1 00:00:01,980 --> 00:00:10,470 I'm going to argue for a view on which moral status is contingent, so in my view, 2 00:00:10,470 --> 00:00:17,250 whether a particular being has moral status is often a contingent matter. 3 00:00:17,250 --> 00:00:24,900 All the beings that have moral status are such that they might have lacked moral status, 4 00:00:24,900 --> 00:00:34,080 and many of the beings that lack moral status are such that they might have had moral status. 5 00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:45,360 It will emerge in the discussion that the view or in my presentation that the view that I offer may seem to face a serious objection, 6 00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:54,180 but this objection can be addressed by recognising how harm based moral reasons arise. 7 00:00:54,180 --> 00:01:07,840 Where do we find the harm based moral reasons? And I'm going to start the talk by arguing for an account of how harm based moral reasons arise. 8 00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:15,240 So this is an account of how harm based moral moral reasons arise that we should recognise 9 00:01:15,240 --> 00:01:20,790 is correct sort of independently of anything about my particular view of moral status. 10 00:01:20,790 --> 00:01:27,980 So part of what I want to do today is just draw together. 11 00:01:27,980 --> 00:01:35,420 A view that I have that I've argued for about how harm based moral reasons arise and a defence of my view of moral status, 12 00:01:35,420 --> 00:01:38,970 which I haven't drawn together before. 13 00:01:38,970 --> 00:01:47,090 So that's part of what I'm doing today. All right, so let me jump in in section two on page one of the handout. 14 00:01:47,090 --> 00:01:54,650 What is moral status? How to harm based and benefit based moral reasons arise. 15 00:01:54,650 --> 00:02:03,800 There are some natural ways of thinking about what moral status is that I think are misleading. 16 00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:09,770 They lead us to bad views of how our moral status based reasons work. 17 00:02:09,770 --> 00:02:17,900 So consider the following claims something has moral status just in case harms and benefits to it matter morally. 18 00:02:17,900 --> 00:02:22,400 Something has moral status just in case it matters morally. 19 00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:31,190 Something has moral status, just in case it has rights, the beings that have the moral status or the beings that need to be taken into account. 20 00:02:31,190 --> 00:02:43,130 Morally, I think that these views may suggest what I think is a bad method of finding harm based and benefit based reasons. 21 00:02:43,130 --> 00:02:50,960 So I call it the bad method just so that we are all on the same page that I think it's not correct. 22 00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:59,000 And so according to the bad method, what we should first do is ask which things have moral status? 23 00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:05,390 And then we got a list of all the things that have moral status, and then we should ask for each of my options. 24 00:03:05,390 --> 00:03:10,010 I'm just trying to decide how to act. I have various options, various ways I could act. 25 00:03:10,010 --> 00:03:13,100 We next ask for each of my options. 26 00:03:13,100 --> 00:03:19,490 We're taking that option harm any of those things, the things that were on the list, the list of things that have moral status. 27 00:03:19,490 --> 00:03:28,900 We're taking that option benefit any of those things. OK, now, why is this a bad method of finding our reasons? 28 00:03:28,900 --> 00:03:38,020 And I'm not talking about all the moral reasons we face, but just in particular the harm, the harm based on benefit based reasons. 29 00:03:38,020 --> 00:03:44,500 It's a bad thing, it's a bad method by considering the following case, suppose that I made a promise to you, 30 00:03:44,500 --> 00:03:52,000 I promise that I would do a particular thing, but then I find myself in this tricky situation. 31 00:03:52,000 --> 00:04:03,160 If I keep the promise to you, then it turns out I'm going to end up creating a being who will have a brief delay of serious suffering. 32 00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:08,920 This being what exists briefly suffer horribly and die. 33 00:04:08,920 --> 00:04:14,620 If I break the promise to you, I can prevent myself from creating this being. 34 00:04:14,620 --> 00:04:24,460 Now it's clear that in this case, I have a good moral reason for breaking my promise to you and suppose that they do break my promise and I'm able 35 00:04:24,460 --> 00:04:34,290 to prevent myself from creating the person who would have for the being who would have a brief life of suffering. 36 00:04:34,290 --> 00:04:44,770 Now you see, to me, Liz, you promised, is there, did you have a good reason for breaking your promise? 37 00:04:44,770 --> 00:04:50,650 Well, if we use the bad method, we won't be able to see that I did have a reason. 38 00:04:50,650 --> 00:05:05,490 So when we ask which are the things that have moral status, none of those things is such that it would have been harmed by my keeping the promise you. 39 00:05:05,490 --> 00:05:14,280 In fact, had I kept the promise to you, I would have brought into existence a being who would have suffered, I would have caused that being to suffer. 40 00:05:14,280 --> 00:05:22,500 I would have thereby harmed that being. But since I didn't bring it into existence and it doesn't exist, 41 00:05:22,500 --> 00:05:35,310 it's not on the list of beings that actually have moral status to see the harm based reason that I faced against keeping my promise to you. 42 00:05:35,310 --> 00:05:41,370 We need to use what I will call the good method of finding harm based and benefit based reasons. 43 00:05:41,370 --> 00:05:45,480 And of course, I call it the good method because it's the one that I think is correct. 44 00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:55,530 We first ask for each of my options when this option harm things with this option, benefit anything. 45 00:05:55,530 --> 00:06:00,240 We then ask. Would that thing have moral status? 46 00:06:00,240 --> 00:06:07,560 And so what we're after are reasons against doing things which, if done, 47 00:06:07,560 --> 00:06:13,110 would be affirming of something that has moral status and reasons in favour of doing things which, 48 00:06:13,110 --> 00:06:18,090 if done, would be a benefit or something that has moral status. 49 00:06:18,090 --> 00:06:24,630 And so now we can say, well, in the case where we break the promise to you had I kept the promise to you, 50 00:06:24,630 --> 00:06:29,460 I would have brought into existence this person who would have had a miserable, brief existence. 51 00:06:29,460 --> 00:06:38,570 This being me would have had a miserable, brief existence. That being would have had moral status. 52 00:06:38,570 --> 00:06:44,710 So and so I would have been harming it, being with moral status, and that there's a reason against doing that. 53 00:06:44,710 --> 00:06:50,350 So when we use the good method, we can see the reason that does clearly exist. 54 00:06:50,350 --> 00:06:55,900 Cases like this show that we need to use the good method and not the bad method. 55 00:06:55,900 --> 00:07:05,140 Now I just want to note an assumption of the argument that I just made, and the assumption is that causing harm to a being harmed, 56 00:07:05,140 --> 00:07:12,790 that being, um, even if they're being wouldn't have existed had you not done what you did. 57 00:07:12,790 --> 00:07:17,320 And I argue for that in some of my work, but I'm not going to argue for it now. 58 00:07:17,320 --> 00:07:22,880 All right, let's turn the page. 59 00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:32,420 I'm going to argue for a view that I call the ever conscious you, but let's not look at the handout yet to motivate the view. 60 00:07:32,420 --> 00:07:42,050 I want to think about someone who's torn about what to say about the moral status of early foetuses. 61 00:07:42,050 --> 00:07:49,400 Let's use the term early foetus to talk about any foetuses that are not yet conscious. 62 00:07:49,400 --> 00:08:00,400 And let's assume and I think this is a very plausible assumption that foetal consciousness arises sometime after the first trimester of pregnancy. 63 00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:06,710 So by early phoenixes, we at least I mean, all the first trimester this. 64 00:08:06,710 --> 00:08:14,490 So consider someone who is torn about what to think about the moral status of early foetuses. 65 00:08:14,490 --> 00:08:23,100 When she thinks about early abortions, she thinks early abortions are completely fine, there's no moral problem with early abortions. 66 00:08:23,100 --> 00:08:29,130 It's not a morally big deal to go ahead with an early abortion, you know, 67 00:08:29,130 --> 00:08:34,440 which includes any first trimester abortion, perhaps time after that as well. 68 00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:40,460 There's just no moral reason against early abortions. When she thinks about early abortions, she thinks. 69 00:08:40,460 --> 00:08:45,920 There's no more reason against them, there's no need to justify an early abortion. 70 00:08:45,920 --> 00:08:55,760 Thinking about those cases, she thinks early foetuses don't have moral status, but then she thinks about other early foetuses. 71 00:08:55,760 --> 00:09:00,080 She thinks about. 72 00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:15,040 A woman who is pregnant who is planning to continue her pregnancy, who is excited to be a parent to the living being in her body and she thinks. 73 00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:23,260 I'm often a woman in that position starts to feel love for the living being in her body. 74 00:09:23,260 --> 00:09:36,810 Well, that's a perfectly reasonable and appropriate attitude to all this living being in the woman's body is an early stage of her child. 75 00:09:36,810 --> 00:09:47,720 But if something is an appropriate object of love, then surely it has some moral status. 76 00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:56,900 She also thinks, again, thinking about a pregnant woman who's planning continue her pregnancy, who's excited to become a parent. 77 00:09:56,900 --> 00:10:03,850 She thinks about a pregnant woman who is making choices. 78 00:10:03,850 --> 00:10:10,900 That involve being careful of the well-being of the foetus, so a pregnant woman who is choosing not to drink excessively, 79 00:10:10,900 --> 00:10:17,650 a pregnant woman who is choosing not to smoke excessively and who's doing it for the sake of the foetus 80 00:10:17,650 --> 00:10:26,240 and our imagined person who is trying to figure out the moral status of early foetuses thinks to herself. 81 00:10:26,240 --> 00:10:34,940 It does it makes sense to be careful not to harm, but really figures because the early foetus matters, it's because the early foetus has moral status. 82 00:10:34,940 --> 00:10:44,510 The early foetus is the source of reasons not to smoke excessively or drink excessively during early pregnancy. 83 00:10:44,510 --> 00:10:51,820 So now we have someone who who seems to face a conundrum. And if? 84 00:10:51,820 --> 00:10:56,950 The belief that early foetuses are the appropriate objects of love and the belief that early 85 00:10:56,950 --> 00:11:03,820 foetuses are the source of reasons not to smoke or drink excessively during pregnancy, 86 00:11:03,820 --> 00:11:08,500 if those beliefs are strong enough, then they'll win out. 87 00:11:08,500 --> 00:11:15,860 And though we're not in the following way, and this is the first argument at the top of Page two, so I call this a natural thought process. 88 00:11:15,860 --> 00:11:23,800 So the next person that I'm describing, I think a lot of people at times find themselves with this set of commitments. 89 00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:30,010 And I think it's natural. I think many people end up thinking along these lines. 90 00:11:30,010 --> 00:11:35,290 First, some early human foetuses are appropriate objects of love. 91 00:11:35,290 --> 00:11:41,980 Second, some early foetuses, human foetuses are the source of plant based reasons against action. 92 00:11:41,980 --> 00:11:50,320 Pregnant women should not smoke excessively or drink excessively during pregnancy because those foetuses matter morally. 93 00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:54,580 But if those early foetuses have moral status, then the foetus is the dying. 94 00:11:54,580 --> 00:11:58,750 Early abortions have moral status. Therefore, the foetus is the dying. 95 00:11:58,750 --> 00:12:01,330 Early abortions have moral status. 96 00:12:01,330 --> 00:12:07,780 Therefore, there's a harm based reason against early abortion, and early abortion requires at least some moral justification. 97 00:12:07,780 --> 00:12:16,570 So I think this is a natural thought process that someone who's torn in the way I was describing might go through. 98 00:12:16,570 --> 00:12:23,620 And in general, I think that there are some people who are really drawn to a very liberal view about abortion, 99 00:12:23,620 --> 00:12:33,160 but you get pushed off of it by worrying that the very liberal view about abortion dictates a cold attitude towards all early foetuses, 100 00:12:33,160 --> 00:12:44,570 which seems unwarranted when we think about those early foetuses that are on their path to becoming persons. 101 00:12:44,570 --> 00:12:49,100 Well, I think that this argument is attractive, it seems compelling. 102 00:12:49,100 --> 00:12:54,920 I think it can be resisted. And in particular, claim three can be denied. 103 00:12:54,920 --> 00:13:08,720 So Claim three might seem obvious. It says that if, if if the early foetuses whose mothers are planning to continue the pregnancies have moral status, 104 00:13:08,720 --> 00:13:20,980 then the foetuses that die in early abortions must also have moral status. That can be denied to see that it can be denied. 105 00:13:20,980 --> 00:13:27,100 I want to first identify two myths that I think lie behind that claim. 106 00:13:27,100 --> 00:13:33,850 So one myth is that any being that has moral status necessarily has moral status. 107 00:13:33,850 --> 00:13:40,930 So one thing that will notice when we think about the foetus is the dying early abortions and the foetuses that 108 00:13:40,930 --> 00:13:50,680 will become persons is foetuses in either category could have been could easily have been in the other category. 109 00:13:50,680 --> 00:14:00,640 So those foetuses that will become persons could have been aborted and those foetuses that are aborted could have been in pregnancies that continued. 110 00:14:00,640 --> 00:14:05,020 And so if you think that moral status is held necessarily, 111 00:14:05,020 --> 00:14:12,010 then then you've got to think that either both categories of foetus have moral status or neither does. 112 00:14:12,010 --> 00:14:18,790 The second myth is that if two beings are such that just considering their intrinsic properties, 113 00:14:18,790 --> 00:14:30,040 they are qualitatively identical now and their histories are qualitatively identical, then either both have moral status or neither has moral status. 114 00:14:30,040 --> 00:14:39,170 So the second myth? Involves the claim that whether a being has moral status is a matter of its intrinsic properties, 115 00:14:39,170 --> 00:14:45,800 its current intrinsic properties and perhaps its past intrinsic properties, but that. 116 00:14:45,800 --> 00:14:52,520 And when we think about this are two categories of early foetuses, those that die in early abortions and those that don't. 117 00:14:52,520 --> 00:14:58,010 They are the same in terms of their current and past intrinsic properties. 118 00:14:58,010 --> 00:15:03,440 But as I say, I think these are both myths. I think both of these claims are false. 119 00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:09,140 So I offer you instead of you that I call the ever conscious for you. 120 00:15:09,140 --> 00:15:14,780 A living being has moral status just in case it is ever conscious. 121 00:15:14,780 --> 00:15:26,310 So unless you are a living being has moral status throughout its life, just in case there's any time in its life in which it is conscious. 122 00:15:26,310 --> 00:15:35,370 This is a view in which whether it being has moral status, super and its intrinsic properties, 123 00:15:35,370 --> 00:15:45,280 but it's not just its current and past intrinsic properties, the future intrinsic properties are also relevant to whether it being has moral status. 124 00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:52,060 The central idea behind the ever country's view, as it applies to early foetuses, 125 00:15:52,060 --> 00:15:59,170 is that when we think about our two categories of foetuses, we really have to radically different kinds of beings. 126 00:15:59,170 --> 00:16:05,380 On the one hand, we have some beings through live and die without ever being conscious. 127 00:16:05,380 --> 00:16:12,390 There are a lot like plans. Then we have some beings that are alive and are not conscious at first, 128 00:16:12,390 --> 00:16:18,130 but then go on to have conscious experience, many of them live lives as persons. 129 00:16:18,130 --> 00:16:21,870 That's a very different kind of entity. 130 00:16:21,870 --> 00:16:33,470 And the clean up claim behind the ever conscious view is that what kind of entity of being is can depend on its future. 131 00:16:33,470 --> 00:16:40,280 And because beans might have had different futures, they might have had different moral status, 132 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:45,040 it might have been different whether they had morals set. 133 00:16:45,040 --> 00:16:52,630 OK, so now that we've seen the possibility of the ever conscious view, we can also see an argument for the ever conscious fear, 134 00:16:52,630 --> 00:16:58,720 and this is in the bottom half of Page two argument for the ever conscious view. 135 00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:03,070 Some early human foetuses are appropriate objects of love. 136 00:17:03,070 --> 00:17:08,380 Some early human foetuses are the source of harm based reasons against actions. 137 00:17:08,380 --> 00:17:15,880 Pregnant women should not smoke excessively or drink excessively during pregnancy because these foetuses matter morally. 138 00:17:15,880 --> 00:17:21,400 Early abortion requires no moral justification, and nothing bad happens in an early abortion. 139 00:17:21,400 --> 00:17:29,770 Therefore, the foetus is the dying. Early abortions lack moral status, but some early foetuses have moral status. 140 00:17:29,770 --> 00:17:37,720 So the ever conscious view is true. The ever conscious view is a view that can accommodate all of the initial thoughts of 141 00:17:37,720 --> 00:17:42,220 our imagined person who was trying to figure out the moral side of their foetuses. 142 00:17:42,220 --> 00:17:46,930 But I think that the argument here would be compelling to many people. 143 00:17:46,930 --> 00:17:52,980 I think many people are in similar situations to that imagine to a person. 144 00:17:52,980 --> 00:17:59,340 OK, so that's my argument for the ever conscious view. 145 00:17:59,340 --> 00:18:06,600 And let me turn to some objections to it, so let's turn to Page three. 146 00:18:06,600 --> 00:18:15,930 The first objection holds that on the ever contentious view, a person who falls into permanent unconsciousness would still have moral status, 147 00:18:15,930 --> 00:18:22,410 and then we'd be obligated to keep that person alive because you shouldn't kill a being that has moral status. 148 00:18:22,410 --> 00:18:27,030 But we shouldn't keep that person alive. All right. 149 00:18:27,030 --> 00:18:34,200 So my response to the objection is to agree that the ever conscious view does imply that a person 150 00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:39,540 who lives a full life and then falls into permanent unconsciousness would still have moral status. 151 00:18:39,540 --> 00:18:47,490 So a living human being who has lived a full life but has fallen into permanent unconsciousness would have moral status on my view. 152 00:18:47,490 --> 00:18:51,870 But it doesn't follow from that that we ought to keep them alive. 153 00:18:51,870 --> 00:19:00,780 It may well be that the right way to honour their moral status to treat them well is to end their lives. 154 00:19:00,780 --> 00:19:06,150 That might be better for them. It may be better for them because that's what they asked for. 155 00:19:06,150 --> 00:19:12,210 Or we may think it's better for them, even independently of what they ask for. 156 00:19:12,210 --> 00:19:15,810 OK, the second objection goes as follows. 157 00:19:15,810 --> 00:19:28,380 Compared to foetuses, each lives for several months, one dies without ever being conscious, the other has one moment of consciousness before dying. 158 00:19:28,380 --> 00:19:33,030 The first foetus was lack moral status throughout its life. 159 00:19:33,030 --> 00:19:36,510 The other would have moral status throughout its whole life. 160 00:19:36,510 --> 00:19:45,310 But they're so similar. Surely it can't be right that they differ in moral status. 161 00:19:45,310 --> 00:19:51,160 So here again, I want to agree with the objector account of the implications of my view. 162 00:19:51,160 --> 00:19:57,650 It is true that on my view, these two foetuses would differ in moral status in just the way it describes. 163 00:19:57,650 --> 00:20:08,510 But I embrace this implication of the view. I think that when we look at the life of the foetus that dies without ever being conscious. 164 00:20:08,510 --> 00:20:19,460 Well, the death of that foetus is very bad for that foetus. It's losing out on life as a person and there's no moral tragedy that happens there. 165 00:20:19,460 --> 00:20:24,680 On the other hand, the being that has a moment of consciousness. 166 00:20:24,680 --> 00:20:30,440 Is a member of the moral community, and there's a great tragedy and it's living in this very brief life. 167 00:20:30,440 --> 00:20:38,800 It's a very different kind of thing. I maintain even though it's a moment of consciousness, a supreme. 168 00:20:38,800 --> 00:20:45,730 OK, the third objection that I want to discuss. Goes this follows. 169 00:20:45,730 --> 00:20:52,930 According to the ever conscious view, whether abortion is permissible turns on whether when actually abort, 170 00:20:52,930 --> 00:20:59,540 if one abort, then the foetus lacks moral status, so it's just fine to abort. 171 00:20:59,540 --> 00:21:06,260 But if one doesn't abort, then the foetus has moral status, so abortion is wrong. 172 00:21:06,260 --> 00:21:13,640 So abortion turns out to be self-justifying on this view, but surely that's a bad view. 173 00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:25,750 OK. The right response to this objection is that this objector has misunderstood the view and has the implications of the view wrong. 174 00:21:25,750 --> 00:21:37,540 Even a foetus that has moral status, and my view is nevertheless such that there is no moral reason against aborting a. 175 00:21:37,540 --> 00:21:41,620 I think the right way of diagnosing where the objectors going wrong is that the 176 00:21:41,620 --> 00:21:49,390 objector is assuming that the bad method of finding the harm based reasons is correct. 177 00:21:49,390 --> 00:21:55,420 I've already argued that the good method is correct and using the good method will avoid this worry. 178 00:21:55,420 --> 00:22:01,780 OK? Just see what I'm saying. Let's turn back to Page one, where we saw the bad method and the good method. 179 00:22:01,780 --> 00:22:10,930 So the bad method is let's first ask which things have moral status and then ask Would this action harm any of those things? 180 00:22:10,930 --> 00:22:15,220 So the bad method is the method that raises this third objection. 181 00:22:15,220 --> 00:22:22,030 So the so on the bad method. So if I actually abort, then we ask, well, which things have moral status? 182 00:22:22,030 --> 00:22:28,030 The foetus is not on the list because I abort the foetus, so the foetus doesn't have moral status and look well. 183 00:22:28,030 --> 00:22:34,060 The abortion harms the foetus, but the foetus isn't on the list of things with moral status, so we're good. 184 00:22:34,060 --> 00:22:39,970 But then when we think about the case, rape, don't abort, we ask which things have moral status. 185 00:22:39,970 --> 00:22:46,210 The foetus is on the list, it has moral status. And then we ask, Well, what if I bought? 186 00:22:46,210 --> 00:22:52,300 What if I were to abort? Well, if I were to abort, if I had aborted, then I would have been harming this being. 187 00:22:52,300 --> 00:22:59,590 But it does have moral status. So there is this strong reason against avoiding using the bad method. 188 00:22:59,590 --> 00:23:05,440 It does look like if I don't abort, sorry, if I do abort abortion, it's morally permissible. 189 00:23:05,440 --> 00:23:13,480 If I don't abort, abortion is morally wrong. But we already saw that the bad method is incorrect. 190 00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:18,730 Now, let's consider what the good methods says, the good method says. 191 00:23:18,730 --> 00:23:27,100 First, we ask about in action what it harmony things. And then we ask, would those things have moral status? 192 00:23:27,100 --> 00:23:33,550 So in the case, we're at a board and we're talking about my abortion. We ask, Well, what would my abortion does to my abortion? 193 00:23:33,550 --> 00:23:39,760 Or many things? Yes, it harms the foetus. When the foetus, does the foetus have moral status? 194 00:23:39,760 --> 00:23:48,070 No. So there's no harm based reason against abortion. And then we consider the case of the foetus that is not aborted. 195 00:23:48,070 --> 00:23:53,500 And we say, Well, what if we had aborted the foetus when that abortion have harmed any things? 196 00:23:53,500 --> 00:23:58,270 Yes, it would have harmed this foetus. Would this foetus have had moral status? 197 00:23:58,270 --> 00:24:02,360 No, it would not. 198 00:24:02,360 --> 00:24:20,940 So in my view, abortion is not wrong, and for any particular foetus, it is such that it's permissible to abort it even if you don't actually import. 199 00:24:20,940 --> 00:24:24,390 What's wrong? What? Sorry, what has a moral status based, 200 00:24:24,390 --> 00:24:31,170 harm based reason against it is doing something which we're done would be affirming of 201 00:24:31,170 --> 00:24:37,320 something that would have moral status and even for the foetuses that have moral status. 202 00:24:37,320 --> 00:24:39,840 Abortions of them don't have that future. 203 00:24:39,840 --> 00:24:47,550 Abortions of them are not such that had that action been performed, would have been a hard thing or something that would have had moral status. 204 00:24:47,550 --> 00:25:00,040 OK, so turning back to Page three. We can see that the contingency of moral status is a feature of the ever conscious view, 205 00:25:00,040 --> 00:25:04,120 if the ever conscious view is true, then moral status is contingent. 206 00:25:04,120 --> 00:25:08,200 Each being that has moral status might have laughed at because each being that has 207 00:25:08,200 --> 00:25:13,240 moral status has some phase of its existence in which it's not yet conscious. 208 00:25:13,240 --> 00:25:23,360 Had it died during that phase, it would have lacked moral status. Many beings that lack moral status might have had moral status. 209 00:25:23,360 --> 00:25:33,140 Foetuses of humans and animals, if they die before becoming conscious, they're such that they lack moral status but might have had more steps. 210 00:25:33,140 --> 00:25:44,650 OK, let's turn to Page four. In the final substantive section of the paper, I'm going to defend the gate method against an objection, 211 00:25:44,650 --> 00:25:53,110 so the good method holds that the way that we find turn based on benefit based reasons, the way that these reasons arise is as follows. 212 00:25:53,110 --> 00:25:56,560 We first ask for each of my options with this option. 213 00:25:56,560 --> 00:26:03,190 How many things would this option benefit any things? And then we ask, would that thing have moral status? 214 00:26:03,190 --> 00:26:09,850 An objection comes from a claim that people sometimes call the asymmetry, and I'm going to call it the reasons asymmetry. 215 00:26:09,850 --> 00:26:17,590 While we have reasons to avoid creating lives of pure suffering, we have no reasons to create happy lives. 216 00:26:17,590 --> 00:26:25,990 So this is a claim that a lot of people have found plausible, and it raises an objection to the good method because. 217 00:26:25,990 --> 00:26:31,780 Have you created a happy life you would have caused someone to have all these happy things in their life 218 00:26:31,780 --> 00:26:39,160 and so you would have benefited them and they would have had moral status and so on the good method. 219 00:26:39,160 --> 00:26:47,790 There are reasons to create happy lives. That's a way that you could benefit someone. 220 00:26:47,790 --> 00:26:54,900 Now, my response to this worry is to deny the reasons asymmetry, I think that the reasons asymmetry is false. 221 00:26:54,900 --> 00:27:06,450 I think that we do have reasons to create happy lives. But I think that these are merely reasons to provide positive benefits. 222 00:27:06,450 --> 00:27:11,790 There are a way that we could do something morally good creating a happy life, it's doing a morally good thing, 223 00:27:11,790 --> 00:27:18,650 but we can fail to do something morally good without thereby doing anything morally wrong. 224 00:27:18,650 --> 00:27:27,200 I also think it's important that when it comes to our reasons to benefit people, there are two different kinds of benefiting to think about. 225 00:27:27,200 --> 00:27:32,810 And again, I benefit. I mean, provide clear benefits. I don't mean prevent harm. 226 00:27:32,810 --> 00:27:44,660 So when we provide benefits in creating people versus when we provide benefits to people who exist independently of our action, 227 00:27:44,660 --> 00:27:52,700 in both cases, benefiting other people causes them to have the benefit, but only in the latter case. 228 00:27:52,700 --> 00:27:58,070 In the case of independently existing people does failing to benefit deprive someone of a benefit. 229 00:27:58,070 --> 00:28:06,210 It's only with the independently existing people that when you fail to benefit them, there they sit without the benefit. 230 00:28:06,210 --> 00:28:08,340 Because of this difference, 231 00:28:08,340 --> 00:28:18,220 I think that our reasons to benefit people and creating them are weaker than our reasons to benefit people who exist independently of our action. 232 00:28:18,220 --> 00:28:23,140 To sum up. Well, I think that farming is protons are wrong. 233 00:28:23,140 --> 00:28:28,390 I don't think that providing pure benefits is proton to required. 234 00:28:28,390 --> 00:28:33,370 So the true asymmetry claim, I think, is the requirement asymmetry. 235 00:28:33,370 --> 00:28:39,070 While we are morally required to avoid creating lives of pure suffering, even at some cost to ourselves, 236 00:28:39,070 --> 00:28:47,380 there's no moral requirement to create happy lives, even if it would come with little or no cost to ourselves. 237 00:28:47,380 --> 00:28:52,480 In conclusion, I've argued for the ever conscious view on which moral status is contingent. 238 00:28:52,480 --> 00:28:57,670 I've argued for a good method of finding the home based and benefit based reasons for action. 239 00:28:57,670 --> 00:29:02,830 I've shown that the good method helps us see why an apparent objection to the ever conscious view fails. 240 00:29:02,830 --> 00:29:07,300 That was the third objection, and I'm defending the good method in the face of a worry. 241 00:29:07,300 --> 00:29:21,728 Based on the reasons asymmetry, I've argued that the reasons asymmetry is false, while the requirement is symmetry is true based.