Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Does justice require that we be ageist?

John Harris

    Bioethics
    |January 1, 1994
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    This study critiques arguments favoring the young, showing the "indifference test" is flawed and can justify ageism. It argues against age-based moral preferences, highlighting potential ethical harms of prioritizing lifespan maximization.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Nursing home staffing and operations in Taiwan and the United States: A comparative pilot study.

    International journal of nursing studies advances·2026
    Same author

    Linking Pressure to Electrochemical Evolution in Solid-State Conversion Cathode Composites.

    ACS applied materials & interfaces·2025
    Same author

    Preconception needs and experience of people with mobility disability: Qualitative study of people with lived experience and clinical experts.

    Patient education and counseling·2025
    Same author

    Quantitative sensory testing in dogs with spontaneous osteoarthritis.

    Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)·2025
    Same author

    Survey of Access to and Use of Narrowband UVB Phototherapy in Pediatric Vitiligo.

    Pediatric dermatology·2025
    Same author

    Investigation of Hearing Loss in Pediatric Vitiligo.

    Pediatric dermatology·2025
    Same journal

    Capable, Unbearably Suffering, and Excluded: People With Mental Illness and the Ethics of Canada's Assisted-Dying Regime.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Transhumanism Without Transindividuation in the Age Without Epochality: Stiegler, Vice, and Radical Human Enhancement.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Between Safeguard and Constraint: Navigating Patient Autonomy in Protective Laws for Medical Assistance in Dying.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    Bioethics of Space Exploration: Life, Risk, and Responsibility Beyond Earth.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    The Concept of Harm in Medical Ethics.

    Bioethics·2026
    Same journal

    On the Destruction and Humanitarianisation of the Health System in Gaza and the Need for a Biopolitical Bioethics.

    Bioethics·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Moral Philosophy
    • Gerontology

    Background:

    • Existing arguments for prioritizing the young are re-examined.
    • Kappel and Sandøe's advocacy for age-based preference is a key focus.
    • Previous ethical considerations on age and lifespan are largely overlooked by proponents of age-based preference.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critique Kappel and Sandøe's arguments for favoring the young.
    • To demonstrate the failure of the "indifference test" in ethical decision-making.
    • To develop new arguments against ageist preferences and lifespan maximization.

    Main Methods:

    • Restatement of existing philosophical arguments against ageism.
    • Analysis and deconstruction of Kappel and Sandøe's "indifference test".
    Keywords:
    Analytical ApproachHealth Care and Public HealthPhilosophical Approach

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Development of novel ethical arguments concerning age-based moral considerations.

    • Main Results:

    • Kappel and Sandøe's "indifference test" is shown to be inadequate and potentially unjust.
    • New arguments demonstrate the ethical problems with prioritizing the young or long life expectancy.
    • The paper reveals that proponents of age-based preference may implicitly devalue older lives.

    Conclusions:

    • Ageist preferences, even those framed by concepts like the "indifference test," are ethically unsound.
    • Prioritizing lifespan maximization can lead to morally unacceptable conclusions, including the justification of harming individuals.
    • A critical re-evaluation of age-based moral frameworks is necessary to prevent ethical compromises.