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...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2018]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Jahr: 2018, Band: 32, Heft: 3, Seiten: 199-204 |
| RelBib Classification: | VA Philosophie |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
unrestricted composition
B Contraception B future-like-ours argument B Abortion B Animalism |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Zusammenfassung: | 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 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12417 |