Moral Status, Misc

What kind of mind is necessary and sufficient for moral status—for having interests that matter morally in and of themselves? This paper defends Affective Sentientism, the view that moral status requires the capacity for affective experiences such as pleasure, pain, and emotion. I argue that affective consciousness is what makes an entity a welfare subject, and that all and only welfare subjects have moral status. The connection between affect and welfare is systematic: I show that every major candidate welfare good (...) has an affective component, often because such goods require the capacity to care. I also argue that even if the properties of being phenomenally conscious, being autonomous, or having a neutral level of welfare could come apart from affective consciousness, none of them could ground moral status in its absence. I conclude by exploring the implications for the moral status of animals and artificial intelligence systems. (shrink)

What is the role of consciousness in morality? In Chapter 18 of Reality+, I argued for consciousness sentientism (only conscious beings have moral status) and against affective sentientism (affective consciousness, e.g. pleasure or suffering, is required for moral status), using thought experiments involving philosophical zombies and philosophical Vulcans respectively. In this article I expand on the argument against affective sentientism and address some objections. I also examine connections to desire, motivation, welfare, and the moral status of animals and AI systems.

Mark Johnston (2016, 2017) has argued on ethical grounds against a wide variety of "naturalistic" world views, which imply that 'in our close vicinity, there are many persisting things all ontologically on a par, very similar in their features and such that they come into being and cease to exist at various times'—'personites', for short. Johnston argues that if personites exist, their intrinsic properties are compatible with their being people and thus having moral status; but since moral status is an (...) intrinsic matter, this implies that personites enjoy the same kind of moral status as people, a conclusion which leads to various bizarre ethical consequences. In response, we defend the view that although personites exist, they lack moral status, and have intrinsic properties (including modal properties) which no person could have. We also isolate a different argument for the moral status of certain personites, based on the claim that they instantiate properties which 'person' could very easily have expressed; we show how this argument can be resisted by adopting a pluralistic semantics, on which predicates like 'person' and 'being with moral status' express many properties even at the actual world. (shrink)

Many claim that there is an important relationship between consciousness and welfare. Call this general view phenomenalism. One way of fleshing out phenomenalism is to hold that consciousness is what makes one the type of entity that can be noninstrumentally better or worse off in the first place. Consciousness is at least a necessary condition on welfare subjecthood. A different account holds that even if consciousness is not necessary for welfare subjecthood, conscious welfare subjects have greater welfare capacity. We argue (...) that the most likely source of support for either version of phenomenalism—hedonism about welfare goods and bads—provides no support at all. Along the way, we discuss an alternative view of welfare subjectivity and welfare capacity that does not appeal to consciousness, but only to mentality, a view we call mentalism. (shrink)

In What Is a Person? Nancy Jecker and Caesar Atuire aim to resolve what they call the “conundrum of personhood,” the fact that many Western philosophers have the intuition that there is a superlative and equal moral worth for at least all living human beings, but that, with the decline of religious approaches positing a soul, Western philosophers have lacked the theoretical resources to account for it. Jecker and Atuire maintain that the intuition can plausibly be accounted for upon drawing (...) on relational approaches to ethics suggested by the African philosophical tradition in a particular, novel manner. Granting the intuition for the sake of argument, in this article I cast doubt on the ability of Jecker and Atuire’s appeal to certain actual relationships between human beings to entail and explain it, concluding that a more promising strategy would appeal to our capacity to relate in such ways. (shrink)

A collection of several articles on African moral and political philosophy by Thaddeus Metz, translated into French by Emmanuel Fopa, and edited and introduced by Pius Mosima of the University of Bamenda, Cameroon.

An abridged and slightly modified version of an article first published in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2012).

Justice has come to be something that societies or states or institutions have. It has not always been that way. Justice began as something between individual people, and only recently has its application to larger groups become predominant. This book makes a case for recovering the original priority of justice in and between individual people, as a virtue of character. The model for this virtue comes from Aristotle, whose own notion of the virtue of justice has notable shortcomings. Here the (...) case is made that we should understand justice in people as a matter of recognition of and respect for equal authority to obligate one another. That is, we should see one another as having equal capacity to obligate others through our persons and choices. This is a form of equality that is usually overlooked in discussions of equality, but here it is the cornerstone of justice, vindicating Aristotle’s thought that justice is itself a matter of a kind of equality. If we take this thought seriously, we will have to rethink a number of popular assumptions, including that we can make sense of justice in societies or institutions without thinking of the implications for our aspirations to be just people — a thought that is long overdue. (shrink)

A brief critical notice of _What Is a Person?_ by Nancy Jecker and Caesar Atuire focusing on their relational account of what gives human beings a dignity.

In this article I respond to six contributors to a special issue of _Social Theory and Practice_ that is devoted to critical discussions of my book _A Relational Moral Theory: African Ethics in and Beyond the Continent_. In this book I articulate a general principle of rightness that is substantially informed by values salient in the African philosophical tradition (and some others in the Global South) and defend it as preferable to some major rivals, including utilitarianism and Kantianism. Key topics (...) that I address in this article include methodological issues, such as whether it is appropriate to provide an interpretation of the African tradition with some characteristically Western concepts and how metaphysical claims should inform the construction of normative ethical theories, as well as substantive issues pertaining to how to understand the nature of moral status and right action. (shrink)

This article investigates how human interactions with AI-powered chatbots may offend human dignity. Current chatbots, driven by large language models, mimic human linguistic behaviour but lack the moral and rational capacities essential for genuine interpersonal respect. Human beings are prone to anthropomorphize chatbots – indeed, chatbots appear to be deliberately designed to elicit that response. As a result, human beings' behaviour towards chatbots often resembles behaviours typical of interaction between moral agents. Drawing on a second-personal, relational account of dignity, we (...) argue that interacting with chatbots in this way is incompatible with the dignity of users. We show that, since second-personal respect is premised on reciprocal recognition of second-personal moral authority, behaving towards chatbots in ways that convey second-personal respect is bound to misfire in morally problematic ways, given the lack of reciprocity. Consequently, such chatbot interactions amount to subtle but significant violations of self-respect – the respect we are duty-bound to show for our own dignity. We illustrate this by discussing four actual chatbot use cases (information retrieval, customer service, advising, and companionship), and propound that the increasing societal pressure to engage in such interactions with chatbots poses a hitherto underappreciated threat to human dignity. (shrink)

For the more than a decade, I have advanced an account of what makes persons, animals, and other beings entitled to moral treatment for their own sake that is informed by characteristically African ideas about dignity, a great chain of being, and community. Roughly according to this account, a being has a greater moral status, the more it is capable of communing (as a subject) or of us communing with it (as an object). I have mainly argued that this characteristically (...) African and relational approach to moral status is a better account than salient Western approaches, especially individualist views associated with utilitarianism and Kantianism. Over the years, several commentators have raised criticisms of my approach, including that it objectionably: entails that we may rightly dominate mentally incapacitated human beings; prioritizes mentally incapacitated human beings over animals with similar cognitive abilities without sufficient justification; entails that intelligent aliens lack moral status; cannot make sense of our duties towards the dead; and is unable to account for the standing of species as distinct from their members. In this chapter I provide a comprehensive response to these and related objections, defending the initial account as an attractive way to understand what makes a being matter morally for non-instrumental reasons. (shrink)

One of political liberalism’s central commitments is to a principle of public reason. Political liberals frequently justify this principle by appeal to considerations of respect. In this article, I argue that political liberalism cannot be grounded in a moral principle of respect for persons. Instead, I argue that a particular interpretation of the principle of public reason can be justified as a key component of a political conception of mutual civic respect.

This chapter contains sections titled: 1. Testing the Received Wisdom About the Basis of FMS 2. The Capacity to Care as an Alternative Basis of FMS 3. Further Implications Acknowledgments References.

: The belief persists in philosophy, religion, science, and popular culture that some special cognitive property of persons like self-consciousness confers a unique moral standing. However, no set of cognitive properties confers moral standing, and metaphysical personhood is not sufficient for either moral personhood or moral standing. Cognitive theories all fail to capture the depth of commitments embedded in using the language of "person." It is more assumed than demonstrated in these theories that nonhuman animals lack a relevant form of (...) self-consciousness or its functional equivalent. Although nonhuman animals are not plausible candidates for moral personhood, humans too fail to qualify as moral persons if they lack one or more of the conditions of moral personhood. If moral personhood were the sole basis of moral rights, then these humans would lack rights--and precisely for the reasons that nonhuman animals would. (shrink)

Cette édition numérique a été réalisée à partir d'un support physique, parfois ancien, conservé au sein du dépôt légal de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, conformément à la loi n° 2012-287 du 1er mars 2012 relative à l'exploitation des Livres indisponibles du XXe siècle. Pages de début Avant-propos Introduction Chapitre 1 Chapitre 2 Chapitre 3 Chapitre 4 Chapitre 5 Chapitre 6 Chapitre 7 Conclusion Bibliographie Pages defin.

The abortion debate has remained intractable for over fifty years because both sides impose binary thinking on continuous biological development. This paper argues that the impasse stems from a shared epistemic error, not from irreconcilable moral commitments. Whatever property one believes grounds moral status—consciousness, potentiality, human dignity, or future-like-ours—one faces irreducible uncertainty about when that property is present during fetal development. Bayesian epistemology shows that rational reasoning under such uncertainty requires graduated credences, and graduated credences require graduated protections. This framework (...) is neutral between first-order theories of moral status. A consciousness theorist who is uncertain when consciousness emerges, a potentiality theorist who is uncertain when potential becomes morally significant, and a dignity theorist who is uncertain when human dignity attaches all face the same structural problem—and the same structural solution. The paper demonstrates that both extreme positions (full status from conception, no status until birth) generate implications that their own advocates reject, revealing that both sides already implicitly track graduated rather than binary moral status. The Bayesian framework makes this implicit reasoning explicit and provides principled justification for what most people already believe: early and late abortion differ morally, even though we cannot identify a precise transformative moment. The achievement is not consensus on first-order questions but transformation of the debate's structure. Disagreement shifts from mutual accusations of moral blindness to legitimate epistemic disagreement about evidence weighting—a form of disagreement that permits productive engagement. (shrink)