ID: 1629952

Defense of the Deaf (As A Repressed Minority)

The principle that Davis argues for, the right to an open future, is a
framework for reproductive, and genetic services, limiting the scope of their
use based on moral considerations. This right may be defined satisfactorily
as that a parent ought not deliberately, severely, irreversibly, restrict the
ability of their children to make a wide variety of life choices when they
reach adulthood (Davis 2001). This principle is based on Feinbergs rightsheld-in-trust, one of his four categories of rights, which holds that there are
rights a child should expect to receive upon reaching adulthood (Feinberg
1980). These rights must be protected, as it is possible for adults to violate
them while a child is still too young to exercise them. For (an extremely brief)
example, an Amish parents decision, on the grounds of their own religious
beliefs, to limit the amount of education their child receives diminishes the
amount of possibilities it could pursue, before they become an adult, and
gain the right to make their own decisions about religion. Violations of the
childs rights-held-in-trust are deemed morally wrong by the right to an open
future principle, due to the constraining effects of these violations.
To Davis, the deliberate selection of deafness for a child, by their
parents, does substantially restrict the ability of that child to have a wide
breadth of opportunities as they age, and she is demonstrably correct in this.
Deaf people deal with, at the very least, restrictions in who they can interact

with, as in absence of a translator, it is difficult-to-impossible to have

meaningful conversation with the majority of the human race (the hearing).
As a social creature, any constraint on who we can interact with is deeply
significant, and isolating. Music, one of humanitys most universal forms of
expression, is also affected, as though the deaf can experience it through
vibrations in their body, they cannot as how it was meant to be received.
Deaf education in most settings requires a translator to engage in standard
classrooms, and there are sometimes no translators available, depending on
location. For example, there is only one major deaf university in the world, so
if the deaf would like that very typical experience, they have only one option.
The education situation, in addition to innate requirements, limits possible
employment opportunities (from waiters to executives, one wont find many
of the deaf). It is due to these types of restrictions, brought on when one is
biologically deaf, that Davis judges the choice to purposefully select for this
condition as severely constraining possibilities.
There is a substantial objection the Deaf community can make to
Daviss judgement however, and that is that it is inconsistent with an earlier
non-judgement that she clarifies: that a couple from a repressed group (say,
the Roma) is not morally wrong in bringing a child into the world, even if
their social standing would limit potentials for the child. Davis does not
denounce the couples deliberate decision, despite the parents knowing that
their societal disadvantage would likely irreversibly constrain the childs
opportunities. This is due to the disadvantage in question being the fault of

the social structure, not the genetic makeup of the child. Since it is a social ill
then, the responsibility of its existence (and future mending) is on that
society, so while the parents cannot be blamed for its consequences, the
society can. Davis does not see this logic as applying to deafness, but the
Deaf do. The Deaf see themselves as a distinct culture, with their own
schools, languages, and customs. They are demonstrably correct in this too,
and that fact leads them to claim not only minority culture status, but the
label of repressed. To them, the aforementioned impairments of deafness
come from societys lack of accommodation, and implicit rejection, of them,
not their physiological condition. If it was only of their condition, then they
would simply adjust the environment to render it un-disabling. If it is of them,
then they would be (and are) attempting to stop them from creating new
deaf individuals. They argue that if given these proper accommodations, the
life of a deaf child would not be substantially more limited a hearing childs.
Therefore, rather than prevent them from coming into the world, the society
should be changed so it no longer unnecessarily represses them. In this way,
the Deaf tie their case to that of the earlier mentioned obviously socially
discriminated minority, which Daviss interpretation of the right to an open
future excuses.
This objection seems to be satisfactory, at least in the abstract (and at
least to the author of this paper, who is woefully inexperienced with
philosophy). Strictly adhering to the logical reasoning, yes, the majority of
the disability of deafness does stem from the current structure of society,

and the environment, and would be eliminated by changes to these

structures. If hearing people were to learn even basic sign language, limits
on socialization would largely evaporate, and this improved interaction would
up a far wider range of employment possibilities. Also, while education would
likely still require translators (as the majority of lessons would still be
conducted by the spoken word), its been noted that when the deaf receive
this consideration, they perform at, or above, the level of their counterparts.
Music is a complete non-issue, as it retains its art, and rhythm, even if its
experienced in a different way. In practical terms, these accommodations
would be extremely difficult to implement. Mandating enough sign language
education to conduct basic interactions is certainly feasible, but would both
be expensive (not to mention the translators for higher level
lessons/business), and fighting for time against existing requirements such
as physical education or simply other languages.
Practical limitations are obstacles to be overcome however, and
certainly should never be barriers to the pursuit of moral action
(accommodating for the deaf). Davis herself advocates for the end of the
discrimination against minority groups, which is similarly not an easy task,
and sees that wrong as needing to be addressed before judging their
decision to conceive a child (which then with no discrimination to face, would
not be limited). If accommodations would render the deaf just as capable,
and its likely that they would, the objection of the Deaf, again, does truly
stand up. Any disability brought about by deafness is not innate to the

physical condition, but the associated social barriers. Under her own logic
about societal shortcomings, Davis cannot condemn the purposeful selection
of a deaf child by their parents.