9.25Problems with Warren (continued): Rights of people vs. non-people- Warren claims that if the rights of a person and the rights of a non-person conflict, then the rights of the person take precedence- However, this is not obviously true:o I have the right to swing my arms wildly in front of me but if it causes me to kill a fetus, then I Shouldn’t do it, even if this restricts my freedomo This shows that in some cases the rights of people do not trump that of a non-person- This shows that while it is relevant whether we are dealing with persons or not, this cannot be the whole story- If, as Warren grants, that non-people can have rights, then in some circumstances their rights can trump people’s rights- What those circumstances are may depend on the reasons behind the acts of people – if a person has an irrational desire to have an abortion, then in that case it may be immoral to abort- Warren lists abilities that one should possess in order to qualify as a person. But is it necessarily the case that if one does not have the abilities, one does not count as a person?o What about potential people? Potential people can come to have these abilities with time- Response to problems:o Why would we want to assign the same moral status to an entity that has the potential to be a person and a person?o The fact that we value persons is not reason to value non-persons, even if they are potentially persons- One can ask why these capacities are morally relevant…o One can respond that they make moral responsibility and reasoning possibleo However, one can argue that they are only necessary for having duties, not rights. Something without them might have the right to life and denying this merely begs the question- We can still accept Warren’s account by deciding that our beliefs (intuitions) about infanticide were wrong and it is actually permissibleo But why not decide that Warren’s account of personhood and its implication about abortion is wrong? Why gang up on our beliefs about infanticide?o In such conflict cases where we wonder which way to go, we ought to pick the beliefs to which are less committed and throw it outMarquis:- Main Claim: “abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral…it is in the same moralcategory as killing an innocent adult human being”- Standoffs between anti- and pro-abortionists:o Anti-abortionists hold with good reason that pro-abortionist principles concerning killingare too narrow to be acceptableo Pro-abortionists hold with good reason that anti-abortionist principles concerning killingare too broad to be acceptable - If it is legitimate for pro-abortionist to demand anti-abortionists why fetuses are people, it is also legitimate for anti-abortionists to demand pro-abortionists why fetuses are not people- Suggests that to avoid these standoffs one concerns oneself with why we think that killing is wrong in the first place - Preliminaries:o Assumption: It is typically seriously wrong to kill adult human beings9.25o What makes it wrong is that killing us deprives us of the value of our future. It deprives us not only of what we value now and would have, given our current predilections, valued later, but also of what we would have come to value- Implications:o Takes the following implications to bolster his account: Explains why it is seriously wrong to kill children and infants Allows aliens and robots to have a right to life It doesn’t prejudge the animal rights debate (some animals do not have the right to life) It doesn’t prejudge the euthanasia debate (it may be moral in some cases)- The Argument:o P1: Depriving a being of the value of a future like ours makes killing it wrong.o P2: Killing a fetus deprives it of the value of a future like ours.o C: Therefore, killing a fetus is wrong.- Clarifications:o Marquis wants to establish that the vast majority of abortions are wrongo To do that he does not need to show that a necessary condition for the wrongness of killing some being is that it deprives it of the value of a future like ourso He needs merely to show that a sufficient condition for the wrongness of killing some being is that it deprives it of its value- The crucial moral category is Marquis’s argument is not that of a person o Vast majority of abortions are wrongo Not arguing id killing is wrong then this is deprived of the value of a future like ourso His position if being deprived of value of the future like ours, then its killing is wrong. Argue against himCan be attacked by pointing out that there are cases where one cane be deprived of an FLO wherethat would not be wrong- brings out the best consequences.Argue the desires: When killing a being is wrong then there is interference with the beings desire to go on living. If your were wronged then you are a victimIf you are a victim then you have sentienceFetuses don’t have sentienceFrom P2 and P3 a fetus is not a victimC then P1 an dP4 a fetus cannot be wronged ( so abortion is permissible) this is invalid. Contraception….kills the sperm cells before the go into the ovumIn preventing the conception of a being, one is cutting off the possible fetusIf the one is cutting off a possible future, then one is doing something morally wrongTherefor contraception is impermissible. There is not particular being wose future is being cut offIncase of contraception we have the following deprived of FLO:And the indiviidula consisting of the spermcell and ovum to
View Full Document
Unlocking...