Affiliation:
1. Bentley University
2. San Diego State University
Abstract
With increased frequency, reproductive technologies are placing prospective parents in the position of choosing whether to bring a disabled child into the world. The most well-known objection to the act of “selecting against disability” is known as the Expressivist Argument. The argument claims that such acts express a negative or disrespectful message about disabled people and that one has a moral reason to avoid sending such messages. We have two primary aims in this essay. The first is to critically examine the standard Expressivist Argument, which we analyze in terms of the expression of ableist attitudes. We distinguish three interpretations of the argument and argue that each version faces serious objections. Our second aim is to articulate two closely related arguments that also pertain to expressed ableist attitudes. The Expressive Harms Argument maintains that there is a moral reason to avoid actions that give rise to the perception of ableist attitudes in cases where this is likely to have negative consequences for disabled people. The Ableist Motivation Argument speaks against selecting against disability in cases where one would be motivated by ableist attitudes. While these two arguments face various objections, we seek to establish that they are more promising than the most natural interpretations of the Expressivist Argument.
Publisher
University of Michigan Library
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference75 articles.
1. Liberal Eugenics
2. Altman, Andrew (2020). Discrimination. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/discrimination.
3. Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement;Anderson, Elizabeth S.Richard H. Pildes;University of Pennsylvania Law Review,2000