Department of Philosophy, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA.
Bioethics. 2023 Oct;37(8):779-789. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13201. Epub 2023 Jul 15.
From the standpoint of disability advocacy, further exploration of the concept of well-being stands to be availing. The notion that "welfarism" about disability, which Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane debuted, qualifies as helpful is encouraged by their claim that welfarism shares important commitments with that advocacy. As becomes clear when they apply their welfarist frame to procreative decisions, endorsing welfarism would, in fact, sharply undermine it. Savulescu and Kahane's Principle of Procreative Beneficence-which reflects transhumanism, or advocacy of radical bioenhancement-morally requires parents to choose the child who will, in all probability, have "the best life." Assuming the emergence of potent biotechnologies, procreative decision-making would be highly standardized, for prospective parents would be morally obliged to maximize select capacities, including intelligence, self-control, and hedonic set-point, in their children. Welfarism, applied to reproduction, is staunchly objectivist about what course is incumbent on decision-makers, giving no credence to first-personal values, aspirations, and experiences. Though this dismissal of individual perspectives applies to everyone, its implications for disability advocacy are especially severe. With that advocacy in view, greater attention to "well-being" should, therefore, be severed from the welfarism of Savulescu and Kahane.
从残疾倡导的角度来看，进一步探索福祉的概念将是有益的。朱利安·萨武列斯库和盖伊·卡亨提出的残疾“福利主义”观念被认为是有帮助的，因为他们声称福利主义与这种倡导有重要的承诺。当他们将福利主义框架应用于生殖决策时，就会清楚地发现，实际上，支持福利主义会严重破坏它。萨武列斯库和卡亨的生殖善性原则——反映了超人类主义，即激进的生物增强的倡导——在道德上要求父母选择那个很可能拥有“最好生活”的孩子。假设出现强大的生物技术，生殖决策将高度标准化，因为准父母在道德上有义务使他们的孩子最大化选择的能力，包括智力、自我控制和快乐设定点。应用于生殖的福利主义在什么是决策者应承担的方面是坚定的客观主义，不相信第一人称的价值观、愿望和经验。尽管这种对个人观点的否定适用于所有人，但它对残疾倡导的影响尤其严重。鉴于这种倡导，因此，应该将“福祉”与萨武列斯库和卡亨的福利主义分开考虑。
