On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note

The aim of this paper is to criticise the well-discussed principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) lately refined by Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane. First, it is argued that advocates of PB leave us with an implausible justification for the moral partiality towards the child (or children) which rep...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Petersen, S. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2015
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2015, Volume: 41, Issue: 9, Pages: 771-774
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816151890
003 DE-627
005 20230426115829.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2014-102420  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816151890 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816151890 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Petersen, S.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note 
264 1 |c 2015 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The aim of this paper is to criticise the well-discussed principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) lately refined by Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane. First, it is argued that advocates of PB leave us with an implausible justification for the moral partiality towards the child (or children) which reproducers decide to bring into existence as compared with all other individuals. This is implausible because the reasons given in favour of the partiality of PB, which are based on practical reason and common-sense morality, can just as well be used to guide reproducers to make choices that do not support partiality towards one's possible children. This seems to be true as least in some situations. Second, it is argued that Jakob Elster's recent critique of PB is problematic and specifically that a counterexample designed by Elster to criticise PB because of its partiality towards one's own children misses the target. Finally, a genuine counterexample to PB is developed in order to show that the partiality of PB leads to the wrong answer in a specific case. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 41(2015), 9, Seite 771-774  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:41  |g year:2015  |g number:9  |g pages:771-774 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014209  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://forskning.ruc.dk/da/publications/d36a439c-2d5e-4674-aa8f-6de12b58ffb6  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h repository [oa repository (via OAI-PMH doi match)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102420  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/41/9/771.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 418560582X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816151890 
LOK |0 005 20220908053646 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#39D4F1566C6C6B1B45886E184E9B0A255A0C729D 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014209 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw