The Substance View: A Critique (Part 3)

Bioethics 31 (4):305-312 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In my articles ‘The Substance View: A Critique’ and ‘The Substance View: A Critique,’ I raise objections to the substance view, a theory of intrinsic value and moral standing defended by a number of contemporary moral philosophers, including Robert P. George, Patrick Lee, Christopher Tollefsen, and Francis Beckwith. In part one of my critique of the substance view, I raise reductio-style objections to the substance view's conclusion that the standard human fetus has the same intrinsic value and moral standing as the standard adult human being, among other human beings. In part two, I raise objections to some of the premises invoked in support of that conclusion. Here, in part three, I raise objections to Henrik Friberg-Fernros's attempt to rebut some of the aforementioned objections.

Similar books and articles

The Substance View: A Critique.Rob Lovering - 2012 - Bioethics 27 (5):263-70.
The Ever Conscious View: A Critique.Rob Lovering - 2011 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 18 (1):90-101.
Spinoza’s Two Views of Substance.Frank Lucash - 2011 - Dialogue 50 (3):537-555.
Strange Bedfellows? Common Ground on the Moral Status Question.Shane Maxwell Wilkins - 2016 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (2):130-147.
Dualists needn’t be anti-criterialists.Duncan Matt - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (4):945-963.
Intrinsic Value, Moral Standing, and Species.Rick O’Neil - 1997 - Environmental Ethics 19 (1):45-52.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-12-23

Downloads
393 (#48,175)

6 months
104 (#35,834)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Rob Lovering
College of Staten Island (CUNY)

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references