Don Marquis’ Argument Against Abortion
合集下载
相关主题
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
9
Marquis’ rebuttal: The contractarian approach fails because it cannot account for our duties to individuals who are not persons, such as infants, the severely retarded, and some of the mentally ill, and because it also cannot account for our duties to animals (e.g. not to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals).
Thomson’s reasons are these.
3
Thomson’s first reason: The body being used is the mother’s body. In a pregnancy, although the fetus uses the mother’s body as a life-support system, the mother does not use the fetus’ body as a life support system.
(2) Abortion deprives fetuses of FLO. ∴ (3) Abortion is also seriously wrong.
11
Marquis’ Defense of Premise (1)
Marquis provides four arguments for the truth of premise (1).
Marquis’ rebuttal: The fetus’ right to life does not come to much if a pregnant woman can end it when she chooses.
6
Marquis’ conclusion about Thomson’s argument: A Thomsonian strategy for defending a general right to abortion does not succeed.
Don Marquis’ Argument Against Abortion
On Marquis’ “An Argument that Abortion is Wrong”
1
The Problem Addressed in this Paper
The question addressed is: Is abortion wrong? Marquis’ answer: “[Abortion], except perhaps
5Fra Baidu bibliotek
Thomson’s third reason: The mother’s right to control her own body does not come to much if it is wrong for her to take any action that ends the life of the fetus.
12
The worst of crimes argument: The FLO theory can explain why killing is one of the worst of crimes: By depriving the victim of his FLO, it brings about the greatest harm to the victim.
Therefore, according to Marquis, we do not have good reason to accept premise (1), and Warren’s argument fails.
10
Marquis’ Argument Against Abortion
(1) Deprivation of a future like our (FLO) makes killing adults and children seriously wrong. (the FLO theory)
13
The appeal to cases argument:
a. The FLO theory can explain why it is not wrong to end the life of a person who is permanently unconscious.
b. It can explain why it is wrong to withdraw medical treatment from patients, who are temporarily unconscious.
7
Critique of Mary Warren’s Argument
Here is Warren’s argument for abortion: (1) Only persons have the right to life. (2) Fetuses are not persons.
∴ (3) Fetuses do not have the right to life.
8
Premise (2) seems obviously true.
What are Warren’s reasons for premise (1)? According to Warren, morality rests on contractual foundation, and only persons are capable of entering into the moral contract. Hence only persons have rights.
Marquis’ rebuttal: In abortion the life that is lost is the fetus’, not the mother’s.
4
Thomson’s second reason: A fetus’ right to life does not entail its right to use someone else’s body to preserve its life.
The analogy with animals argument: Suffering is a misfortune, therefore inflicting suffering is presumptively wrong, no matter on whom it is inflicted and whether it is inflicted on persons or nonpersons. Similarly, the loss of FLO (or a future of value) is a misfortune, therefore it is wrong to deprive someone of his/its FLO, no matter whether the deprivation is inflicted on persons or nonpersons.
The misfortune of premature death argument: The FLO theory can explain why premature death is misfortunate and why dying patients would regard their premature death a misfortune. Premature death is a misfortune because it entails the loss of FLO.
16
Marquis’ Reply to Possible Objections
17
The Potentiality Objection
Marquis’ argument is a potentiality argument. But potentiality argument is deeply flawed.
Marquis’ rebuttal: A woman’s right to use her own body also does not entail her right to end someone else’s life in order to do what she wants with her body.
Since the argument against cruelty towards animals is a cogent argument, and since the argument against the deprivation of a fetuses of his FLO is analogous to the former argument, it is also a cogent argument.
A potentiality argument:
(1) If persons have the right to life, then potential persons also have the right to life.
(2) Persons have the right to life. (3) Fetuses are potential persons. ∴ (4) Fetuses have the right to life.
in rare instances, is seriously wrong.”
2
Critique of Judith Thomson’s Argument
Thomson tries to show that even if fetuses have a strong right to life, abortion is still often morally permissible.
e. It can explain why we should save the life of the suicidal.
f. It can avoid the problem of speciesism. g. It can explain why infanticide is wrong.
15
18
The potentiality argument is not cogent, since its premise (1) is questionable.
Premise (1) has the form “If Xs have the right to Y, then potential Xs also have the right to Y.” However, there are counter-examples to such a form: potential presidents do not have the right of the presidency and potential voters do not have the right to vote.
c. It can explain why present consciousness is not a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing.
14
d. It can explain why for a patient who faces impending death, and who faces a future of intractable pain and wants to die, it is not wrong for a physician to give him medicine that he knows would result in his death.
Marquis’ rebuttal: The contractarian approach fails because it cannot account for our duties to individuals who are not persons, such as infants, the severely retarded, and some of the mentally ill, and because it also cannot account for our duties to animals (e.g. not to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals).
Thomson’s reasons are these.
3
Thomson’s first reason: The body being used is the mother’s body. In a pregnancy, although the fetus uses the mother’s body as a life-support system, the mother does not use the fetus’ body as a life support system.
(2) Abortion deprives fetuses of FLO. ∴ (3) Abortion is also seriously wrong.
11
Marquis’ Defense of Premise (1)
Marquis provides four arguments for the truth of premise (1).
Marquis’ rebuttal: The fetus’ right to life does not come to much if a pregnant woman can end it when she chooses.
6
Marquis’ conclusion about Thomson’s argument: A Thomsonian strategy for defending a general right to abortion does not succeed.
Don Marquis’ Argument Against Abortion
On Marquis’ “An Argument that Abortion is Wrong”
1
The Problem Addressed in this Paper
The question addressed is: Is abortion wrong? Marquis’ answer: “[Abortion], except perhaps
5Fra Baidu bibliotek
Thomson’s third reason: The mother’s right to control her own body does not come to much if it is wrong for her to take any action that ends the life of the fetus.
12
The worst of crimes argument: The FLO theory can explain why killing is one of the worst of crimes: By depriving the victim of his FLO, it brings about the greatest harm to the victim.
Therefore, according to Marquis, we do not have good reason to accept premise (1), and Warren’s argument fails.
10
Marquis’ Argument Against Abortion
(1) Deprivation of a future like our (FLO) makes killing adults and children seriously wrong. (the FLO theory)
13
The appeal to cases argument:
a. The FLO theory can explain why it is not wrong to end the life of a person who is permanently unconscious.
b. It can explain why it is wrong to withdraw medical treatment from patients, who are temporarily unconscious.
7
Critique of Mary Warren’s Argument
Here is Warren’s argument for abortion: (1) Only persons have the right to life. (2) Fetuses are not persons.
∴ (3) Fetuses do not have the right to life.
8
Premise (2) seems obviously true.
What are Warren’s reasons for premise (1)? According to Warren, morality rests on contractual foundation, and only persons are capable of entering into the moral contract. Hence only persons have rights.
Marquis’ rebuttal: In abortion the life that is lost is the fetus’, not the mother’s.
4
Thomson’s second reason: A fetus’ right to life does not entail its right to use someone else’s body to preserve its life.
The analogy with animals argument: Suffering is a misfortune, therefore inflicting suffering is presumptively wrong, no matter on whom it is inflicted and whether it is inflicted on persons or nonpersons. Similarly, the loss of FLO (or a future of value) is a misfortune, therefore it is wrong to deprive someone of his/its FLO, no matter whether the deprivation is inflicted on persons or nonpersons.
The misfortune of premature death argument: The FLO theory can explain why premature death is misfortunate and why dying patients would regard their premature death a misfortune. Premature death is a misfortune because it entails the loss of FLO.
16
Marquis’ Reply to Possible Objections
17
The Potentiality Objection
Marquis’ argument is a potentiality argument. But potentiality argument is deeply flawed.
Marquis’ rebuttal: A woman’s right to use her own body also does not entail her right to end someone else’s life in order to do what she wants with her body.
Since the argument against cruelty towards animals is a cogent argument, and since the argument against the deprivation of a fetuses of his FLO is analogous to the former argument, it is also a cogent argument.
A potentiality argument:
(1) If persons have the right to life, then potential persons also have the right to life.
(2) Persons have the right to life. (3) Fetuses are potential persons. ∴ (4) Fetuses have the right to life.
in rare instances, is seriously wrong.”
2
Critique of Judith Thomson’s Argument
Thomson tries to show that even if fetuses have a strong right to life, abortion is still often morally permissible.
e. It can explain why we should save the life of the suicidal.
f. It can avoid the problem of speciesism. g. It can explain why infanticide is wrong.
15
18
The potentiality argument is not cogent, since its premise (1) is questionable.
Premise (1) has the form “If Xs have the right to Y, then potential Xs also have the right to Y.” However, there are counter-examples to such a form: potential presidents do not have the right of the presidency and potential voters do not have the right to vote.
c. It can explain why present consciousness is not a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing.
14
d. It can explain why for a patient who faces impending death, and who faces a future of intractable pain and wants to die, it is not wrong for a physician to give him medicine that he knows would result in his death.