Can we say benevolence really demands a perfectionist ethic, where the chance of becoming a person is what you should maximise for people, coupled with the virtue of respect for agents who can’t do that, (animals), and to avoid justifying paternalistic gambles with people’s lives for the sake of excellence.
- Then where does scope sensitivity come in to ethics? Just via moral uncertainty? Or is respect scope-sensitive with relieving suffering at least?
- Does this require a hard cut-off with welfare where respect ends and benevolence begins? That’s probably bad
- Does this give us a kind of critical-level theory?
How is this meant to solve problems in population ethics lol what was I thinking?