Moral status: what a bad idea!
Leave 'moral status' in the philosophy classroom; ask for specific supports in the meeting room.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Silvers (2012) wrote a philosophy paper. It looks at the term 'moral status.' The author says this term hurts disability rights work.
The paper is not a study with people. It is a think piece for teachers, doctors, and advocates.
What they found
The author finds that 'moral status' talk is a dead end. It shifts focus away from real needs like buses, jobs, or therapy hours.
Arguing about who has 'full moral status' eats up meeting time. It does not win services or friends.
How this fits with other research
Rioux (1997) said the same thing earlier. That paper warned that big ideas, not facts, drive disability policy. Silvers (2012) zooms in on one big idea: moral status.
Wolfensberger (2011) also rejects forced language rules. Both papers say 'stop policing words.' Wolf attacks 'people-first' police; A attacks 'moral-status' talk.
Matson et al. (2013) widens the lens. Their review shows that any label—diagnosis, category, or moral claim—shapes real supports. Silvers (2012) gives a clear action: drop the moral-status label and talk supports instead.
Why it matters
Next time you write an IEP goal or talk to a principal, skip the philosophy. Do not ask 'Does this student have full moral status?' Ask for the concrete thing: a speech device, extra reading minutes, or a job coach. That language gets results and keeps the team on track.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your next IEP draft. Delete any phrase about 'inherent dignity' or 'moral status.' Replace it with one line that names the support you want and the data you will collect.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Advocates of people with disabilities sometimes have advanced their cause within a conceptual frame of human exceptionalism, shaped specifically by one or another proposal about a moral property or capacity with which human individuals alone are endowed. METHODS: This essay is a philosophical reflection about the notion of moral status. RESULTS: Arguments presented here show, however, that framing the pursuit of protection for people with disabilities in terms of humanity's exceptional moral status is more hazardous than helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Appeals to moral status do not settle debates about whether there are obligations to provide protection and support for individuals with disabilities because the idea of moral status is as contentious as the disagreements it is invoked to resolve.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2012 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01616.x