Abortion, Time-Relative Interests, and Futures Like Ours

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):493-506 (2012)
Abstract
Don Marquis has argued most abortions are immoral, for the same reason that killing you or me is immoral: abortion deprives the fetus of a valuable future. Call this account the FLOA. A rival account is Jeff McMahan’s, time-relative interest account of the wrongness of killing. According to this account, an act of killing is wrong to the extent that it deprives the victim of future value and the relation of psychological unity would have held between the victim at the time of death and herself at a later time if she had lived. The TRIA supposedly has two chief advantages over Marquis’s FLOA. First, unlike the FLOA, the TRIA does not rely on the controversial thesis that identity is what matters in survival. Second, the TRIA yields more plausible verdicts about cases. Proponents of the TRIA use the account to argue that abortion is generally permissible, because there would be little to no psychological unity between the fetus and later selves if it lived. I argue that advocates of the TRIA have failed to establish its superiority to the FLOA, for two reasons. First, the two views are on a par with respect to the thesis that identity is what matters in survival. Second, Marquis’s FLOA does not yield the counterintuitive implications about cases that advocates of the TRIA have attributed to it, and the TRIA yields its own share of implausible judgments about cases
Keywords Abortion  Killing  Harm of death  Time-relative interest  Future like ours  Don Marquis  Jeff McMahan  David DeGrazia
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-011-9305-8
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,520
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford University Press.
Well-Being and Death.Ben Bradley - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Why Abortion is Immoral.Don Marquis - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):183-202.
Personal Identity.Derek Parfit - 1971 - Philosophical Review 80 (January):3-27.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Killing and the Time-Relative Interest Account.Nils Holtug - 2011 - Journal of Ethics 15 (3):169-189.
A Critique of “the Best Secular Argument Against Abortion”.C. Strong - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (10):727-731.
Time-Relative Interests and Abortion.S. Matthew Liao - 2007 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (2):242-256.
The Worst Time to Die.Ben Bradley - 2008 - Ethics 118 (2):291-314.
Futures of Value and the Destruction of Human Embryos.Rob Lovering - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (3):pp. 463-88.
Abortion, Persons, and Futures of Value.Donald Wilson - 2007 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):86-97.
Why I Was Never a Zygote.Robert Lane - 2003 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (1):63-83.
Abortion and the Argument From Innocence.Marvin Kohl - 1971 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 14 (1-4):147-151.
Abortion: Strong's Counterexamples Fail.Ezio Di Nucci - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):304-305.
Victims of Abortion and “Victims” of Contraception.Patrick A. Tully - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Research 30:383-398.
Added to PP index
2011-08-26

Total downloads
86 ( #61,808 of 2,180,777 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #68,026 of 2,180,777 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums