First, to clarify, strictly speaking welfare subject is not meant to be synonymous with moral patient. Some people believe that things that lack moral standing can still be welfare subjects. You might think, for example, that plants aren’t sentient and so don’t have moral standing, but nevertheless there are things that are non-instrumentally good for plants, so plants can be welfare subjects. (I don’t hold this view, but some do.)
Otherwise, I’m mostly sympathetic to your points. I don’t object to talk of ‘moral patienthood.’ ‘Moral standing’ appears to be more popular in the literature, but maybe that’s a terminological mistake.
Hi Michael,
First, to clarify, strictly speaking welfare subject is not meant to be synonymous with moral patient. Some people believe that things that lack moral standing can still be welfare subjects. You might think, for example, that plants aren’t sentient and so don’t have moral standing, but nevertheless there are things that are non-instrumentally good for plants, so plants can be welfare subjects. (I don’t hold this view, but some do.)
Otherwise, I’m mostly sympathetic to your points. I don’t object to talk of ‘moral patienthood.’ ‘Moral standing’ appears to be more popular in the literature, but maybe that’s a terminological mistake.
Thanks for that clarification and that answer!