Even if there's reason to presume that there's an ordinary "intact mind" somewhere inside each severely disabled person, why should we presume that ordinary "moral rights" inhere inside of them? Or anybody for that matter?
Seems to me the "intact mind" is an IS question, while the "moral rights" is an ought question. There is no inherent conflict accepting one and not the other.
Even if there's reason to presume that there's an ordinary "intact mind" somewhere inside each severely disabled person, why should we presume that ordinary "moral rights" inhere inside of them? Or anybody for that matter?
Seems to me the "intact mind" is an IS question, while the "moral rights" is an ought question. There is no inherent conflict accepting one and not the other.
Even if there's reason to presume that there's an ordinary "intact mind" somewhere inside each severely disabled person, why should we presume that ordinary "moral rights" inhere inside of them? Or anybody for that matter?
Seems to me the "intact mind" is an IS question, while the "moral rights" is an ought question. There is no inherent conflict accepting one and not the other.