![]() ![]() Protestant Scott Klusendorf, reflecting a similar view, contrasts a human "nature" or essence with the capacity for certain "functions" or abilities. This "something" is the soul, "the principle immanent in human beings, a constituent and defining element of their entitative makeup, that makes them to be what they and who they are: beings of moral worth capable of becoming minded entities or moral beings it is a principle of immateriality or of transcendence from the limitations of materially individuated existence" (p. ![]() Although they are moral beings, because they are "minded" entities, their moral status is no greater than any other human being's, because all humans, including embryos, are "beings of moral worth." All share "something rooted in their being human beings," beginning at conception. Human individuals of intelligence and self-consciousness are "moral beings" because they have the capacity to comprehend, love, and choose. May, a Jesuit moralist, acknowledges a significant difference between the capacities of a human embryo and a normal adult. The Roman Catholic Church and a host of conservative Protestants almost uniformly hold pre-embryonic human life as sacred-and hence of the highest moral status. Bush, believing that protectable human life begins at conception, asked Congress in his 2003 state of the union address to "pass a law against all human cloning." This president reflects the views of many Americans. Then, leading moral theories are applied to the societal dilemma of care for patients with Alzheimer disease. In this entry, theories dealing with single standards or issues-personhood, sentience, and environment-will be delineated and then compared with a multistandard approach for resolving questions of moral status. The moral status of fetal and now embryonic human life commands attention because it juxtaposes questions of sex, identity, faith, humanity, and healing. It follows and is related to the abortion debate, decades old but still controversial. This issue is perhaps the most contentious bioethical debate in the early years of this new century. Its inclusion likely relates to the fierce battle in Western, particularly American, society over the moral status of the human embryo. Moral status is not a new concept, but it does constitute a new entry in the third edition of this encyclopedia. But what about the toddler experiencing her first beach day, a dog joyfully retrieving a ball, the coral reef just offshore, the seaweed within sight? Does each entity have moral status? By what criteria does society decide? And once that is settled, is moral status absolute, or do circumstances and conflicting interests make a difference? That is because normal adults possess interests and rights that morally obligate people to highly regard their well-being. To wantonly toss one of them into that same water would constitute an immoral, reprehensible act. Beach pebbles possess no moral standing in themselves, although certain pebbles and sand may be treated with special regard for other reasons.īut the people bathing on that same beach are totally different. It is one of trillions of such rocks that for billions of years have rushed in and out with the tide. A pebble on the beach is thrown into the water without a second thought. Moral status is a concept that deals with who or what is so valuable that it should be treated with special regard. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |