Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 199-204 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Bioethics |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 25 Jan 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- Abortion
- Animalism
- Contraception
- Future-like-ours argument
- Unrestricted composition
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'The future-like-ours argument, animalism, and mereological universalism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver