Depends on how you define rights. A more fruitful approach would be the
deontological perspective: rather than their rights, our duties.
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
> ----------
> From: Paul Kirby[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 7:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: new interpretive perspectives?
>
> Steven Bissell asks
>
> >>1. Is the fertilized egg an embryo? Is it a moral agent? Do we have
> moral
> >obligations to fertilized eggs?<<
>
> Many moons ago I raised a question on the list about sustainability having
> something to do with duties towards future generations. The question
> concerned the philosophically curious idea of having a duty towards a
> person who does not exist.
>
> This is not easy to digest as it is possible to accept the case that a
> potential human being does not have sufficient human qualities to be
> deserving of particular rights, whilst at the same time accepting that
> unborn future generations do have rights.
>
> I find this dilemma insoluble at the moment as it seems possible to accept
> the validity of sustainability and yet accept that potential human beings
> may not have rights.
>
> Maybe I have not expressed this very well but perhaps that is part my
> confusion.
>
> Kind regards Paul K
>
|