Read more Read less. Special offers and product promotions Buy this product and stream 90 days of Amazon Music Unlimited for free. E-mail after purchase. Conditions apply. Learn more. Customers who viewed this item also viewed. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes. Jonathan Bennett. Knowing and Seeing: Groundwork for a new empiricism.
Locke Ontology V 2: Arguments of the Philosophers. Michael Ayers. Customers who bought this item also bought. Hume Arguments of the Philosophers. Barry Stroud. Problems from Locke. See all free Kindle reading apps. Don't have a Kindle? Product details Paperback: pages Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition 2 Dec. Review "Michael Ayers's magisterial "Locke is the philosophical work of the year and, no doubt, of the decade. No customer reviews.
Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Unlimited One-Day Delivery and more.
Some opponents of Warren's view believe that what matters morally is not that one be actually exhibiting complex mental qualities of the sort she identifies, but rather that one have in oneself a self-directed genetic propensity or natural capacity to develop such qualities. In other words, what is crucial is that one be the kind of entity or substance that, under the right conditions, actively develops itself to the point of exhibiting Warren's qualities at some point in its life, even if it does not actually exhibit them because of not having developed them yet embryo, infant or having lost them severe Alzheimer's.
Because human beings do have this natural capacity—and indeed have it essentially —therefore on this view they essentially have a right to life: they could not possibly fail to have a right to life. Grounding the right to life in essential natural capacities rather than accidental developed capacities is said to have several advantages. Some defenders of Warren-style arguments grant that these problems have not yet been fully solved,  but reply that the "natural capacities" view fares no better.
It is argued, for example, that as human beings vary significantly in their natural cognitive capacities some are naturally more intelligent than others , and as one can imagine a series or spectrum of species with gradually diminishing natural capacities for example, a series from humans down to amoebae with only the slightest differences in natural capacities between each successive species , therefore the problems of arbitrariness and inequality will apply equally to the "natural capacities" view.
Some critics reject the "natural capacities" view on the basis that it takes mere species membership or genetic potential as a basis for respect in essence a charge of speciesism ,  or because it entails that anencephalic infants and the irreversibly comatose have a full right to life. Respondents to this criticism argue that the noted human cases in fact would not be classified as persons as they do not have a natural capacity to develop any psychological features. A seminal essay by Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it deprives the embryo of a valuable future.
The harm consists in the fact that "when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future":  I am deprived of all the valuable "experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments" that I would otherwise have had. A consequence of this argument is that abortion is wrong in all the cases where killing a child or adult with the same sort of future as the embryo would be wrong.
So for example, if involuntary euthanasia of patients with a future filled with intense physical pain is morally acceptable, aborting embryos whose future is filled with intense physical pain will also be morally acceptable. But it would not do, for example, to invoke the fact that some embryo's future would involve such things as being raised by an unloving family, since we do not take it to be acceptable to kill a five-year-old just because her future involves being raised by an unloving family.
- Thomas Nagel.
- Arguments of the Philosophers - Routledge.
- The Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism;
Similarly, killing a child or adult may be permissible in exceptional circumstances such as self-defense or perhaps capital punishment ; but these are irrelevant to standard abortions. Marquis's argument has prompted several objections.
Locke (Arguments of the Philosophers): mudywehy.tk: Michael Ayers: Books
The contraception objection claims that if Marquis's argument is correct, then, since sperm and ova or perhaps a sperm and ovum jointly have a future like ours, contraception would be as wrong as murder; but as this conclusion is it is said absurd—even those who believe contraception is wrong do not believe it is as wrong as murder—the argument must be unsound. One response  is that neither the sperm, nor the egg, nor any particular sperm-egg combination, will ever itself live out a valuable future: what will later have valuable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments is a new entity , a new organism , that will come into existence at or near conception; and it is this entity, not the sperm or egg or any sperm-egg combination, that has a future like ours.
As this response makes clear, Marquis's argument requires that what will later have valuable experiences and activities is the same entity , the same biological organism, as the embryo. On certain theories of personal identity generally motivated by thought experiments involving brain or cerebrum transplants , each of us is not a biological organism but rather an embodied mind or a person in John Locke 's sense that comes into existence when the brain gives rise to certain developed psychological capacities.
Follow the author
The success of Marquis's argument thus depends on one's favored account of personal identity. The interests objection claims that what makes murder wrong is not just the deprivation of a valuable future, but the deprivation of a future that one has an interest in. The embryo has no conscious interest in its future, and so the objection concludes to kill it is not wrong. The defender of Marquis-style arguments may, however, give the counterexample of the suicidal teenager who takes no interest in his or her future, but killing whom is nonetheless wrong and murder. The equality objection claims that Marquis's argument leads to unacceptable inequalities.
But as this is strongly counterintuitive most people believe all killings are equally wrong, other things being equal , Marquis's argument must be mistaken. Some writers have concluded that the wrongness of killing arises not from the harm it causes the victim since this varies greatly among killings , but from the killing's violation of the intrinsic worth or personhood of the victim. The psychological connectedness objection claims that a being can be seriously harmed by being deprived of a valuable future only if there are sufficient psychological connections—sufficient correlations or continuations of memory, belief, desire and the like—between the being as it is now and the being as it will be when it lives out the valuable future.
A defence of this objection is likely to rest, as with certain views of personal identity , on thought experiments involving brain or cerebrum swaps; and this may render it implausible to some readers.
- locke arg philosophers volume 18 arguments of the philosophers Manual;
- Saved: Cancer, Katrina Dogs and Me;
- The Green and Virtual Data Center!
- Das C++ Kompendium: STL, Objektfabriken, Exceptions (eXamen.press) (German Edition).
In her well-known article " A Defense of Abortion ", Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is in some circumstances permissible even if the embryo is a person and has a right to life, because the embryo's right to life is overtrumped by the woman's right to control her body and its life-support functions. Her central argument involves a thought experiment. Imagine, Thomson says, that you wake up in bed next to a famous violinist. He is unconscious with a fatal kidney ailment; and because only you happen to have the right blood type to help, the Society of Music Lovers has kidnapped you and plugged your circulatory system into his so that your kidneys can filter poisons from his blood as well as your own.
If he is disconnected from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will recover and can be safely disconnected.
Thomson takes it that you may permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will kill him. The right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right.
Similarly, even if the fetus has a right to life, it does not have a right to use the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions against her will; and so aborting the pregnancy is permissible in at least some circumstances. However, Thomson notes that the woman's right to abortion does not include the right to directly insist upon the death of the child, should the fetus happen to be viable, that is, capable of surviving outside the womb. Critics of this argument generally agree that unplugging the violinist is permissible, but claim there are morally relevant disanalogies between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion.
The most common objection is that the violinist scenario, involving a kidnapping , is analogous only to abortion after rape. In most cases of abortion, it is said, the pregnant woman was not raped but had intercourse voluntarily, and thus has either tacitly consented to allowing the embryo to use her body the tacit consent objection  , or else has a duty to sustain the embryo because the woman herself caused it to stand in need of her body the responsibility objection .
Other common objections turn on the claim that the embryo is the pregnant woman's child whereas the violinist is a stranger the stranger versus offspring objection  ; that abortion kills the embryo whereas unplugging the violinist merely lets him die the killing versus letting die objection  ; or, similarly, that abortion intentionally causes the embryo's death whereas unplugging the violinist merely causes death as a foreseen but unintended side-effect the intending versus foreseeing objection;  cf the doctrine of double effect. Defenders of Thomson's argument—most notably David Boonin  —reply that the alleged disanalogies between the violinist scenario and typical cases of abortion do not hold, either because the factors that critics appeal to are not genuinely morally relevant, or because those factors are morally relevant but do not apply to abortion in the way that critics have claimed.
Critics have in turn responded to Boonin's arguments. Alternative scenarios have been put forth as more accurate and realistic representations of the moral issues present in abortion. John Noonan proposes the scenario of a family who was found to be liable for frostbite finger loss suffered by a dinner guest whom they refused to allow to stay overnight, although it was very cold outside and the guest showed signs of being sick.
It is argued that just as it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for the guest to protect them from physical harm, it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation of a fetus. Other critics claim that there is a difference between artificial and extraordinary means of preservation, such as medical treatment, kidney dialysis, and blood transfusions, and normal and natural means of preservation, such as gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding.
They argue that if a baby was born into an environment in which there was no replacement available for her mother's breast milk, and the baby would either breastfeed or starve, the mother would have to allow the baby to breastfeed. But the mother would never have to give the baby a blood transfusion, no matter what the circumstances were. The difference between breastfeeding in that scenario and blood transfusions is the difference between gestation and childbirth on the one hand, and using your body as a kidney dialysis machine on the other. One argument against the right to abortion appeals to the secular value of a human life.
The thought is that all forms of human life, including the fetus, are inherently valuable because they are connected to our thoughts on family and parenthood, among other natural aspects of humanity. Thus, abortion can express the wrong attitudes towards humanity in a way that manifest vicious character.
This view is represented by some forms of Humanism and by moral philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse in her widely anthologized article "Virtue Theory and Abortion". For example, she says, "Love and friendship do not survive their parties' constantly insisting on their rights, nor do people live well when they think that getting what they have a right to is of preeminent importance; they harm others, and they harm themselves.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article includes a list of references , but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. March Learn how and when to remove this template message. Further information: Beginning of human personhood. See also: Artificial womb. See also: Virtue ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry. The same point is made in Tooley ; Singer and ; Pojman ; and elsewhere.