Meeting the Epicurean challenge: a reply to ’Abortion and Deprivation'

Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (6):380-383 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Anna Christensen argues that it is implausible to claim that abortion and murder are morally impermissible given that they deprive individuals of a future like ours. In this essay, I provide two responses to Christensen’s argument. First, I show that the premises upon which Christensen’s argument relies have implausible implications. Second, I provide a direct response to Christensen’s challenge, showing that abortion and murder are morally impermissible given that they do deprive individuals of an FLO. Doing so involves drawing a distinction between Acts of killing and Death. Christensen focuses on the latter, but it is the former that is the proper subject in the abortion debate. I conclude that Christensen has failed to provide a response to arguments—like the one presented by Marquis —that murder and abortion are impermissible given that they deprive individuals of an FLO.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-06-13

Downloads
455 (#44,956)

6 months
104 (#51,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Nicholas Colgrove
Augusta University

Citations of this work

Abortion and the Epicurean challenge.Karl Ekendahl - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (4):273-274.
Continuing conversations about abortion and deprivation.Anna Christensen - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (4):275-276.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why abortion is immoral.Don Marquis - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):183-202.
Abortion and deprivation: a reply to Marquis.Anna Christensen - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (1):22-25.
Can We Harm Furture People?Alan Carter - 2001 - Environmental Values 10 (4):429-454.

Add more references