Skip to main content
Log in

At the Margins of Moral Personhood

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article I examine the proposition that severe cognitive disability is an impediment to moral personhood. Moral personhood, as I understand it here, is articulated in the work of Jeff McMahan as that which confers a special moral status on a person. I rehearse the metaphysical arguments about the nature of personhood that ground McMahan’s claims regarding the moral status of the “congenitally severely mentally retarded” (CSMR for short). These claims, I argue, rest on the view that only intrinsic psychological capacities are relevant to moral personhood: that is, that relational properties are generally not relevant. In addition, McMahan depends on an argument that species membership is irrelevant for moral consideration and a contention that privileging species membership is equivalent to a virulent nationalism (these will be discussed below). In consequence, the CSMR are excluded from moral personhood and their deaths are less significant as their killing is less wrong than that of persons. To throw doubt on McMahan’s conclusions about the moral status and wrongness of killing the CSMR I question the exclusive use of intrinsic properties in the metaphysics of personhood, the dismissal of the moral importance of species membership, and the example of virulent nationalism as an apt analogy. I also have a lot to say about McMahan’s empirical assumptions about the CSMR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To McMahan’s credit and to my gratification, I can report that dialogue has begun.

  2. Such a position has emerged in some sectors of feminist ethics (e.g., Sara Ruddick, Margaret Walker, and Hilde Nelson). Similar positions have roots in Hegel, Wittgenstein, and communitarianism and have been propounded by Peter Winch, Alasdair MacIntyre, Cora Diamond, among others. This is not the place to elaborate a complex view such as this one. Although I cannot elaborate here on this complex view (if it is simply one), I invoke it to give content to the notion of “social relationship,” because it is crucial in articulating the difference between our obligations to a child or adult, no matter how cognitively impaired, and nonhuman animals, no matter how cognitively able.

References

  1. McMahan, J. (2003). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sacks O. (2003). The Mind’s Eye. New Yorker. July 28, 2003:48–59.

  3. Kittay, E. (1999). Love’s Labor: Essays in Women, Equality and Dependency. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McMahan, J. (1996). Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice.. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25(1), 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Darwall, S. (2002). Welfare and Rational Care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nelson, H. (2002). What Child Is This? Hastings Center Report, 32, 29–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nussbaum, M. (2005). Beyond the Social Contract: Toward Global Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nozick, R. (1983). About Mammals and People. New York Times Book Review. November 27.

  10. Scanlon, T. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boo K. (1999) Invisible Deaths: The Fatal Neglect of D.C.’s Retarded. Washington Post. December 5, 1999.

  12. Diamond, C. (1991). Eating Meat and Eating People. The Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy and the Mind (pp. 319–334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Agar, N. (2003). Review of Jeff McMahan, The Ethics of Killing. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81, 445–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jefferson, T. Notes on the State of Virginia. New York: Library of America; 1782, 1984.

  15. Morrison, T. (1987). Beloved. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor, T. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10,. October 1946–April 1949 [cited; Available from: http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/drtrial4.htm].

  17. McMahan, J. (1997). The Limits of National Partiality. In J. McMahan (Ed.), The Morality of Nationalism (pp. 107–138). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hehir, T. (2004). Legacy of Brown v. Board: Disabled Children. Washington, DC.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Feder Kittay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kittay, E.F. At the Margins of Moral Personhood. Bioethical Inquiry 5, 137–156 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9102-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9102-9

Keywords

Navigation