Social Distance Warriors Should Not Be Regarded as Moral Exemplars in a Pandemic Nor as Paragons of Politeness: A Response to Shaw.

In a recent article, Shaw contrasts his own supposed good behaviour, as that of a self-proclaimed "social distance warrior" with the alleged rude behaviour of one of his relatives, Jack, at social events in the former's house in Scotland in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. He does so to illustrate and support his claims that it was wrong and rude to fail to comply with the governmental advice regarding social distancing because we had a responsibility "to minimize risk" and not wrong nor rude to challenge and cajole those people who failed to do so. This article shows that his claims are contestable. It suggests that his own behaviour was no better than Jack's.

Exploitation, Criminalization, and Pecuniary Trade in the Organs of Living People.

It is often maintained that, since the buying and selling of organs-particularly the kidneys-of living people supposedly constitutes exploitation of the living vendors while the so-called "altruistic" donation of them does not, the former, unlike the latter, should be a crime. This paper challenges and rejects this view. A novel account of exploitation, influenced by but different from those of Zwolinski and Wertheimer and of Wilkinson, is developed. Exploitation is seen as a sort of injustice. A distinction is made between justice and fairness. To exploit someone is to take advantage of him or her unjustly. Exploitation pertains to the nature of actions, interactions, and transaction rather than to their outcomes or to how they are perceived by exploitees. Desperation on the part of one or other of the parties to a transaction does not preclude the giving of valid consent to the transaction. Disparities of power or wealth between the parties to a transaction do not indicate or entail that the transaction will be exploitative. A disparity in the benefits that arise from a transaction between the parties does not indicate or entail that exploitation has taken place.

Murder, abortion, contraception, greenhouse gas emissions and the deprivation of non-discernible and non-existent people: a reply to Marquis and Christensen.

Marquis's account of the ethics of abortion is unsatisfactory but not as Christensen implies baseless. It requires to be amended rather than abandoned. It is true, as Marquis asserts that murder and abortion both might deprive people of something of value to them, in particular, the life of a sort that might have been to them worth living. However, it is mistaken to conclude, as Marquis does, that murder and abortion are thereby morally equivalent. Not all deprivation is wrongful. Not all that is wrongful is wrongful because it deprives someone of something. Contrary to what Christensen asserts, and Marquis seems to accept, it is not solely those discernible people who currently exist who might be deprived by our current actions. It is not only towards and concerning such living discernible people that we can have moral duties. It is not only such living discernible people who can be the beneficiaries of our generosity. Hence, contraception and the emission of greenhouse gases are, like abortion, issues that raise significant moral questions; however, they might each be properly answered. Nonetheless, it does not follow that is morally equivalent to each other far less than they are all morally equivalent to murder. If and when they are morally wrong, they can be different wrongs.

The ethics of and the appropriate legislation concerning killing people and letting them die: a response to Merkel.

With regard to ethics and legislation, what is the significant difference between a doctor terminating the life-supporting treatment of a patient in the course of his job and a greedy relative of the patient doing the same thing to inherit his wealth? Merkel offers an interesting and inventive answer to this question in terms of the improper violation of personal boundaries. However, despite Merkel's claim to the contrary, his answer does not directly address the question of the relevant ethical similarities and differences between killing and letting die in general. Furthermore, it does not provide the basis a plausible rationale for legislation concerning killing and letting die. The questions of whether letting someone die is ethically the same as killing someone and whether it should be treated the same way by the criminal law are not the same as or tantamount to the question of whether or not it involves the transgression of another person's boundaries.

What moral status should be accorded to those human beings who have profound intellectual disabilities? A reply to Curtis and Vehmas.

Curtis and Vehmas present an argument in support of full moral status for those with profound intellectual disabilities based on Moore's famous defence of a common-sense view of the nature and existence of the external world. According to them, the need for such an argument arises from the disturbing inferences that can, supposedly, be drawn from the standard Lockean philosophical theory of personhood. This paper develops and supports Curtis and Vehmas's central claim concerning this equality of moral status by suggesting a basis for rejecting Locke's position, based on reflections upon Wittgenstein's remarks about games and family resemblances. It also questions the validity of the disturbing inferences. It asserts that our moral duties towards and concerning people who have and people who do not have profound intellectual disability, human and non-human animals, do not derive solely from their moral status. The existence, content and strength of our moral duties towards particular people can be grounded in conditions and circumstances that pertain to us rather than to them.

On the random distribution of scarce doses of vaccine in response to the threat of an influenza pandemic: a response to Wardrope.

Wardrope argues against my proposed non-consequentialist policy for the distribution of scarce influenza vaccine in the face of a pandemic. According to him, even if one accepts what he calls my deontological ethical theory, it does not follow that we are required to agree with my proposed randomised allocation of doses of vaccine by means of a lottery. He argues in particular that I fail to consider fully the prophylactic role of vaccination whereby it serves to protect from infection more people than are vaccinated. He concludes that: 'The benefits and burdens of vaccination are provided impartially and far more effectively by targeted vaccination than impartial lotteries.' He has shown convincingly that this conclusion can be established in the case of his particular envisaged scenario. However, Wardrope gives no reason to suppose that, in the circumstances that we actually face, targeted vaccination would constitute impartial treatment of citizens in the UK. I readily agree with Wardrope that if it should treat its citizens justly and impartially, it does not necessarily follow that the state should distribute vaccinations of the basis of a lottery. That will be a reasonable thing to do only if certain assumptions are made. These assumptions will not always be reasonable. However, they are reasonable ones to make in the actual circumstances that currently apply.

A proposed non-consequentialist policy for the ethical distribution of scarce vaccination in the face of an influenza pandemic.

The current UK policy for the distribution of scarce vaccination in an influenza pandemic is ethically dubious. It is based on the planned outcome of the maximum health benefit in terms of the saving of lives and the reduction of illness. To that end, the population is classified in terms of particular priority groups. An alternative policy with a non-consequentialist rationale is proposed in the present work. The state should give the vaccination, in the first instance, to those who are at risk of catching the pandemic flu in the line of their duties of public employment. Thereafter, if there is not sufficient vaccine to give all citizens equally an effective dose, the state should give all citizens an equal chance of receiving an effective dose. This would be the just thing to do because the state has a duty to treat each and all of its citizens impartially and they have a corresponding right to such impartial treatment. Although this article specifically refers to the UK, it is considered that the suggested alternative policy would be applicable generally. The duty to act justly is not merely a local one.

Assisted suicide and the killing of people? Maybe. Physician-assisted suicide and the killing of patients? No: the rejection of Shaw's new perspective on euthanasia.

David Shaw presents a new argument to support the old claim that there is not a significant moral difference between killing and letting die and, by implication, between active and passive euthanasia. He concludes that doctors should not make a distinction between them. However, whether or not killing and letting die are morally equivalent is not as important a question as he suggests. One can justify legal distinctions on non-moral grounds. One might oppose physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia when performed by doctors on patients whether or not one is in favour of the legalisation of assisted suicide and active euthanasia. Furthermore, one can consider particular actions to be contrary to appropriate professional conduct even in the absence of legal and ethical objections to them. Someone who wants to die might want only a doctor to kill him or to help him to kill himself. However, we are not entitled to everything that we want in life or death. A doctor cannot always fittingly provide all that a patient wants or needs. It is appropriate that doctors provide their expert advice with regard to the performance of active euthanasia but they can and should do so while, qua doctors, they remain hors de combat.

Commercial agencies and surrogate motherhood: a transaction cost approach.

In this paper we investigate the legal arrangements involved in UK surrogate motherhood from a transaction-cost perspective. We outline the specific forms the transaction costs take and critically comment on the way in which the UK institutional and organisational arrangements at present adversely influence transaction costs. We then focus specifically on the potential role of surrogacy agencies and look at UK and US evidence on commercial and voluntary agencies. Policy implications follow.

Persons and their bodies: how we should think about human embryos.

The status of human embryos is discussed particularly in the light of the claim by Fox, in Health Care Analysis 8 that it would be useful to think of them in terms of cyborg metaphors. It is argued that we should consider human embryos for what they are--partially formed human bodies--rather than for what they are like in some respects (and unlike in others)--cyborgs. However to settle the issue of the status of the embryo is not to answer the moral questions which arise concerning how embryos should be treated. Since persons rather than bodies have rights, embryos do not have rights. However, whether or not embryos have rights, people can have duties concerning them. Furthermore, the persons whose fully developed bodies embryos will, might (or might have) become can have rights. Contrary to what is often assumed, it is not merely persons who have (or have had) living, developed human bodies who have moral rights: so it is argued in this paper.