从残疾宣传的角度来看,对福祉概念的进一步探索有待利用。关于残疾的“福利主义”的概念,JulianSavulescu和GuyKahane首次亮相,他们声称福利主义与倡导有重要承诺,这鼓舞了他们有帮助的资格。当他们将他们的福利主义框架应用于生产决策时,支持福利主义会,事实上,急剧破坏它。Savulescu和Kahane的生殖受益原则-反映了超人类主义,或倡导激进的生物增强-道德上要求父母选择孩子,很有可能,拥有“最好的生活”。“假设强大的生物技术的出现,创造性决策将高度标准化,因为未来的父母在道德上有义务最大限度地提高选择能力,包括智力,自我控制,和享乐设定点,在他们的孩子。Welfarism,适用于繁殖,坚定的客观主义者对决策者的责任是什么,不相信第一个人的价值观,愿望,和经验。尽管这种对个人观点的否定适用于每个人,它对残疾宣传的影响尤其严重。鉴于这种倡导,应该更多地关注“幸福”,因此,从萨夫列斯库和卡哈恩的福利主义中分离出来。
From the standpoint of disability advocacy, further exploration of the concept of well-being stands to be availing. The notion that \"welfarism\" about disability, which Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane debuted, qualifies as helpful is encouraged by their claim that welfarism shares important commitments with that advocacy. As becomes clear when they apply their welfarist frame to procreative decisions, endorsing welfarism would, in fact, sharply undermine it. Savulescu and Kahane\'s Principle of Procreative Beneficence-which reflects transhumanism, or advocacy of radical bioenhancement-morally requires parents to choose the child who will, in all probability, have \"the best life.\" Assuming the emergence of potent biotechnologies, procreative decision-making would be highly standardized, for prospective parents would be morally obliged to maximize select capacities, including intelligence, self-control, and hedonic set-point, in their children. Welfarism, applied to reproduction, is staunchly objectivist about what course is incumbent on decision-makers, giving no credence to first-personal values, aspirations, and experiences. Though this dismissal of individual perspectives applies to everyone, its implications for disability advocacy are especially severe. With that advocacy in view, greater attention to \"well-being\" should, therefore, be severed from the welfarism of Savulescu and Kahane.