Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba410h [2020/06/05 10:27] – mmccann | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba410h [2024/01/19 21:56] (current) – mmccann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* https:// | * https:// | ||
* http:// | * http:// | ||
- | * [[https:// | ||
* 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:// | * FIXME SPL http:// | ||
* [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * 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:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **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", | ||
+ | |||
===== 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 | ||
+ | {{: | ||
+ | |||
===== " | ===== " | ||
==== The debate: characterizing the fetus ==== | ==== The debate: characterizing the fetus ==== | ||
+ | |||
* Prolife: | * Prolife: | ||
* life starts at conception | * life starts at conception | ||
Line 27: | 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 | ||
+ | {{: | ||
==== 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 34: | Line 52: | ||
* being a person/ | * being a person/ | ||
* 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)==== | + | |
+ | ==== Problems with the prochoice side (According to Marquis)==== | ||
* Principle embraces too little: | * Principle embraces too little: | ||
* Infants, young children, severely disabled, temporarily unconscious, | * Infants, young children, severely disabled, temporarily unconscious, | ||
* It’s hard to fix this without arbitrary/ | * It’s hard to fix this without arbitrary/ | ||
* Principle is ambiguous | * Principle is ambiguous | ||
- | * Why should // | + | * Why should // |
- | * 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 47: | 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 // | + | * Why should // |
- | * 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 58: | 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{: | ||
==== 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, | * “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, | ||
* 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:// | ||
=== 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 89: | ||
* 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 " | * Not " | ||
* Incompatible with view that it is only wrong to kill humans | * Incompatible with view that it is only wrong to kill humans | ||
Line 74: | Line 95: | ||
* 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, | * Euthanasia is permissible in cases where one’s future is not comprised of valuable experiences, | ||
- | * **Abortion is prima facie wrong** | + | * **Abortion is prima facie 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. | * 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 | ||
+ | {{: | ||
* Note on future-like-ours theory | * Note on future-like-ours theory | ||
Line 96: | Line 116: | ||
* Marquis thinks this is inadequate: we want killing to be wrong only when someone will have a valuable future | * 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 | * But to fix this is to basically state the future-like-ours theory | ||
+ | |||
==== Requirement of sentience in order to be a " | ==== Requirement of sentience in order to be a " | ||
* PC claim: Embryos cannot be victims so cannot be wronged. Lives composed of only metabolism cannot be victimized. Mentation is required. | * PC claim: Embryos cannot be victims so cannot be wronged. Lives composed of only metabolism cannot be victimized. Mentation is required. | ||
Line 102: | Line 123: | ||
* this is why harmed infants are victimized | * this is why harmed infants are victimized | ||
* this is why we are justified in calling terminated embryos " | * this is why we are justified in calling terminated embryos " | ||
+ | {{: | ||
===== 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, | ||
+ | * i.e. a sperm left alone in a man's body, or an egg left alone in a woman' | ||
==== Problems for pro-lifers? ==== | ==== Problems for pro-lifers? ==== | ||
FLO doesn' | FLO doesn' | ||
Line 109: | Line 134: | ||
* FLO would justify killing of, say, anencephalic babies | * FLO would justify killing of, say, anencephalic babies | ||
* 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: | * 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: | ||
- | ==== contraception? | + | |
- | | + | |
- | * i.e. a sperm left alone in a man's body, or an egg left alone in a woman' | + | |
===== In conversation ===== | ===== In conversation ===== | ||
* [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
Line 134: | Line 158: | ||
//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:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME decent video/ | ||