In a recent article, Tyler Tate argues that the suffering of children — especially children with severe cognitive impairments — should be regarded as the antithesis of flourishing, where flourishing is relative to one’s individual characteristics and essentially involves receiving care from others. Although initially persuasive, Tate’s theory is ambiguous in several ways, leading to significant conceptual problems. By identifying flourishing with receiving care, Tate raises questions about the importance of care that he does not address, giving rise to a bootstrapping problem. By making flourishing relative to an individual’s circumstances, Tate is forced to confront questions about exactly how relative it can be, suggesting the possibility that, on his view, to flourish is simply to be however one is. In an attempt to surmount these problems, I offer a revision and restatement of Tate’s view that defines the relationship between individualized flourishing and the more conventional, species-relative concept, and describe more clearly the role that care should play with respect to flourishing — one that is instrumental and not merely constitutive. Even this restated view, however, fails to answer difficult questions about how one should respond to the medical needs of some children, highlighting the fact that a conceptual analysis of suffering may do little, in the end, to untangle ethical dilemmas in the care of severely ill children.

在最近的一篇文章中，泰勒·泰特 (Tyler Tate) 认为，儿童的痛苦——尤其是有严重认知障碍的儿童——应该被视为繁荣的对立面，繁荣与个人特征相关，本质上涉及接受他人的照顾。虽然最初很有说服力，但泰特的理论在几个方面是模棱两可的，导致了重大的概念问题。通过将繁荣与接受护理联系起来，泰特提出了他没有解决的关于护理重要性的问题，从而引发了自举问题。通过将繁荣与个人的环境联系起来，泰特不得不面对这样的问题：它到底有多相关，这表明在他看来，繁荣只是简单地成为一个人。为了克服这些问题，我对 Tate 的观点进行了修订和重述，该观点定义了个体化繁荣与更传统的、物种相关的概念之间的关系，并更清楚地描述了关怀在繁荣方面应该发挥的作用——一种工具性的，而不仅仅是构成性的。然而，即使是这种重申的观点，也未能回答关于人们应该如何应对一些儿童的医疗需求的难题，强调了这样一个事实，即对痛苦的概念分析最终可能无助于解决照顾儿童时的伦理困境。重病儿童。并更清楚地描述护理在繁荣方面应该发挥的作用——一种工具性的，而不仅仅是构成性的。然而，即使是这种重申的观点，也未能回答关于人们应该如何应对一些儿童的医疗需求的难题，强调了这样一个事实，即对痛苦的概念分析最终可能无助于解决照顾儿童时的伦理困境。重病儿童。并更清楚地描述护理在繁荣方面应该发挥的作用——一种工具性的，而不仅仅是构成性的。然而，即使是这种重申的观点，也未能回答关于人们应该如何应对一些儿童的医疗需求的难题，强调了这样一个事实，即对痛苦的概念分析最终可能无助于解决照顾儿童时的伦理困境。重病儿童。