Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba410h [2020/06/04 20:08] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba410h [2024/01/19 21:56] (current) – mmccann
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== PBA410H: Don Marquis ======+====== PBA410H: Don Marquis' Future Like Ours argument ======
   * https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961 or https://drive.google.com/file/d/11e6JJ4i-Z_MWULFXxk1wdNMwOgD1aCkf/view?usp=sharing   * https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026961 or https://drive.google.com/file/d/11e6JJ4i-Z_MWULFXxk1wdNMwOgD1aCkf/view?usp=sharing
   * http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/01/a-future-like-ours.html   * http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/01/a-future-like-ours.html
-  * [[https://youtu.be/joaTrukxKag|ERI 'new arguments for the sanctity of life']] 
   * FIXME Christopher Kaczor, Ethics of Abortion, A Flourishing Like Ours section   * FIXME Christopher Kaczor, Ethics of Abortion, A Flourishing Like Ours section
   * FIXME citation for pro-choice philosophers considering this to be the strongest pro-life argument   * FIXME citation for pro-choice philosophers considering this to be the strongest pro-life argument
   * FIXME SPL http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/06/the-imago-dei-or-why-should-secularists.html   * FIXME SPL http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/06/the-imago-dei-or-why-should-secularists.html
-  * FIXME connection to assisted suicide debate. Question about whether or not the terminally ill, suffering person, has anything in her future which she will value at that point. Link to social science on fluctuation in the desire to die, seems to give evidence that people can find Value in their existence even after initial suicidal ideation or between episodes of suicidal ideation. 
   * [[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GS62pqGg8R1XxIUCpUMeI4whG4ssmy6t/view?usp=sharing|Powerpoint]] from James Schadenberg   * [[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GS62pqGg8R1XxIUCpUMeI4whG4ssmy6t/view?usp=sharing|Powerpoint]] from James Schadenberg
 +  * FIXME Wrongful Killings 
 +(A) fetus?
 +(B) infant
 +(C) suicidal teen
 +(D) temporarily comatose adult
 +(E) other living human adults (e.g. majority of people around us)
 +
 +In (B)-(E), killing is clearly wrong; (A) is in dispute. What's the explanation for (B)-(E)? Does it cover (A) as well?
  
  
 --------- ---------
 +[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Marquis_(philosopher)|About Don Marquis]]:
 +
 +**Don Marquis** (born 1935) is an American philosopher whose main academic interests are in ethics and medical ethics. Marquis is currently Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas...
 +Marquis is best known for his paper "Why Abortion Is Immoral", which appeared in The Journal of Philosophy in April, 1989. This paper has been reprinted over 80 times, and is widely cited in the philosophical debate over abortion. The main argument in the paper is sometimes known as the "deprivation argument", since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a 'future like ours'".
 +
 ===== Goals and Assumptions ===== ===== Goals and Assumptions =====
 +
     * Aim is to show that abortion is generally immoral     * Aim is to show that abortion is generally immoral
       * Assumes that if we can prove a fetus has a right to life, it is wrong to abort it       * Assumes that if we can prove a fetus has a right to life, it is wrong to abort it
         * Responding to people who believe in pro-choice arguments based on ‘personhood’         * Responding to people who believe in pro-choice arguments based on ‘personhood’
       * *Marquis’ argument is irrelevant to Violinist Argument defenders       * *Marquis’ argument is irrelevant to Violinist Argument defenders
 +{{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:picture1.png?400|}}
 +
 ===== "Standoffs" in the abortion debate ===== ===== "Standoffs" in the abortion debate =====
 ==== The debate: characterizing the fetus ==== ==== The debate: characterizing the fetus ====
 +
     * Prolife:     * Prolife:
       * life starts at conception       * life starts at conception
Line 28: Line 43:
       * Therefore, abortion is not wrong       * Therefore, abortion is not wrong
     * Marquis: The justifications for both sides are, for the most part true     * Marquis: The justifications for both sides are, for the most part true
 +{{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:picture2.png?400|}}
 ==== The debate: finding a general moral principle ==== ==== The debate: finding a general moral principle ====
 +
     * Pro-life     * Pro-life
       * it is wrong to take a human life       * it is wrong to take a human life
Line 35: Line 52:
       * being a person/rational agent gives one intrinsic moral value       * being a person/rational agent gives one intrinsic moral value
       * it is only wrong to take the life of a member of the ‘human community’       * it is only wrong to take the life of a member of the ‘human community’
-==== Problems with the prochoice side (ACCORDING TO MARQUIS)====+ {{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:picture3.png?400|}}      
 +==== Problems with the prochoice side (According to Marquis)====
     * Principle embraces too little:     * Principle embraces too little:
       * Infants, young children, severely disabled, temporarily unconscious, and mentally ill people are not rational agents       * Infants, young children, severely disabled, temporarily unconscious, and mentally ill people are not rational agents
       * It’s hard to fix this without arbitrary/ad hoc reasoning       * It’s hard to fix this without arbitrary/ad hoc reasoning
     * Principle is ambiguous     * Principle is ambiguous
-      * Why should //psychological// characteristics make a moral difference? Why not a biological difference instead? (ableism?) +      * Why should //psychological// characteristics make a moral difference? Why not a biological characteristic instead? (ableism?) 
-      * If ‘personhood’ is moral term, it is assuming the premise + 
 ==== Problems with prolife side (according to Marquis) ==== ==== Problems with prolife side (according to Marquis) ====
     * Principle embraces too much     * Principle embraces too much
Line 48: Line 65:
       * You can say instead “it is wrong to take a human being’s life” but Marquis doesn’t think it is obvious that fetuses are human beings       * You can say instead “it is wrong to take a human being’s life” but Marquis doesn’t think it is obvious that fetuses are human beings
     * Principle is ambiguous     * Principle is ambiguous
-      * Why should //biological// characteristics make a moral difference? Why not a psychological difference instead? (speciecism?) +      * Why should //biological// characteristics make a moral difference? Why not a psychological characteristic instead? (speciecism?) 
-      * If ‘human being’ is moral term, it is assuming the premise + 
-====== What makes killing wrong? =====+===== What makes killing wrong? ==== 
   * Both sides are missing the essence of the issue   * Both sides are missing the essence of the issue
     * In order to generalize a principle as to whether abortion is wrong, we must understand why killing in general is wrong, and then see how that applies to abortion     * In order to generalize a principle as to whether abortion is wrong, we must understand why killing in general is wrong, and then see how that applies to abortion
Line 59: Line 77:
       * NOT primarily because it harms our friends and relatives       * NOT primarily because it harms our friends and relatives
       * It is wrong because of its harm on //us,// the victim       * It is wrong because of its harm on //us,// the victim
 +
 +{{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:flo2.png?400|}}
 ==== How does killing harm us? ==== ==== How does killing harm us? ====
     * “The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. **The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future.** Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.”     * “The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. **The loss of one's life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future.** Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.”
     * It is not simply the loss of your life, but the loss of your entire **future and all values it would contain,** even if you do not value it currently     * It is not simply the loss of your life, but the loss of your entire **future and all values it would contain,** even if you do not value it currently
 +    * **[[https://youtu.be/joaTrukxKag?t=2040|ERI 'new arguments for the sanctity of life']]** 34:00 to 37:39
 === Support for Marquis’ claim  that it is wrong to kill someone if they will have a ‘future like ours’ === === Support for Marquis’ claim  that it is wrong to kill someone if they will have a ‘future like ours’ ===
     * The primary wrong-making aspect of killing is the loss of the victims future because:     * The primary wrong-making aspect of killing is the loss of the victims future because:
Line 67: Line 88:
       * It explains why those dying prematurely (eg. Cancer,  AIDS) see their premature death as a very bad thing       * It explains why those dying prematurely (eg. Cancer,  AIDS) see their premature death as a very bad thing
         * A better theory would require a natural property of killing which better fits the attitudes of the dying         * A better theory would require a natural property of killing which better fits the attitudes of the dying
-===== Implications of this view ===== +==== Implications of this view ====
   * Not "speciesist"   * Not "speciesist"
       * Incompatible with view that it is only wrong to kill humans       * Incompatible with view that it is only wrong to kill humans
         * A species from another planet that has a future like ours cannot be killed         * A species from another planet that has a future like ours cannot be killed
         * If a species on this planet has a future //sufficiently// like ours then it cannot be killed         * If a species on this planet has a future //sufficiently// like ours then it cannot be killed
-    * It is wrong to kill children and infants, for they have a future like ours +  * It is wrong to kill children and infants, for they have a future like ours 
-    * Euthanasia is permissible in cases where one’s future is not comprised of valuable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments  +  * Euthanasia is permissible in cases where one’s future is not comprised of valuable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments  
-    * Abortion is prima facie wrong +  * **Abortion is prima facie wrong** {{ :utsfl:classroom:seminars:flo.png?400|}} 
-      * Because a fetus has a future that is identical to an adult humans’, it follows that it is wrong to kill a fetus, and so abortion is wrong. +    * Because a fetus has a future that is identical to an adult humans’, it follows that it is wrong to kill a fetus, and so abortion is wrong. 
-        * FIXME problem for PL Position: why does Marquis question whether the early embryo is yet an individual? Unclear +    * This does not claim that fetuses are persons. It merely claims that fetuses have valuable futures 
-      * This does not claim that fetuses are persons. It merely claims that fetuses have valuable futures+{{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:picture4.png?400|}} 
   * Note on future-like-ours theory   * Note on future-like-ours theory
     * This isn’t a complete account of the wrong-making aspects of killing. But it is a sufficient reason to believe certain killings are seriously wrong. (sufficient but not necessary)     * This isn’t a complete account of the wrong-making aspects of killing. But it is a sufficient reason to believe certain killings are seriously wrong. (sufficient but not necessary)
Line 86: Line 108:
   * People strongly desire to continue to live. Killing interferes with this fundamental desire.   * People strongly desire to continue to live. Killing interferes with this fundamental desire.
   * Fetuses don’t desire to live   * Fetuses don’t desire to live
-  * Neither do the unconscious, the sleeping, those who are tired of life, nor suicidal teenagers+  * BUT neither do the unconscious, the sleeping, those who are tired of life, nor suicidal teenagers
   * It isn’t current desires but **potential future desires** that make it wrong to kill them   * It isn’t current desires but **potential future desires** that make it wrong to kill them
 ==== Discontinuation account ==== ==== Discontinuation account ====
 +  * People value their experience living (as well as their activities and projects) and wish for it to continue. What makes killing wrong is the discontinuation of that experience.
 +  * Fetuses don’t have an ‘experience of living’ which it would be wrong to discontinue 
 +  * But this would also make all euthanasia wrong, even in cases where someone’s present and future experiences of living are all (likely) negative
 +    * Marquis thinks this is inadequate: we want killing to be wrong only when someone will have a valuable future
 +    * But to fix this is to basically state the future-like-ours theory
 +
 ==== Requirement of sentience in order to be a "victim"? ==== ==== Requirement of sentience in order to be a "victim"? ====
 +  * PC claim: Embryos cannot be victims so cannot be wronged. Lives composed of only metabolism cannot be victimized. Mentation is required.
 +  * explains why we are fine killing plants
 +  * except that we don’t kill plants because they //won’t ever be rational,// not because they aren’t rational now
 +  * this is why harmed infants are victimized
 +  * this is why we are justified in calling terminated embryos "victims"
 +{{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:flo3.png?400|}}
 ===== Concluding notes ===== ===== Concluding notes =====
 FLO doesn’t have a religious basis, doesn’t rely on ‘speciesism’ FLO doesn’t have a religious basis, doesn’t rely on ‘speciesism’
 +==== contraception? ====
 +      * "An objection I commonly hear to this argument is that it would mean that contraception is immoral, since sperm and ova also have a “future-like-ours.” But this rests on a common pro-choice strawman of the pro-life position. We argue that the human zygote is valuable because it is a living human organism, a member of species Homo sapiens. Sperm and eggs are mere haploid cells, from the larger parent organism (the man or woman who provided it). **The sperm and eggs are not human organisms.** As such, they do not have a “future like ours,” that is, a future of experiences, plans, etc., that all human beings will experience. Their future is to provide genetic information for the new human organism, then to die as soon as they contribute their genetic material" ((http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/01/a-future-like-ours.html))
 +        * i.e. a sperm left alone in a man's body, or an egg left alone in a woman's body, will never develop into a toddler or a teenager. Human part vs. human whole
 ==== Problems for pro-lifers? ==== ==== Problems for pro-lifers? ====
 FLO doesn't seem to answer //enough// q's e.g. why are cannibalism or necrophilia wrong? Or sexually assaulting a permanently comatose person? Premise of human //dignity// answers those Q's FLO doesn't seem to answer //enough// q's e.g. why are cannibalism or necrophilia wrong? Or sexually assaulting a permanently comatose person? Premise of human //dignity// answers those Q's
     * though FLO helps explain our intuition that death of a child seems, all other things being equal, to be more sad than death of an elderly person -- grief over their lost futures     * though FLO helps explain our intuition that death of a child seems, all other things being equal, to be more sad than death of an elderly person -- grief over their lost futures
     * FLO would justify killing of, say, anencephalic babies     * FLO would justify killing of, say, anencephalic babies
-==== contraception? ==== +  * FIXME connection to assisted suicide debate. Question about whether or not the terminally ill, suffering person, has anything in her future which she will value //at that point//. Link to [[euthanasia:start|social science]] on fluctuation in the desire to die, seems to give evidence that people can find value in their existence even after initial suicidal ideation or between episodes of suicidal ideation. 
-      * "An objection I commonly hear to this argument is that it would mean that contraception is immoral, since sperm and ova also have a “future-like-ours.” But this rests on a common pro-choice strawman of the pro-life position. We argue that the human zygote is valuable because it is a living human organism, a member of species Homo sapiens. Sperm and eggs are mere haploid cells, from the larger parent organism (the man or woman who provided it). **The sperm and eggs are not human organisms.** As such, they do not have a “future like ours,” that is, a future of experiences, plans, etc., that all human beings will experience. Their future is to provide genetic information for the new human organism, then to die as soon as they contribute their genetic material" ((http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/01/a-future-like-ours.html)) +  * FIXME problem for PL Position: why does Marquis question whether the early embryo is yet an individual? Unclear 
-        * i.e. a sperm left alone in a man's body, or an egg left alone in a woman's body, will never develop into a toddler or a teenager.+
 ===== In conversation ===== ===== In conversation =====
   * [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Y4IUGIKw8|ERI discusses FLO on podcast]] roughly 20 min in   * [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Y4IUGIKw8|ERI discusses FLO on podcast]] roughly 20 min in
- 
  
 //Blaise//: "I use it in a rough way often - like every month or two? - when trying to get at why killing is wrong in general. Like, once in particular at George Brown Casa Loma, I think it helped get through to one guy as a complement to the HRA. I'm not using the argument in detail, but taking his/Kaczor's guidance to inform some of the questions I'm asking. //Blaise//: "I use it in a rough way often - like every month or two? - when trying to get at why killing is wrong in general. Like, once in particular at George Brown Casa Loma, I think it helped get through to one guy as a complement to the HRA. I'm not using the argument in detail, but taking his/Kaczor's guidance to inform some of the questions I'm asking.
Line 118: Line 154:
  
 //Matthew B//: I can't recall a vivd memory of using that argument. But, when people are very set on very specifc life experiences that make life meaningful... Then reminding them that abortion completely denies a very young human person of those meaningful life experiences, could be  effective in illustrating a serious injustice? Especially when we know that this child should grow and develop and have extraordinarily meaningful life experiences //Matthew B//: I can't recall a vivd memory of using that argument. But, when people are very set on very specifc life experiences that make life meaningful... Then reminding them that abortion completely denies a very young human person of those meaningful life experiences, could be  effective in illustrating a serious injustice? Especially when we know that this child should grow and develop and have extraordinarily meaningful life experiences
-  - //Katie//: Yes, what Matthew said! When I’m arguing the difference between wrongness of killing born vs preborn, I point out that it’s not the fact that someone had a past and past life experiences that makes killing wrong - it’s that you’re depriving them of all future experiences. It hurts the families of the born more, yes, but as far as why we shouldn’t kill, it’s because we are robbing someone’s future, and that is true of born and preborn alike. 
  
 +
 +//Katie//: Yes, what Matthew said! When I’m arguing the difference between wrongness of killing born vs preborn, I point out that it’s not the fact that someone had a past and past life experiences that makes killing wrong - it’s that you’re depriving them of all future experiences. It hurts the families of the born more, yes, but as far as why we shouldn’t kill, it’s because we are robbing someone’s future, and that is true of born and preborn alike.
 +
 +
 +FIXME similar argument made by A. Pruss https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9dGgHqEt2M&t=70s
 +
 +FIXME decent video/animation overview of argument https://youtu.be/UHYWu6UWEe0?si=h46B9-eLoDgPfHdD