Quiz 4 - Marquis Flashcards
outline
P1: Killing is wrong, not cause of brutalization, not harm to friends/fam. Whats wrong with killing is that it deprives one of a “future like ours.” Thesis: moral presumption against killing adults as strong as moral presumption against abortion.
Explains why we hate it more than any crime: it deprives more than any other crime. Explains why we hate thought of ill youth, death-bed, they are denied future.
It’s not speciesist: only care about the live experience, not biological makeup. It, unlike some “why death is wrong” theories, doesn’t count out euthanasia (they won’t have future like ours), though it could still be wrong (brutalizes, effects on others). This theory, unlike others (self-conciousness means you ought not die), makes it clear infanticide is wrong. This theory doesn’t lead to absurd conclusion that contraception wrong - IF something denied human future conception, then it would be, but nothing is.
Therefore, the loss of future to standard fetus is at least as great a loss as the the loss of future to a standard human.
Arguments he has to refute
DESIRE ACCT: what makes killing wrong is that victim deprived of something they want. Fetus can “want” nothing, so it’s okay to kill them? Wrong, Marquis says. Objection 1: We don’t kill people who want to die; wanting life is not a necessary condition for our not killing something. Objection 2: Even if victim wants to die, not morally permissible to kill.
DISCONTINUITY ACCT: what makes killing wrong is that death discontinues victim’s experiences. Objection 1: euthanasia would not be okay in this world - killing discontinues victim’s life. that can’t be right. Therefore, it’s the life’s VALUE that has to be distinquished, not just if the life is continued or not. If we do this, and say its wrong to discontinue experiences that are good-value only, then it makes okay ending experiences that are bad-value. That can’t be right - what if their life got better at the end?
Objections to Marquis
Marquis: Losing a future like ours is necessary condition. If wrongfully killed, u have lost future like ours.
Obj: Not really. Man who becomes hermit after death: not lost future like ours. Having a future like ours is NOT a necessary condition for wrongful death. You can still have future unlike ours and be wrongfully killed.
Marquis reply: Only need the sufficiency claim. Depriving someone of a future like ours is sufficient for saying it is a wrongful death.
Obj2: What if you detached - but not killed - fetus? You would deprive it of future like ours but would it be sufficient for it to be called a wrongful death?
Obj: So we can’t disconnect from the violinist? To do so would deprive it of future like ours.
Marquis: violinist case like rape. In this instance, okay to deny someone future like ours.
Obj2: So if someone dying of starvation, my not feeding them is denying them future like ours. Morally equivalent to murder.
Marquis: Like violinist case, oveririding reasons that make it ok to deny someone future like ours - through refrainings NOT doings.
Obj3: Abortion-by-detachment is a refraining.
Obj: what if i wanted to suicide? denying myself a future like ours?
Obj: if marquis right, lots of ways each of us is denying others a future like ours.
