Marquis

Question 1

assumptions

Answer 1

Killing an innocent human being is prima facie seriously morally wrong

Question 2

general thesis/argument

Answer 2

Killing has a natural property that makes it wrong. That property is the loss of a ““valuable future like ours””.

1) A killing that takes away a valuable future is seriously immoral.
2) Abortion does.
3) Threfore abortion is prima facie seriously immoral.

Question 3

major examples

Answer 3

War and Self defense? :: Change his argument to say it’s not a sufficient reason, but a defeasible one

OK to kill elderly? OK to for active euthenasia against will? :: not under this reason, but another reason may apply

No distinction between murder and manslaughter :: can be introduced separately

Schoemann’s argument (1) relationships give life meaning (value)… fetus has no relationships… no valuable future (kinda a reach, but worth thinking about when defining valuable future)

Question 4

anything else

Answer 4

Similar to the argument that wanton torture is wrong: there is a natural property that is intuitive that shows why it’s seriously immoral.

Natural properties should fit into other intuitions and be better than other explanations. Marquis shows examples where it fits into our intuition (aliens, animals, children/infants) and shows it’s better than desire, dicsontinuation, and sanctitiy accounts