Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
positive or negative welfare. Luper argues that all those are responsive.
According to Luper, only those who are responsive can have welfare.
Luper argues that this distinguishes them from those who do not have
welfare, such as the non-existent or the dead: the non-existent or dead
are not responsive.
Here is Luper's argument: As just said, Luper claims that in order to
have a welfare level at a time, a being must be responsive at that time.
Responsiveness is defined as follows:
I say that a creature is 'responsive' at t if and only if its well-being
may be affected at t - rising if certain conditions are met, and falling
if certain other conditions are met.
11
Luper refers to responsiveness in order to draw a relevant distinction
between those who have welfare, including zero welfare, and the non-
existent who have no welfare, not even zero welfare.
Bradley challenges this argument by offering a counter-example.
According to Bradley, it is metaphysically possible that a dead person
is revived. Currently, reviving dead people is not among our capacities,
but it might be in the future, according to Bradley. Perhaps only some
of those who have recently died could be revived, but reviving people,
according to Bradley, seems not impossible, metaphysically speaking.
Bradley's counterargument is problematic. Ultimately, death is defined
as the permanent end of all functions of life in an organism. So, if the
loss appears to be reversible, the person in question cannot have been
dead. Therefore, it seems that Bradley's challenge does not dismiss
Luper's claim that in order to have a welfare level at a time, a creature
must be responsive at that time.
Bradley thinks that it is metaphysically possible to affect the welfare
level of a dead person. Therefore, Bradley concludes that Luper must
have in mind a more restricted notion of possibility when he says that
in order to be responsive it must be possible that one's welfare level
can change. For instance, Luper might mean that the welfare level can
change without external help. Bradley, however, dismisses this inter-
pretation as too restrictive. After all, 'a person who has been knocked
unconscious or who is comatose' has no welfare level according to that
interpretation. Yet, according to Bradley, 'there seems to be no reason to
say that any living person lacks a well-being level.'
12
Bradley brings forward another argument against Luper's claim that
in order to have a welfare level, a being must be responsive. Bradley
suggests that it is possible that someone lives with a permanent welfare
Search WWH ::
Custom Search