Abortion and Infanticide [Michael Tooley] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This book has two main concerns. The first is to isolate the. text Michael Tooley’s recent book, Abortion and Infanticide Tooley advances his arguments for a liberal position with great so- phistication and in impressive. MICHAEL TOOLEY. Abortion and Infanticide’. This essay deals with the question of the morality of abortion and in- fanticide. The fundamental ethical objection.
|Published (Last):||12 November 2008|
|PDF File Size:||19.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Call this property P.
We would still want to say that I have right to life. Tooley thinks this argument is unsound.
An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity. Tooley argues that these alternative proposals are implausible. Is this argument valid? Science Logic and Mathematics. If an organism does not satisfy the SCR, it is not a person. Card – – Bioethics 14 4: Jeff McMahan – – Utilitas 19 2: A Comment on Tooley’s Abortion and Infanticide.
Ethical Veganism, Virtue, and Greatness of the Soul.
A Defence of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. This article has no associated abstract. Heberlein – – American Journal of Bioethics 7 infantickde This is a moral question.
A comment on Tooley’s Abortion and Infanticide.
Devine – – Philosophy 58 A common argument against abortion: Is this claim plausible? Separating the Infant From the Fetus. Abortion in Applied Ethics. So they do not have a right to life. Is the argument valid? If this is correct, then I do not now have a desire to live. Lack of desire due to temporary unconsciousness. There is no morally significant difference between intentionally performing B and intentionally refraining from performing A.
Is the argument sound? A has a right to X only if A desires X or A lacks such a desire, but the lack of desire is due to temporary emotional imbalance, temporary unconsciousness, or brainwashing indoctrination, etc.
Michael Tooley, Abortion and infanticide – PhilPapers
Infanticide in Applied Ethics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 1: Request removal from index. Paul Langham – – Southern Journal of Philosophy 17 4: Xiaofei Liu – – Utilitas 24 1: Rests on two pillars: Abortion and infanticide are therefore morally permissible unless there are some other objections to these practices.
Lawrence Torcello – – Res Publica 15 1: Sign in Create an account. Fiona Woollard – – Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 3: Knfanticide organism has a right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity. But he does not too,ey this position in his paper. But is this claim plausible?
There is some property amd other, even if we do not know what it is, that adult humans possess and that endows them a right to life. If This Is My Body tpoley It is clear that fetuses do not satisfy the SCR and, hence, do not have a right to life.
Lack of desire due to brainwashing or indoctrination.
Andd Tooley University of Colorado, Boulder. It is less clear at what point infants satisfy the SCR. A key step in this argument is premise 3the claim that one has a right to X only if one desires X.