Applied Ethics - Don Marquis PDF

Preview

Summary

Prof Emer O'Hagan...

Description

Applied Ethics Why Abortion is Immoral – Don Marquis Pro-abortion – pro life

Anti-abortion – pro life

Abortion Law in Canada -

-

Criminal offense in Canada until 1988 Supreme Court then ruled the preventing abortion was unconstitutional Unconstitutional because “violated a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of the person” guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of her security of the person.” At the time hospital review committees dealt with requests for abortions Supreme Court did not rule that woman have inherent right to abortion Since then, abortion has been legal at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy

Marquis’s Argument, Step One: Ground Clearing -

“abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that it is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being” (140) Strategy: find best argument for wrongness of killing, then apply to case of abortion Necessary because bad arguments prevail o It is (prima facie) always wrong to take a human life (141) too broad o It is (prima facie) seriously wrong to kill only persons (or “rational agents”) too narrow o Circular arguments on both sides:  Arbitrary to hold that ‘humans count morally’ (without further argument)  Arbitrary to hold that psychological capacities make killing persons wrong (without further argument)

Marquis’s Argument, Step Two: Why Killing is Wrong -

-

-

Start with wrongness of killing that we all accept – adult humans like us o Not (essentially) wrong because bad for the killer o Not (essentially) wrong because bad for the victim’s loved ones Wrong because: it deprives “one of all 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” (144) The wrong in killing any adult human being is prima facie is the loss of their future Further support for deprivation view:

o o o o

Doesn’t arbitrarily privilege human beings Could mean the killing of some other animals is wrong Plausibly denies the sanctity of life Gets better result than personhood view

Marquis’s Argument, Step Three: Defending the View Against Objections Objection 1. Value implies a valuer - Fetuses aren’t valuers, therefore their lives aren’t valuable to them - Thus, fetuses aren’t harmed/wronged - Reply: life can be valuable and the person fails to recognize it Objection 2. No right to life without desire for continued existence - To have a right to life, need a desire to continue life - Fetuses lack that desire; therefore fetuses do not have a right to life - Reply: counterexamples of those who can’t comprehend their lives as benefit Objection 3. Embryos cannot be harmed - Embryos (lacking “mentation”) can’t be victims - Therefore, embryos can’t be harmed - Reply: Embryos can be victims *tip* for paper use Marquis’s strategy and take an objection and show how it fails

Does the Argument Show that Contraception is Wrong? -

-

Concern: contraception is preventing future value Reply: no one is being harmed in this case, therefore, not a wrong o Sperm? o Ovum? o Zygote? o There is no “non-arbitrarily identifiable subject of the loss in the case of contraception” (151) Has shown: best explanation of the wrongness of killing shows that abortion is also wrong “Morally permissible abortions will be rare indeed unless, perhaps, they occur so early in pregnancy that a fetus is not yet definitely an individual. Hence, this argument should be taken as showing that abortion is presumptively very seriously wrong, where the presumption is very strong—as strong as the presumption that killing another adult human being is wrong.” (147)

A Defense of Abortion – Judith Jarvis Thomson (1971) Thomson is rejecting the following anti-abortion argument: An Anti-abortion argument: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Persons have a right to life A fetus is a person Therefore, fetuses have a right to life therefore, killing a fetus by abortion is wrong

She argues: the move from 3 to 4 is not defensible -

accept claim that fetus is a person for the sake of argument then ask: what about the fetus’s status as person makes abortion impermissible

1. Every person has a right to life 2. The fetus is a person 3. Therefore, the fetus has a right to life 1. The mother is a person 2. Persons have a right to decide what happens in and to their bodies 3. Therefore, the mother has a right to decide what happens to the fetus -

Problem is the clash of rights Anti-abortionist assumes that the right to life wins out

Thought experiment: you have been kidnapped and a famous, unconscious violinist has been attached to you for 9 months 1. 2. 3. 4.

All persons have a right to life Violinists are persons Therefore, violinists have a right to life Therefore, unplugging the violinist is morally wrong

-

If right to life trumps right to choose what happens to and in one’s body, then wrong to unplug

Four Views of the Wrongness of Abortion: 1. Extreme View: abortion is impermissible, even to save the life of the mother - Question: If fetus and mother have right to life, then they are equal. But is we add the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, then why isn’t abortion the best option? - Killing vs. Letting Die - Tiny house, growing child example - Third person, versus first person: self-defence (mother’s perspective) 2. Less Extreme View: abortion is permissible to save mother’s life, but only if performed by mother herself - Mother and unborn child aren’t like two tenants in a house; mother owns the house - Move from “I cannot choose between two lives” to “Nobody may choose between two lives” is non-sequitur - Denies that the third party stance is unbiased - Compare one coat, two cold people (157) - If we have right to anything it is a right to out own body 3. Abortion is wrong because fetus’s right to life trumps other rights - Question: Perhaps abortion is wrong because the right to life is more basic than the mother’s right to make choices about how to spend her life? - Two ways/possibilities the right to life might trump other rights: a. “having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life” (157) needs view b. “having a right “does not include the right to be given anything, but amounts to, and only to, the right not be killed by anybody” (158) not to be killed Not claiming people don’t have a right to life 4. Right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly o We can grant that fetus has a right to life o What needs to be shown is that killing a fetus is violating the fetus’s right to life Details matter: compare pregnancy after rape (sexual assault) vs. consensual sex o Burglar, seeds floating in the window o Burglar got in so he gets to stay? o What about failures of contraception? “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body – even if one needs it for life itself.” (158) Thus, this argument establishes at most that some cases of abortion are unjust killing

Conclusions: Supererogatory vs. Morally Required - That it would be morally right for a person to X, doesn’t imply that others have a right against that person that she X o Oughts and rights are different o Brother who eats all of his own chocolates is greedy, but not unjust o Letting the violinist use your body for on hour, kind, but not morally required - Good Samaritan vs. Minimally Decent Samaritan - “no person s morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them, and this even where the sacrifices do not include life itself; we are not required to be Good Samaritans” (162) - Hasn’t argued that all abortions are morally permissible o Minimally decent Samaritanism is required...