Cognitive Disability and Cognitive Enhancement by Jeff McMahan was published in Metaphilosophy. This essay expounds on the inconsistencies of the commonsense beliefs revolving around the comparative moral status with animals, fetuses and radically cognitively impaired human beings (that potentially have equal cognitive abilities as an animal). McMahan then offers an insight that offers new understanding on the basis of inviolability.
McMahan presents the idea that inviolability is determined by cognitive ability (rationality, self consciousness and autonomy). He begins with the example that animals are less inviolable because they are inherently less cognitive than humans. Thus making human’s inviolability superior to the animals, because a human is psychologically more advanced. He then uses that argument to justify that it is morally acceptable to harvest animals when based on the reason that they are less inviolable, meaning that because they are cognitively below humans, their purpose is below a human’s purpose or immediate needs. However it is prudent to recognize the inconsistency between the abuse of animals and our preservation of the radically cognitive impaired (that have a cognitive ability equal to animals). Inviolability cannot be determined by cognitive ability because the harvesting/abuse of animals can not be justified by cognitive inability because it objects the morals revolving around the treatment around humans of equal cognitive ability.
If inviolability is based off cognitive ability then a human with the equal cognitive ability as an animal, would be equally as violable as an animal. Thus justifying the equal treatment of animals and humans of similar cognitive ability. To abuse a cognitively normal human with the same abuse that is morally acceptable for animal is morally unacceptable. However, when you replace a cognitively normal human with a cognitively impaired human (equal to the cognitive ability of an animal) it is widely agreed that it would STILL be morally unacceptable to treat the human equal to an animal. This inconsistency provides the objection to the theory that inviolability is determined by cognitive ability.
McMahan then provides the theory that humans, regardless of cognitive ability, have a universal level of inviolability, hence setting the inviolability standard within humanity, not including animals. This then can be used to justify animal cruelty/harvesting and presents the idea that inviolability is determined by an aspect, other than cognitive ability, that is unique to human nature universally (regardless of being impaired or not). Thus explaining why animals and humans of the same cognitive ability are not treated the same. McMahan presents the idea of having ‘potential’ is often attributed to having inviolability. For example, the potential of a human’s cognitive ability (regardless if they are presently impaired) is greater than that of an animal's, hence making humans more valuable regardless of present cognitive ability. Let's call this the 'human' aspect of a our humanity that makes us inviolable. However, there is an inconsistency shown within this argument and an objection can be seen when it is applied to the justification of abortion and the inviolability of fetuses.
Abortion can be justified upon the reason that a fetus lacks cognitive ability, thus making the fetus less inviolable, thus adopting the argument that the fetus's value is below our own purpose or immediate needs (aka: Life. The argument of our immediate needs overruling the long term needs of the fetus is another complex discussion within this article but for the purpose of conciseness it will be assumed that the cognitively more advanced will have inviolability). So like a cognitively limited child but unlike an animal, the fetus, is both cognitively impaired yet also apart of the human species which gives it the right to human inviolability. Thus, making the termination of a fetus incompatible with the view that all humans are inviolable based on their potential of their cognitive ability which creates their inherent "humanness" which is what defends their right to human inviolability. Hence, for several reasons, makes it morally unethical to terminate a fetus.
The first reason, being the most obvious, is that fetuses are apart of the human species which if one supports preserving the human species they cannot simultaneously support abortion. The second reason is that one cannot believe that terminating a fetus is permissible while simultaneously viewing the termination of humans of the same cognitive level as not. Third, although fetuses are cognitively inept, they still hold the potential ability to be a fully cognitive adult, thus one cannot view abortion as morally ethical while simultaneously preserving a someone that is radically impaired because if one person's potential cognitive ability outweighs another's potential ability, it would mean the former person would be more inviolable. Thus with McMahan’s argument fetuses would actually be seen as more inviolable than the radically impaired forcing us to abandon our previous ideas.
So the argument must abandon that cognitive ability determines inviolability and instead the new argument is that inviolability must state that all humans have inviolable rights that are unconditional regardless of their current cognitive ability or their future potential. Because if inviolability was based off purely cognitive ability, it would make it morally acceptable to treat humans equal to animals. So we must add 'potential' to the argument as the extra human attribute that gives us our inviolability. But if we add potential to the argument we must include fetuses within the spectrum of human inviolability. Thus meaning that it is irrational to use the reason that cognitive inability justifies the treatment of living beings (whether it is abortion or the abuse of animals) while we are simultaneously preserving humans that are equally cognitively deficient.
Q.E.D
