The future‐like‐ours argument, animalism, and mereological universalism

Bioethics 32 (3):199-204 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Which metaphysical theories are involved—whether presupposed or implied—in Marquis’ future-like-ours 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 abandon diachronic universalism or 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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-01-25

Downloads
18 (#201,463)

6 months
101 (#168,804)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrea Sauchelli
Lingnan University

Citations of this work

Animalism, Abortion, and a Future Like Ours.Andrea Sauchelli - 2019 - The Journal of Ethics 23 (3):317-332.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Persons, Animals, Ourselves.Paul F. Snowdon (ed.) - 2014 - New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Maximality and microphysical supervenience.Theodore Sider - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):139-149.
Could a zygote be a human being?John Burgess - 2008 - Bioethics 24 (2):61-70.

View all 10 references / Add more references