The future-like-ours argument, animalism, and mereological universalism
Which metaphysical theories are involved—whether presupposed or implied—in Marquis’ future-like-ours (FLO) argument against abortion? Vogelstein has recently argued that the supporter of the FLO argument faces a problematic dilemma; in particular, Marquis, the main supporter of the argument, seems t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2018]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2018, Volume: 32, Issue: 3, Pages: 199-204 |
| RelBib Classification: | VA Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
unrestricted composition
B Contraception B future-like-ours argument B Abortion B Animalism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Which metaphysical theories are involved—whether presupposed or implied—in Marquis’ future-like-ours (FLO) argument against abortion? Vogelstein has recently argued that the supporter of the FLO argument faces a problematic dilemma; in particular, Marquis, the main supporter of the argument, seems to have to either (a) abandon diachronic universalism (DU) or (b) acquiesce and declare that contraception is morally wrong. I argue that the premises of Marquis’ argument can be reasonably combined with a form of unrestricted composition and that the FLO argument is better viewed as including animalism, i.e., the thesis that we are animals. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12417 |