Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Valuing Life as Necessary for Moral Status

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many contemporary accounts of moral status consider an individual’s status to be grounded in some cognitive capacity, e.g. the capacity to experience certain states, to reason morally, etc. One proposed cognitive capacity significant particularly to killing, i.e. having a status that precludes being killed absent cause, is the capacity to value one’s own life. I argue that considering this a condition for moral status is a mistake, as it would lead to the exclusion of some individuals with mental health problems who are generally considered clear cases. While a cognitive capacities approach may turn out to be generally feasible, that particular cognitive capacity is not. In the course of this discussion I address two conceptual issues, the first regarding what it means to ‘value one’s life’ and the second regarding what conditions must obtain for something to count as a capacity. These conceptual issues, when resolved pursuant to this account of moral status, lead the account to exclude individuals with major depressive disorder, i.e. deny that it is morally wrong to kill such individuals based on their moral status. I then argue that this is decisive reason to reject this particular cognitive capacity as implicated in moral status.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is borrowed from Futurama season one, episode eleven. Philosophical discussions have discussed similar cases, e.g. McMahan’s superchimp [7].

  2. Some readers may be inclined to argue that therapy is, itself, a form of medical intervention, and therefore more like intervention than training. If this is so, it makes my case much easier, as standard treatment for depression would actually be the conjunction of two medical interventions. This may be right, but I have chosen to argue the more conservative line.

  3. My point is not something broad like, “attitudes never matter to normative reasons.” I do not want to fall prey to objections put forward by Street [17], among other critics of attitude-independence claims. However, I do presuppose that attitudes, in and of themselves, are not enough to ground normative reasons. This is a commitment, but a moderate and accessible one.

References

  1. Tooley, Michael. 1972. Abortion and Infanticide. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2(1): 37–65.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Giubilini, Alberto, and Francesca Minerva. 2013. After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 261–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fava, Maurizio, and Kenneth Kendler. 2000. Major Depressive Disorder. Neuron 28(2): 335–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hasin, Deborah, Renee Goodwin, Frederick Stinson, and Bridget Grant. 2005. Epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcoholism and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry 62(10): 1097–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tooley, Michael. 2009. Abortion: Why a Liberal View is Correct. In Abortion Three Perspectives ed. Michael Tooley, 3–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rini, Regina. 2013. Of Course the Baby Should Live. Journal of Medical Ethics 39: 353–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rush, John. 2007. The Varied Clinical Presentations of Major Depressive Disorder. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 68(8): 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frank, Ellen, Robert Prien, Robin Jarrett, Martin Keller, David Kupfer, Philip Lavori, John Rush, and Myrna Weissman. 1991. Conceptualization and Rationale for Consensus Definitions of Terms in Major Depressive Disorder: Remission, Recovery, Relapse, and Recurrence. Archives of General Psychiatry 48(9): 851–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hasler, Gregor. 2010. Pathophysiology of Depression. World Psychiatry 9(3): 155–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brigitta, Bondy. 2002. Pathophysiology of Depression and Mechanisms of Treatment. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 4(1): 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  11. American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed, text rec.)

  12. Boonin, David. 2003. A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaposy, Chris. 2010. Proof and Persuasion in the Philosophical Debate about Abortion. Philosophy and Rhetoric 43(2): 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McMahan, Jeff. 2002. The Ethics of Killing: Ethics at the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosemberg, Sergio, Suely Nagahashi Marie, and Suzana Kliemann. 1994. Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (hereditary sensory and autonomy neuropathy type IV). Pediatric Neurology 11(1): 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Minde, Jan, Göran Toolanen, Thomas Andersson, Inger Nennesmo, Ingela Nisson Remahl, Olle Svensson, and Göran Solders. 2004. Familiar insensitivity to pain (HSAN V) and a mutation in the NGFB gene. A neurophysiological and pathological study. Muscle and Nerve 30(6): 752–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Street, Sharon. Forthcoming. Nothing “Really” Matters, but That’s Not What Matters. In Does Anything Really Matter: Parfit on Objectivity ed. Peter Singer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Stein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stein, J. Valuing Life as Necessary for Moral Status. Neuroethics 9, 45–51 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9249-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9249-8

Keywords

Navigation