Pro-Life Arguments #2

Summary

The video script explores the 'future like ours' argument in the abortion debate, presented by Don Marquis. It challenges viewers to consider the moral implications of killing based on the deprivation of a valuable future. The argument is applied to various individuals, from fetuses to comatose adults, to establish a commonality in the wrongness of killing. Despite its ingenuity, the script points out potential flaws, such as the argument's implications for sperm and ova, and the development of consciousness in fetuses, suggesting that only a unified consciousness can truly possess a valuable future.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The speaker presents a pro-life argument while identifying as pro-choice, highlighting the complexity of the debate.
• 🧠 The argument by Don Marquis is introduced, which focuses on the 'wrongness of killing' and its relation to the value of a future like ours.
• 👶 The argument is structured around comparing different individuals: a fetus, an infant, a suicidal teenager, a temporarily comatose adult, and a conscious adult.
• 🚫 There is general agreement on the right to life for all individuals except the fetus, which is the point of contention.
• 🔍 Marquis explores various reasons why killing might be wrong, ultimately focusing on the deprivation of a valuable future.
• 🌟 The 'future like ours' argument posits that killing is wrong because it deprives individuals of their future experiences and joys.
• 🤰 The argument is then applied to fetuses, suggesting that if they have a valuable future, it is wrong to kill them, implying the immorality of most abortions.
• 🤨 The speaker points out potential flaws in the argument, such as its implications for the moral status of sperm and ova.
• 🧬 The argument raises questions about when a fetus develops the capacity for desires and a unified consciousness, which are key to having a valuable future.
• 🧐 The discussion suggests that only entities with a unified consciousness might have a valuable future, which could challenge the application of the argument to early-stage fetuses.
• 🔄 The argument is critiqued for potentially classifying biological entities, like cells, as having a valuable future, which is not consistent with our understanding of consciousness and value.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented by Don Marquis in the transcript?

Don Marquis presents the 'future-like-ours' argument, which posits that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a valuable future. He suggests that if fetuses have a valuable future like other individuals such as infants, suicidal teenagers, temporarily comatose adults, and conscious adults, then killing fetuses is also wrong.

Why does the speaker find Marquis' argument fascinating despite being pro-choice?

The speaker finds Marquis' argument fascinating because it is a well-constructed and ingenious way to approach the abortion debate. It avoids common pitfalls of other pro-life arguments and provides a novel perspective by focusing on the concept of a valuable future.

What are the five different individuals Marquis asks us to consider in his argument?

Marquis asks us to consider a fetus, an infant, a suicidal teenager, a temporarily comatose adult, and a conscious adult (you or me) to explore the concept of the right to life and the wrongness of killing.

How does Marquis differentiate the wrongness of killing from the effects it has on the killer or others?

Marquis argues that killing is wrong not because it brutalizes the killer or hurts someone else, but because it takes away a valuable future from the person being killed. He emphasizes that the wrongness lies in the deprivation of future experiences and joys.

What is the 'valuable future like ours' argument, and why is it significant in the context of the abortion debate?

The 'valuable future like ours' argument, or the 'future-like-ours' argument, is significant because it attempts to establish a moral reason against killing based on the loss of a valuable future. In the context of the abortion debate, it suggests that if fetuses have a valuable future, then abortion would be morally wrong.

What are some potential problems with Marquis' argument as mentioned in the transcript?

Some potential problems include the difficulty of applying the argument to zygotes without also applying it to sperm and ova, the issue of fetuses not having desires until a certain stage of brain development, and the question of whether biology itself has a valuable future or if it's only the conscious mind that does.

Why might the argument not apply to sperm and ova according to the transcript?

The argument might not apply to sperm and ova because all it would take for them to have a valuable future is to be joined with each other, which could imply that killing either is also morally wrong, leading to a reductio ad absurdum.

What is the significance of the development of brain activity in the context of Marquis' argument?

In Marquis' argument, the development of brain activity, particularly in the cerebral cortex, is significant because it is associated with the capacity to have desires and a valuable future. Fetuses lack this capacity until around 25 to 32 weeks, which could make the majority of abortions morally permissible according to his argument.

How does the concept of 'unified consciousness' challenge Marquis' argument as presented in the transcript?

The concept of 'unified consciousness' challenges Marquis' argument by suggesting that only entities with a unified consciousness that can value something have a valuable future. Since fetuses lack this consciousness, especially before a certain stage of development, it implies that they do not have a valuable future in the same way, and thus the argument against abortion on these grounds may not hold.

What is the speaker's conclusion about Marquis' argument in the context of the abortion debate?

The speaker concludes that while Marquis' argument is smart and interesting, it has serious problems, particularly when considering the stages of fetal development and the nature of consciousness. The argument may not convincingly establish that all abortions are morally wrong.