SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Exploring Ethical Stances on Abortion and the Right to Life

deana avatar
deana
10 diapositives · 211 Views · Oct 21, 2014

Delve into philosophical perspectives by Noonan, Warren, and Marquis on abortion ethics, fetal rights, future experiences, and interest theory. Analyze arguments for the sanctity of life and the morality of abortion.

#exploring ethical stances on abortion and the right to life #exploring ethical stances on abortion and the right to life ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Exploring Ethical Stances on Abortion and the Right to Life - slide 1
01 / 10Exploring Ethical Stances on Abortion and the Right to Life
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Exploring Ethical Stances on Abortion and the Right to Life
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. From Last time • Noonan argues that because the fetus is a human being, and human beings have a right to life, then Abortion is immoral. • Warren argues that because the fetus is not a person, and only people have the right to life, abortion is not immoral • Marquis thinks both these views are flawed

  2. Problems with W. and N. • Noonan’s view seems to imply killing a permanently unconscious HB is wrong. But that seems silly. N. has a problem showing the moral relevancy to being human. • Warren has the problem that its hard to see how killing infants (and other non-persons) is wrong.

  3. Must go back to the question: why is it wrong to kill? • In non-controversial cases (killing you or me), the killing is judged wrong. Why? • M. thinks what makes killing wrong is that it causes a loss of valuable future experiences. That is why it is wrong to kill you or me. So it will usually also be wrong to kill any other entity that has a future like ours (FTL)

  4. Arguments for FLO • Fits in with our considered judgement • Explains why killing is one of the worst crimes. • Explains why people believe death is not bad for terminally ill people in severe pain. It also explains why we usually think its good to prevent suicide. Easily explains why its wrong to kill infants and intelligent space aliens.

  5. The analogy with animals argument • It is wrong to cause suffering in people because suffering is a misfortune. • Therefore, if animals suffer, it is wrong to cause them to suffer for the same reason. • Likewise: It is wrong to kill you or me because we have a valuable future. Therefore, if fetuses have a FLO, then its wrong to kill them. Usually, fetuses do have a FTO, so its wrong to kill them (usually)

  6. Potentiality • People have the right to life, therefore potential people have a right to life (this is fallacious. • Marquis: this argument does not commit this fallacy. It does not go from actual to potential, but from potential to potential

  7. The argument from interests • Fetuses are not sentient (conscious/aware) before 22 weeks. But it Is not possible for someone who is unconscious to have an interest. Therefore Fetuses prior to 22 weeks cannot have an interest in a FLO.

  8. Marquis replies that its one thing to have an interest, another to take an interest. An unconscious fetus cannot take an interest in its future, but it may still have an interest. • Temporarily unconscious people are allowed to have an interest. Why not pre-conscious individuals, like embryos?

  9. The contraception objection • If taking away a being’s future is what makes it wrong to kill, then we are obliged to never use contraception and never abstain from sex when fertile. These actions also prevent a FLOs from occuring. • M: There is no clear candidate for a being with a FTO prior to conception

  10. Questions about Marquis. • In order for someone to have a FTO, it seems that being must exist and actually have future experiences. What is it for a person to “have a future”. Does a fertilized egg have a future? • Is it true that I (you) were a fertilized egg? An unconscious embryo. The argument requires that these things actually were you (just as your five year old self was you)