Debates on the moral status of human embryos have been highly and continuously controversial. For many, these controversies have turned into a fruitless scholastical endeavor. However, recent developments and insights in cellular biology have cast further doubt on one of the core points of dissent: the argument from potentiality. In this article we want to show in a nonscholastical way why this argument cannot possibly survive. Getting once more into the intricacies of status debates is a must in our eyes. (...) Not merely intellectual coherence but the standing and self-understanding of current stem cell research might profit from finally taking leave of the argument from potentiality. (shrink)

Weyma Lübbe is one of the most resolute contemporary critics of interpersonal welfare aggregation, as it lies at the heart of most consequentialist ethical theories. Her latest book is a rich extension of her numerous articles on this matter. The main object of criticism is the often-presumed moral relevance of welfare efficiency, for instance in rescue conflicts as they occur in health care systems with limited resources. The central philosophical starting point of her discussion is the ‘numbers debate’ introduced by (...) Philippa Foot and John Taurek, which questions the moral relevance of numbers, as opposed to fairness, when it comes to rescue conflicts between groups of different sizes. In decidedly anti-consequentialist fashion, Lübbe argues that (a) interpersonal welfare efficiency cannot play any foundational role in normative ethics (ch. 3). She also tries to prove (b) the inconsistency of any attempt to supplement welfarist axiologies by fairness aspects, denying the possibility to assign independent moral relevance to both aspects (ch. 4 and 5). In the constructive part of the book (ch. 5 and 6), she presents (c) her own account of distributive ethics based on the principle of equal concern for persons (“Gleichachtung”). (shrink)