Summary Of Marquis 'Argument'

In this paper, I will defend the view that abortion is not permissible. I will argue that Marquis’ argument, that abortion is impermissible, is sound. I will do this through multiple steps. First, I will present and explain Marquis’ views of why killing is wrong. Next, I will present and explain his argument that abortion is impermissible. Finally, I will criticize Marquis’ argument and provide a response to the criticism.

I will now present and explain Marquis’ views of why killing is wrong. Marquis believes that killing another human being is immoral. Marquis states that killing is primarily wrong not because of the effect on the victim’s friends or family, or the murderer, but its effect on the victim them self. When you kill, you are depriving

that person or individual all the value of their future. Killing is especially wrong because it does something that no other crime has the capability of, it deprives the victim of their entire future. Marquis states two reasons why it would be wrong to kill an adult human. First, it brutalizes the killer, and then the remaining effects on the loved ones. However, he concludes there is a reason better than both, its effect on the victim. (Notes, p 102) Marquis also gives two considerations in favor of why killing is wrong. The first is that killing is one of the worst crimes. Second, he believes dying is a terrible thing. (Notes)
Marquis gives four implications about his theory which he believes show that his theory is more credible than any other theories given by other philosophers. Marquis’ first implication explains why it is wrong to kill only biologically human beings. (p 103). Marquis’ second implication states why it is morally wrong to kill non-humans that are like us. (p 103) The third implication states that the “loss of one’s future of one’s being killed does not entail as sanctity-of-human-life theories do that active euthanasia is wrong”. (p 103) The fourth and final implication of Marquis’ theory is that it is seriously wrong to kill children and infants. (p 103)
Next, I will present and explain Marquis’ argument that abortion is not permissible.

Marquis’ argument mainly originates from his belief that killing is wrong. As I mentioned before Marquis believes that killing is primarily wrong because when an adult, child or fetus is killed you are depriving all the value of the future to that individual. (Notes) Killing a fetus deprives it of a future like ours so it is prima facie wrong. When something is “prima facie” wrong, it means that it has some morally bad feature, or some moral strike against it. (Dictionary) It can be argued however that not every action that is prima facie wrong, is wrong. For example, telling a lie is considered prima facie wrong, but it is considered morally permissible to lie in order to save a person’s life. When you kill a fetus, you are killing a lifetime of experiences. (Notes, p 104) Marquis’ view of why abortion is prima facie seriously morally wrong follows this

argument;
1. Any action which deprives an individual of a valuable future (or, a “future like ours”) is seriously prima facie morally wrong.
2. Abortion deprives the fetus of a valuable future (or, a “future like ours”).
3. Therefore, abortion is seriously prima facie morally wrong.
Marquis does not however believe that abortion is always wrong.

He lists certain cases in which he would find abortion permissible. The first is if not having the abortion is just as bad as the death of the fetus. (p 105) Second, he states it might be permissible if it is so early in pregnancy that the fetus is not considered an individual. Third, he states it may not be impermissible to kill in certain situations where the victim doesn't seem to have a valuable future. Marquis also believes that anti-abortionists moral principles are too “broad in scope”. (Notes) By saying this, he means that when anti-abortionists say it’s always wrong to take a life, they’re being too broad. (p 101) For the anti-abortionist’s principle he gives the example of a living human cancer-cell culture. If the anti-abortionist’s principle is correct it is morally wrong to end the existence of a living human cancer-cell culture. (p 101) On the other hand, Marquis believes that pro-choicers’ moral principles are too “narrow in scope”. (Notes) When a pro-choicer says that it is wrong to kill only rational agents, they’re being too narrow. He gives the example of infants and severally mentally ill individuals. The pro-choicers principles are so narrow that it does not explain why it would be morally wrong to kill infants or the mentally ill. (p

101)
I will now criticize premise number two of Marquis’ argument. A critique of Marquis argument is this; many philosophers argue that fetuses lack the mental states that it takes to be necessary for personal identity. If the fetus lacks the mental states that are necessary for it to have personal identity, then the fetus cannot have a future. Therefore, the fetus does not possess a future since it is not the same as the person who will or would have that future.
Marquis would most likely counter this critique by saying that his argument averts the concept of a person. In result to this Marquis could say that the fetus belongs to the body that it would develop from. Consequently, this could also refer to the future of the fetus which in result would make abortion impermissible.