It's hard to believe the Wheel of Fortune argument (which really resembles Let's Make a Deal more than Wheel of Fortune) was formulated by a philosopher. It seems quite easy to argue against it. Clearly, I would *prefer* to be embryo A than embryo B, because it's better for my quality of life to not have a negative genetic disability. But being embryo B, then, which is the lesser of two options doesn't mean my life would be worthless to me, nor is how the parents feel about the embryo the relevant concern. No one has the right to determine whether anyone else's life is worth living. This analogy smacks of an ignorance about what pro-life people actually believe.
Clinton -- Yeah, "Wheel of Fortune" seemed like an odd choice to me too. In the case of asthma, I could see an individual preferring to not have asthma to having it. But Savulescu applies the same reasoning to other cases (Deafness, blindness, etc.). In those cases, I think he's going to be accused of ableism. So even if the example works for asthma, there may be good reason to reject it generally. But as you point out, the case doesn't even seem to work in the asthma scenario. Were a single individual given the choice to be embodied in a body with asthma or a comparable body without, it might make sense to choose the latter. But that's not what's going on here. It's not our choosing how one individual is going to be embodied (given two different options). Rather, it's a situation where two individuals exist and we're picking between them. I suspect that Savulescu is content to just ignore any kind of pro-life perspective (that an embryo has full moral status). But even setting that aside, as I suggest in the next video, there seems to be a confusion between "doing what's best for one's offspring" and "choosing one's best offspring." The first kind of obligation seems reasonable (or we may weaken it to "promote the well-being of one's offspring"). But the second does not seem intuitive. So it does not strike me as reasonable to treat the two imperatives as interchangeable. In any case, thanks for watching and for the feedback!
It's hard to believe the Wheel of Fortune argument (which really resembles Let's Make a Deal more than Wheel of Fortune) was formulated by a philosopher. It seems quite easy to argue against it. Clearly, I would *prefer* to be embryo A than embryo B, because it's better for my quality of life to not have a negative genetic disability. But being embryo B, then, which is the lesser of two options doesn't mean my life would be worthless to me, nor is how the parents feel about the embryo the relevant concern. No one has the right to determine whether anyone else's life is worth living. This analogy smacks of an ignorance about what pro-life people actually believe.
Clinton -- Yeah, "Wheel of Fortune" seemed like an odd choice to me too. In the case of asthma, I could see an individual preferring to not have asthma to having it. But Savulescu applies the same reasoning to other cases (Deafness, blindness, etc.). In those cases, I think he's going to be accused of ableism. So even if the example works for asthma, there may be good reason to reject it generally.
But as you point out, the case doesn't even seem to work in the asthma scenario. Were a single individual given the choice to be embodied in a body with asthma or a comparable body without, it might make sense to choose the latter. But that's not what's going on here. It's not our choosing how one individual is going to be embodied (given two different options). Rather, it's a situation where two individuals exist and we're picking between them.
I suspect that Savulescu is content to just ignore any kind of pro-life perspective (that an embryo has full moral status). But even setting that aside, as I suggest in the next video, there seems to be a confusion between "doing what's best for one's offspring" and "choosing one's best offspring." The first kind of obligation seems reasonable (or we may weaken it to "promote the well-being of one's offspring"). But the second does not seem intuitive. So it does not strike me as reasonable to treat the two imperatives as interchangeable.
In any case, thanks for watching and for the feedback!