PHIL 1030 Exam 1 (anti-abortion argument)

marquis big take away

‘why abortion is immoral’

marquis tries to show…

that p1 of A.A.A. is true

marquis assumes

p2 of AAA

marquis focuses on…

“typical abortion” (no rape pregnancies; “life of mother” cases)

bad answers to why it is generally wrong to kill one of us

1. brutalization of killer

2. sorrow of friends and family

good answers to why it is generally wrong to kill one of us

deprives someone of a valuable future

• FLO: future like ours

FLO account (argument)

p1) if x has a valuable future/FLO then x has a RTL (seriously prima facie wrong to kill)

p2) typical fetus have FLO

p3) typical fetus have RTL

support for FLO account

1. explains why killing is considered one of the worst crimes

2. explains why we believe pre-mature death is “tragic”

implications for FLO account

1. wrongness of killing has nothing to do w/human DNA

2. might apply to some non-human animals

3. the account doesn’t entail that active euthanasia is wrong

4. entails that is S.P.F.W. to kill infants and small children

5. applies to typical fetus

if x has a FLO,

then x has a right

sufficient condition

x is a sufficient condition for y when the presence of x guarantees presence of y

“if x, then y” is true…

then x is sufficient condition for y and y is a necessary condition for x

necessary condition

y is a necessary condition of x when y must be present for x to be present

marquis: the desire account

cannot be merely a sufficient condition of a thing’s having RTL

if x has a strong desire to live,

then x has a RTL

• consistent w/ the FLO account

for desire account to be compatible with…

the FLO account, the desire account must be necessary condition of have RTL

desire account

if x has a RTL, then x has a strong desire to live

valid for desire account (not marquis)

p1) if x has RTL, x has a strong desire to live

p2) x doesn’t have strong desire to live

p3)x doesn’t have RTL

objections to desire account

1. suicidal teen (still wrong to kill him and has a RTL)

2. life is not valuable bc we desire it; we desire life bc it is (usually) valuable

discontinuation account

• if x has a RTL, then x has (at present) experiences’ that can be continued

• what makes it p.f.s.w to kill one of us is that it wants our desire to continue living

• if the desire to life is MERELY a sufficient condition of having a RTL, then it is compatible w/FLO account

• if x has FLO, then x has a RTL. if x has a desire to life, then x has a RTL

discontinuation account will say:

1. if x has desire to life, then x has RTL

2. if x has RTL, then x has a desire to live

marquis discontinuation account:

for desire account to work it’s not enough to show that having a desire to live is enough to give smtg RTL (sufficient condition) they must also show that have a desire to live is the only way to have a RTL (necessary condition)

alternative account

have to explain why it’s wrong to kill us, and show why that explanation doesn’t apply to fetus

alternative account (valid)

p1) if x has a RTL, then x has a strong desire to live

p2) fetus does not have strong desire to live

p3) fetus does not have a RTL

alternative account (invalid)

p1) if x has a desire to live then x has RTL

p2) fetus doesn’t have desire to live

c) fetus doesn’t have RTl

discontinuation account points

1. cannot merely be a sufficient condition if x has is subject of continuous experience, the x has RTL

   • bc 1 is consistent w/ FLO— so the discontinuation account must also claim

2. if x has a RTL, then x is subject of continuous experiences

discontinuation account must be…

“x is a subject of valuable continuous experiences”

contraception objection

doesn’t contraception deprive smtg of a FLO?

marquis response to contraception objection

No. only if we were merely required to max the # of things that have a FLO would contraceptive be immoral (this is false)

marquis basic argument

1. abortion causes fetus loss of valuable future (FLO)

2. it is p.f.s.w. to cause the loss of a valuable future

3. abortion is p.f.s.w.

loss:

1. moral loss

2. nonmoral loss

moral loss

taking smtg that belongs to another

• the use of moral loss in 1 makes argument circular

nonmoral loss

‘losing a race’

• nonmoral loss makes 2 look false`

judith jarvis thomson

why believe p2?

thomson argument for p2

p1) all fetus have a RTL

p2) abortion kills fetus

p3) its is always a rights violation to kill smtg with RTL

c) abortion violates fetus’ RTL

violinist example for thomson

counter example but there are other self-defense capital justifies war