency, empathy, or sociality. However, this contention contrasts with a standard assumption in animal ethics: that sentience should be the only basis of moral status. This article vindicates that assumption. Whilst classical utilitarians have defended a similar claim about sentience in relation to ultimate value, the merits of this view have gone relatively unnoticed in contemporary debates about moral status and animal ethics. An account based on sentience alone avoids conceptual redundancy and has greater explanatory power than pluralist alternatives. An account of moral status based exclusively on sentience also yields two significant and revisionary implications that have not been recognised. First, the distinction between persons and nonpersons cannot hold, so all moral patients, including nonhuman animals, should feature as primary subjects in ethical theories, public policies, and research agendas. Second, we ought to favour nonhuman interests far more often than we tend to suppose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper delves into the intersection between Kant’s moral theory and evolutionary perspectives on personhood. It explores how Kant’s emphasis on rationality in moral agency aligns with evolutionary studies on the development of moral behaviors. By examining the transcendental implications of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI) and the evolutionary origins of moral agency, this study aims to illuminate the link between Kant’s conception of moral agency and personhood. Additionally, it investigates how Kant’s call for CI resonates with evolutionary insights on the adaptive nature of social cooperation in human societies. Through this analysis, we seek to deepen our understanding of the cognitive, social dimensions of moral agency and moral status within the framework of Kant’s moral theory and evolutionary perspectives on personhood.

We commonly explain the distinctive prudential and moral status of persons in terms of our mental capacities. I draw from recent work to argue that the common explanation is incomplete. I then develop a new explanation: We are ethically important because we are the object of a pattern of self-concern. I argue that the view solves moral problems posed by permissive ontologies, such as the recent personite problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judith Jarvis Thomson argued that abortion is permissible because no one must sacrifice their rights to bodily autonomy. However, assuming a fetus has full moral personhood, and focusing on when abortion is unjust in particular, we argue that Thomson's view of what we ought to sacrifice to aid others is too impoverished. Instead, we argue that abortion is permissible when pregnancy threatens the ability of the mother, or the child, to live minimally well. After explaining the minimally good life account and its application to abortion, we explain its advantages over alternative views. Finally, we examine arguments concluding that abortion is permissible because fetuses are not persons. We argue that personhood is probably a matter of degree rather than a binary property. Thus, abortion is generally permissible early in pregnancy, but as the fetus gets closer to full personhood, adopting the minimally good life standard is appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alongside in vitro studies, researchers are increasingly exploring the transplantation of human brain organoids (HBOs) into non-human animals to study brain development, disease, and repair. This paper focuses on ethical issues raised by such transplantation studies. In particular, it investigates the possibility that they might yield enhanced brain function in recipient animals (especially non-human primates), thereby fundamentally altering their moral status. I assess the critique, raised by major voices in the bioethics and science communities, according to which such concerns are premature and misleading. I identify the assumptions underlying this skeptical critique, and mention some objections against them, followed by some possible replies. I proceed to argue that the skeptical position is ultimately implausible, because it presupposes an unreasonably high standard of full moral status. My argument appeals to David DeGrazia’s idea of a “borderline person”, and to the need for consistency with existing animal research regulations. I outline the practical implications of my view for the conduct of studies that might result in the development of full moral status in a transplanted animal. I also discuss some of the ethical implications of animal enhancement (particularly of rodents) below the threshold associated with full moral status. I conclude that far from being premature, further debate on these issues is urgently needed to help clarify the prospects that a neural chimera might attain full moral status in the foreseeable future, and the level of quality of life required to make it acceptable to knowingly create such a being via HBO transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper delves into the intersection between Kant's moral theory and evolutionary perspectives on personhood. It explores how Kant's emphasis on rationality in moral agency aligns with evolutionary studies on the development of moral behaviors. By examining the transcendental implications of Kant's Categorical Imperative (CI) and the evolutionary origins of moral agency, this study aims to illuminate the link between Kant's conception of moral agency and personhood. Additionally, it investigates how Kant's call for CI resonates with evolutionary insights on the adaptive nature of social cooperation in human societies. Through this analysis, we seek to deepen our understanding of the cognitive, social dimensions of moral agency and moral status within the framework of Kant's moral theory and evolutionary perspectives on personhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advances in human brain organoid systems have raised serious worries about the possibility that these in vitro 'mini‐brains' could develop sentience, and thus, moral status. This article considers the relative moral status of sentient human brain organoids and research animals, examining whether we have moral reasons to prefer using one over the other. It argues that, contrary to common intuitions, the wellbeing of sentient human brain organoids should not be granted greater moral consideration than the wellbeing of nonhuman research animals. It does so not by denying that typical humans have higher moral status than animals, but instead by arguing that none of the leading justifications for granting humans higher moral status than nonhuman animals apply to brain organoids. Additionally, it argues that there are no good reasons to be more concerned about the well‐being of human brain organoids compared to those generated from other species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary critically evaluates Showler’s pragmatic approach to moral status, which integrates moral individualism and moral relationalism to address the moral complexities surrounding non-human entities, especially social robots. Showler proposes a unified methodology that delineates distinct roles for each theory—moral coordination problems for moral individualism and moral transformation for moral relationalism. However, my commentary identifies key methodological ambiguities and potential conflation of moral status determination with broader ethical reasoning. It argues for clearer application guidelines and further theoretical refinement to enhance the framework’s robustness and practical applicability, suggesting this model as an interesting starting point for further debates on moral status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates about the moral status of social robots (SRs) currently face a second-order, or metatheoretical impasse. On the one hand, moral individualists argue that the moral status of SRs depends on their possession of morally relevant properties. On the other hand, moral relationalists deny that we ought to attribute moral status on the basis of the properties that SRs instantiate, opting instead for other modes of reflection and critique. This paper develops and defends a pragmatic approach which aims to reconcile these two positions. The core of this proposal is that moral individualism and moral relationalism are best understood as distinct deliberative strategies for attributing moral status to SRs, and that both are worth preserving insofar as they answer to different kinds of practical problems that we face as moral agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in the field of human stem cells are often a source of public and ethical controversy. Researchers must frequently balance diverse societal perspectives on questions of morality with the pursuit of medical therapeutics and innovation. Recent developments in brain organoids make this challenge even more acute. Brain organoids are a new class of brain surrogate generated from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs). They have gained traction as a model for studying the intricacies of the human brain by using advancements in stem cell biology to recapitulate aspects of the developing human brain in vitro. However, recent observation of neural oscillations spontaneously emerging from these organoids raises the question of whether brain organoids are or could become conscious. At the same time, brain organoids offer a potentially unique opportunity to scientifically understand consciousness. To address these issues, experimental biologists, philosophers, and ethicists united to discuss the possibility of consciousness in human brain organoids and the consequent ethical and moral implications.

Abstract Certain organoid subtypes are particularly sensitive. We explore whether moral intuitions about the heartbeat warrant unique moral consideration for newly advanced contracting cardiac organoids. Despite the heartbeat’s moral significance in organ procurement and abortion discussions, we argue that this significance should not translate into moral implications for cardiac organoids.

Certain organoid subtypes are particularly sensitive. We explore whether moral intuitions about the heartbeat warrant unique moral consideration for newly advanced contracting cardiac organoids. Despite the heartbeat's moral significance in organ procurement and abortion discussions, we argue that this significance should not translate into moral implications for cardiac organoids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inspired by the supporters of posthumanism and transhumanism, the discussion on the status of human and non-human individuals motivates us to explore the psychological determinants of assigning a moral status (MS) to them. The article focuses on capturing the relationship between anthropocentrism and the MS of a chimpanzee, humanoid robot and cyborg person. In exploring this connection, it introduces the concepts of mind and soul as mediating variables. Three online studies were conducted, and the statistical analyses included data from a total of 732 participants aged 15–72 who were from Poland. The research shows that for each of the three characters, anthropocentrism was negatively correlated with MS, and its influence was mediated by the attribution of mind and soul. In relation to the humanoid robot, a direct relationship between anthropocentrism and MS has also been found, which is interesting in view of the discussion regarding the criteria for MS. On the other hand, the reported results for the cyborg person, which were partly contrary to expectations, need further exploration to better understand these types of entities, especially in the context of the increasing possibilities for the technological enhancement of human beings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intuitively, there is a close link between moral status and phenomenal consciousness. Taking the link seriously can serve as the basis of a proposal that appears to have a surprising number of theoretical benefits. This proposal is the moral option, according to which moral status is partly determinative of phenomenal consciousness, and phenomenal consciousness is sufficient for possession of a moral property I refer to as “moral status.” I argue for this view on the basis of its ability to shed light on the distribution problem of determining which systems are phenomenally conscious. I explicate it by drawing on a theory of attributions of phenomenal consciousness, and considering its relationship to positions on the metaphysics of consciousness. I defend it against a series of objections, including three based on previous theories of the link between phenomenal consciousness and moral status. The moral option should, in my view, be a serious contender among theories of phenomenal consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophers struggle to explain why human beings with deep cognitive impairments have a higher moral status than certain non-human animals. Modal personism promises to solve this problem. It claims that humans who lack the capacities of "personhood" and the potential to develop them nonetheless could have been persons. I argue that modal personism has poor prospects because it's hard to see how we could offer a plausible account of modal personhood. I search for an adequate understanding of modal personhood by considering existing accounts and sketching new ones. But each account fails, either because it objectionably excludes some deeply cognitively impaired humans from the class of modal persons or because it makes modal personhood doubtfully relevant to moral status. And the modal personist cannot solve this problem by appealing to the misfortune suffered by modal persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2017, Michael Nair-Collins formulated his Transitivity Argument which claimed that brain-dead patients are alive according to a concept that defines death in terms of the loss of moral status. This article challenges Nair-Collins' view in three steps. First, I elaborate on the concept of moral status, claiming that to understand this notion appropriately, one must grasp the distinction between direct and indirect duties. Second, I argue that his understanding of moral status implicit in the Transitivity Argument is faulty since it is not based on a distinction between direct and indirect duties. Third, I show how this flaw in Nair-Collins' argument is grounded in the more general problems between preference utilitarianism and desire fulfillment theory. Finally, I present the constructivist theory of moral status and the associated moral concept of death and explain how this concept challenges the Transitivity Argument. According to my view, brain death constitutes a valid criterion of death since brain death is incompatible with the preserved capacity to have affective attitudes and to value anything. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brain Organoids in their current state of development are patentable. Future brain organoids may face some challenges in this regard, which I address in this contribution. Brain organoids unproblematically fulfil the general prerequisites of patentability set forth in Art. 3 (1) EU-Directive 98/44/EC (invention, novelty, inventive step and susceptibility of industrial application). Patentability is excluded if an invention makes use of human embryos or constitutes a stage of the human body in the individual phases of its formation and development. Both do not apply to brain organoids, unless ES-cells are used. Art. 6 (1) EU-Directive 98/44/EC excludes patentability for inventions “the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ordre public or morality”. While there is no conceivable scenario, in which the commercial application of current brain organoids violates the ordre public, the same is not necessarily true for future brain organoids. Keeping in mind that a development of consciousness-like abilities in future brain organoids cannot be excluded and that an ability for both physical and psychological suffering has been theorized, both of which are aspects of the ordre public, certain applications of future brain organoids may constitute a violation of the ordre public and therefore lead to an exclusion of patentability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human brain organoids (HBOs) are novel entities that may exhibit unique forms of cognitive potential. What moral status, if any, do they have? Several authors propose that consciousness may hold the answer to this question. Others identify various kinds of consciousness as crucially important for moral consideration, while leaving open the challenge of determining whether HBOs have them. This paper aims to make progress on these questions in two ways. First, it proposes a framework for thinking about the moral status of entities other than paradigmatic persons. This framework identifies four qualities that ground moral status: evaluative stance, self-directedness, agency, and other-directedness. Second, we speculate on ways in which these qualities are relevant to dimensions of conscious experience that have been, or could be, identified in nonhuman animals. We further explore how these approaches could be adapted for use in HBOs, and argue that such studies, or something similar to them, will have to be performed if we wish to have empirical indications that HBOs have consciousness of a morally significant kind. We end by proposing that in our current scientific and epistemic situation, it is too soon to attribute any moral status to HBOs, but that this might change in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pezzano has offered some relevant considerations to my recently published article Anthropological crisis or crisis in moral status. He advocates for the need to address ontologically and anthropologically the relation between human beings and technologies from the concept of property. Despite its centrality, this concept is taken for granted in the debates on the moral status of artificial intelligence (AI). Both proponents and detractors of the anthropology of properties adopt a position towards it without analyzing in depth what exactly we mean by property. In this reply, I intend to take the thesis put forward in my paper a step further on the basis of Pezzano's commentary. I will defend the urge to explore a complex anthropology, markedly technological, and I will introduce the consequences this may have on the concept of moral status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The inquiry into the moral status of artificial intelligence (AI) is leading to prolific theoretical discussions. A new entity that does not share the material substrate of human beings begins to show signs of a number of properties that are nuclear to the understanding of moral agency. It makes us wonder whether the properties we associate with moral status need to be revised or whether the new artificial entities deserve to enter within the circle of moral consideration. This raises the foreboding that we are at the gates of an anthropological crisis: the properties bound to moral agency have been exclusively possessed in the past by human beings and have shaped the very definition of being human. In this article, I will argue that AI does not lead us to an anthropological crisis and that, if we adhere to the history and philosophy of technology, we will notice that the debate on the moral status of AI uncritically starts from an anthropology of properties and loses sight of the relational dimension of technology. First, I will articulate three criteria for analyzing different anthropological views in philosophy of technology. Second, I will propose six anthropological models: traditional, industrial, phenomenological, postphenomenological, symmetrical, and cyborg. Third, I will show how the emergence of AI breaks with the dynamics of increased relationality in the history and philosophy of technology. I will argue that this aspect is central to debates about the moral status of AI, since it sheds light on an aspect of moral consideration that has been obscured. Finally, I will reject entirely relational approaches to moral status and propose two hybrid possibilities for rethinking it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advancements in developmental biology enable the creation of embryo-like structures from human stem cells, which we refer to as human embryo-like structures (hELS). These structures provide promising tools to complement—and perhaps ultimately replace—the use of human embryos in clinical and fundamental research. But what if these hELS—when further improved—also have a claim to moral status? What would that imply for their research use? In this paper, we explore these questions in relation to the traditional answer as to why human embryos should be given greater protection than other (non-)human cells: the so-called Argument from Potential (AfP). According to the AfP, human embryos deserve special moral status because they have the unique potential to develop into persons. While some take the development of hELS to challenge the very foundations of the AfP, the ongoing debate suggests that its dismissal would be premature. Since the AfP is a spectrum of views with different moral implications, it does not need to imply that research with human embryos or hELS that (may) have 'active' potential should be completely off-limits. However, the problem with determining active potential in hELS is that this depends on development passing through 'potentiality switches' about the precise coordinates of which we are still in the dark. As long as this epistemic uncertainty persists, extending embryo research regulations to research with specific types of hELS would amount to a form of regulative precaution that as such would require further justification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically examines Coeckelbergh’s (2023) performative view of moral status. Drawing parallels to Searle’s social ontology, two key claims of the performative view are identified: (1) Making a moral status claim is equivalent to making a moral status declaration. (2) A successful declaration establishes the institutional fact that the entity has moral status. Closer examination, however, reveals flaws in both claims. The second claim faces a dilemma: individual instances of moral status declaration are likely to fail because they do not conform to established moral discourse conventions, and reliance on declarations becomes both unnecessary and implausible for explaining widespread collective recognition of moral status. As for the first claim, accepting it undermines the potential for meaningful moral disagreement. As a remedy, this paper proposed a shift in perspective: interpreting moral status claims as assertions rather than declarations. This refined perspective provides a more plausible framework for understanding moral status and avoids the pitfalls associated with the performative view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last two decades, there has been a blossoming literature aiming to counter the neglect of plant capacities. In their recent paper, Miguel Segundo-Ortin and Paco Calvo begin by providing an overview of the literature to then question the mistaken assumptions that led to plants being immediately rejected as candidates for sentience. However, it appears that many responses to their arguments are based on the implicit conviction that because animals have far more sophisticated cognition and agency than plants, and that plants should not have the same moral status as animals, plants should not have any moral status. Put in simpler terms: it is not as bad to eat plants than to eat, say, pigs. While there are still uncertainties around comparative moral and policy implications between animals and plants, given a gradualist account of quasi-sentience and partial moral status, both of which we claim are a matter of degree, we may not have to abolish our convictions by declaring that plants have no sentience or moral status at all. Indeed, we can hold two things at the same time: that animals and plants have moral status, but animals have prima facie more moral status than plants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central tenet of moral individualism is that only an entity's intrinsic (non-relational) properties can ground moral status because only intrinsic properties give rise to agent-neutral reasons. However, I show that the two main approaches to making the agent-neutral/agent-relative distinction fail to exclude morally salient relational (extrinsic) properties from giving rise to agent-neutral reasons. As such, moral individualism accounts of moral status are false. Further, arguments that depend on moral individualism's central tenet--like the argument from "marginal" cases--are unable to defend their thesis by merely claiming that special relations cannot ground moral status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As biological organisms, we age and, eventually, die. However, age's deteriorating effects may not be universal. Some theoretical entities, due to their synthetic composition, could exist independently from aging—artificial general intelligence (AGI). With adequate resource access, an AGI could theoretically be ageless and would be, in some sense, immortal. Yet, this need not be inevitable. Designers could imbue AGIs with artificial mortality via an internal shut-off point. The question, though, is, should they? Should researchers curtail an AGI's potentially endless lifespan by deliberately making it mortal? It is this question that this article explores. First, it considers what type of AGI is under discussion before outlining how such beings could be ageless. Then, after clarifying the type of immortality under discussion and arguing that imbuing an AGI with synthetic aging would be person-affecting, the article explores four core conundrums: (i) deliberately causing a morally significant being's death; (ii) immortality's associated harms; (iii) concerns about immortality's unequal assignment; and (iv) the danger of immortal AGI overlords. The article concludes that while prudence requires we create an aging AGI, in the face of the material harm such an action would constitute, this is an insufficient reason to justify doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moral disengagement is a set of cognitive mechanisms through which a person violates his/her moral standards without losing his/her dignity. Therefore, a tool has been designed to measure moral disengagement in nurses. This study aims to determine the psychometric properties of the Nursing Moral Disengagement scale. In this methodological study, 440 nurses working in hospitals of Mashhad were selected by the availability sampling method. The translation was carried out using the forward-backward method. The final version of the tool was psychometrically tested for validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) and reliability (internal consistency and relative stability). Four factors were extracted in the exploratory factor analysis, and since the factor loadings of all the tool items were higher than 0.3, they were all retained. The tool's general fit indices indicated the model's confirmation and optimal fit. Cronbach's alpha and relative stability coefficients for the whole questionnaire were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively. The study results showed that this tool has good validity and reliability and can therefore measure behaviors related to moral disengagement in nurses, so that appropriate interventions can be designed to reduce these harmful behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ubiquity of technology in our lives and its culmination in artificial intelligence raises questions about its role in our moral considerations. In this paper, we address a moral concern in relation to technological systems given their deep integration in our lives. Coeckelbergh develops a social-relational account, suggesting that it can point us toward a dynamic, historicised evaluation of moral concern. While agreeing with Coeckelbergh's move away from grounding moral concern in the ontological properties of entities, we suggest that it problematically upholds moral relativism. We suggest that the role of power, as described by Arendt and Foucault, is significant in social relations and as curating moral possibilities. This produces a clearer picture of the relations at hand and opens up the possibility that relations may be deemed violent. Violence as such gives us some way of evaluating the morality of a social relation, moving away from Coeckelbergh's seeming relativism while retaining his emphasis on social–historical moral precedent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moral equality—the idea that 'we' all have equal moral worth, our interests ought to count for the same, and we possess the same bundle of basic rights—is one of the most central principles of liberal thought, being regularly drawn on as a presupposition of moral and political inquiry. Perhaps because it is so often relied on as a presupposition, however, moral equality is more often assumed than argued for. When moral equality is argued for, the most common tactic is to appeal to some inherent property. As is well established, however, such property-based defenses of moral equality face two significant challenges: the problem of exclusion and the problem of inequality. In light of these challenges, in this article I put forward a new, revisionist account of moral equality. Taking inspiration from recent work in the social metaphysics of human kinds, I argue that moral equality ought to be seen as a component of a status that we confer on one another, rather than (grounded in) a property inherent in certain individuals. Conceiving of moral equality this way, I argue, side-steps both the problem of exclusion and the problem of natural equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]