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 [2020/06/23 14:14] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba410h [2024/01/19 21:56] (current) – mmccann
Line 2: Line 2:
   * 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?t=2040|ERI 'new arguments for the sanctity of life']] 34:00 to 37:39 
   * 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
   * [[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 =====
  
Line 47: Line 59:
     * Principle is ambiguous     * Principle is ambiguous
       * Why should //psychological// characteristics make a moral difference? Why not a biological characteristic 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 55: Line 66:
     * Principle is ambiguous     * Principle is ambiguous
       * Why should //biological// characteristics make a moral difference? Why not a psychological characteristic 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? ====
Line 72: Line 82:
     * “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 84: 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, 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|}}
-{{ :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.
     * 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
Line 148: 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://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9dGgHqEt2M&t=70s
 +
 +FIXME decent video/animation overview of argument https://youtu.be/UHYWu6UWEe0?si=h46B9-eLoDgPfHdD