Procreative Obligations and the Directed Duty of Care

ABSTRACT There is much dispute about what we owe the children we are responsible for creating. Some argue that so long as we provide offspring with lives worth living we do no wrong. Others argue that our procreative obligations are weightier and oblige us to provide (or attempt to provide) our offspring with a reasonable opportunity to thrive, or meet some other standard beyond merely providing a life worth living. Our practices and intuitions on this matter are inconsistent. For example, gamete donors who intentionally participate in the project of creating a child are thought to have few obligations to their offspring, but those who create a child accidentally are thought to have weighty obligations. Furthermore, a justification for why we are obliged to provide offspring with more than a life worth living has been elusive. To resolve this puzzle I argue that an under‐theorized element of morality, the directed duty of care, explains why we owe our offspring more than a life worth living.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Published
2024-08-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12755
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Legal principles and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.15

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Procreative Obligations and the Directed Duty of Care

Reuven Brandt
2 citations
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Legal principles and applications
8.15
article

Procreative Obligations and the Directed Duty of Care

Reuven Brandt
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT There is much dispute about what we owe the children we are responsible for creating. Some argue that so long as we provide offspring with lives worth living we do no wrong. Others argue that our procreative obligations are weightier and oblige us to provide (or attempt to provide) our offspring with a reasonable opportunity to thrive, or meet some other standard beyond merely providing a life worth living. Our practices and intuitions on this matter are inconsistent. For example, gamete donors who intentionally participate in the project of creating a child are thought to have few obligations to their offspring, but those who create a child accidentally are thought to have weighty obligations. Furthermore, a justification for why we are obliged to provide offspring with more than a life worth living has been elusive. To resolve this puzzle I argue that an under‐theorized element of morality, the directed duty of care, explains why we owe our offspring more than a life worth living.

Journal of Applied PhilosophyVol. 41(5)
University of California San Diego (US)
University of California, San Diego
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Legal principles and applications
8.15
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Procreative Obligations and the Directed Duty of Care — Reuven Brandt · Journal of Applied Philosophy (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS