Don Marquis's argument against abortion based on future deprivation

¶ … Moral Philosophy

First Reading: Why Abortion is Immoral

Author Don Marquis's view justifies the immorality of abortion on identical grounds with that of the immorality of killing an adult human being. Akin to killing an adult human which is prima facie wrongful as it denies him of a future life, killing a fetus also deprives it of a future life. Hence to Don, the supporters of abortion are inconsistent when they advocate abortion but consider killing an adult a crime when both killing a fetuses as well as killing an adult both amounts to killing. Anti-abortionists are quite right when they maintain that life comes into being from the time of conception or that fetuses morphologically appear like babies or that the genetic code has already been imprinted on them which is both necessary as well as sufficient for being human and putting forth any claim is enough to demonstrate that abortion with certain exceptions tantamount to murder. Therefore the premises for demonstrating that abortion is immoral must make us not merely believe but also understand why killing adult human beings like us are wrong.

2): The author in the essay argues that save for rare cases; abortion is seriously immoral and akin to killing an innocent adult human being. However, he also states that people who support abortion defend their act by compartmentalizing that fetuses are not individuals or rational agents and also not social beings hence these claims are enough to demonstrate that abortion should never be construed as a wrongful killing. The opposing claims of both camps i.e. The anti-abortionist and the supporter of abortion makes an impasse which has to be surmounted as regards the principles of morality involved. The anti-abortionist defends his turf on moral principles entailing the wrongness of killing which tends to be broad in its applicability such that fetuses at an early stage of pregnancy will be covered under it. The difficulty with accepting broad principles, results in accepting a lot too much.

Similarly the pro-choicer looks to find a moral principle regarding the wrongness of killing which becomes narrow in scope so as to exclude fetuses from their purview. Hence narrow principles have an inherent flaw that they do not embrace enough premises. Thus a stalemate comes about in the form that the anti-abortionist charges fairly justifiably that pro-choice principles regarding killing are very narrow to be acceptable; the pro-choicer holds that anti-abortionists principles regarding killings are very broad to be acceptable. Hence this demonstrates that a necessary condition of resolving the abortion disagreement is more theoretical account of the wrongfulness of killing. In the ultimate analysis if we just believe, but fail to comprehend as to why killing adult human beings like us is wrong, how could we plausibly demonstrate that abortion is ether immoral or permissible?

A possible answer to this problem could be found out by looking at oneself whose absence would put untold miseries on our dependents i.e. our family. However, the greatest loss will be to the victim as loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer denying him of all the experiences, performances, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one's future. This is the loss of one's biological life which might not be valuable at the moment but will be valued when a person grows old and he depends on those values when his capacities decline or changes. Therefore wreaking this loss on a person makes the killing of a person wrongful. Therefore what renders killing any adult human being wrong on the face of it is the loss of his or her future.

Besides, the author also defends the wrongness of killing in his essay which he extends to children and infants at it are presumed that they too have futures or values. As it is considered to be wrong to kill defenseless tiny babies, it is crucial that a theory of the wrongness of killing is responsible for this. The claim that the fundamental wrong-making feature of the killing is the loss to the victim of the value of the future accounts for the wrongness of taking the life of young children and infants directly, it renders the wrongness of such acts as obvious as we really believe it is. Thus, it appears that this value of 'future similar to ours' theory of the wrongfulness of the killing shares the strengths of both sanctity of life and personhood accounts at the same time avoiding the weakness of both. Apart from that, it interlocks with a central inkling that makes killing wrong.

3): The strongest argument of Don Marquis regarding the immorality of abortion draws on the parallel that the primary wrong-making aspect of a killing is the personal loss to the victim of the value of its future has apparent outcomes for the ethics of abortion. The future of a normally growing fetus contains a set of experiences, projects, performances and other acts which are same with the futures of adult human being and are same with the futures of young children. As the cause, which is sufficient to elucidate the reason why it is wrongful to kill human being following the time of birth is a reason which is also applicable to fetuses as well. Hence, I am in complete agreement with this view that abortion is severely a morally wrongful act. The debate to the conclusion that abortion is basically a wrongful act proceeded independent of the notion of person or potential person or any equivalent.

It is wrong regardless of any circumstances as the loss of the future to a normal fetus, in the event of it being killed, is, nevertheless, at least as huge a loss as the loss of the future to a normal human being who is killed, abortion, similar to normal killing, can be justified merely by the most convincing arguments. The loss of a person's life is definitely the gravest disaster which can happen to someone. Apparently, abortion could be defended in some situations only if the loss resulting in failing to abort would be as immense. I have no disagreement on this serious issue with the author on the entire issue of immorality of abortion as I personally feel that abortion is severely a wrongful act, as wrongful as killing another human being.

Third Reading: Feeding the Hungry

1): The author Jan Narveson reserves a strong view regarding the politicization of starvation and how corrupt Governments use them to further their end. Starvation results due to bad functioning of governments, instead of nature's inability to cope with the ever-growing population. Starvation can be construed as a form of killing and definitely is included under the same parameters that any other process of killing is liable to. However when the problem is plague, crops fails due to famine, or just dearth of adequate knowledge, and then the blame is not put on anybody. At this point the haves must come forward to the rescue of the have-nots and if we don't we should be held guilty.

2): The author makes us aware about the finer points of distinction between duties of justice and duties of charity. Duty towards justice comes from compulsion whereas; charity comes from the heart of the giver with the desire to benefit others since they need it. When we take away the motive of a Samaritan from the act of charity, we can define charity as simply doing well for others. At this point according to the author charity takes the shape of compulsion which is definitely not true as far as the definition of charity goes. But instances of compulsion are found where the Government in order to undertake an equitable distribution puts taxes on the rich to use the money for the use of the poor for their socio-economic benefit, education and the like. At the point while we question, then, on which camp of the moral divide we should place feeding the hungry- unenforceable charity, to be left to personal consciences, or enforceable justice, maybe to be addressed by the Governments which is a real moral issue and also an important one.

It is not the question that feeding the hungry is not just something we should do, rather something we must do as an issue of justice. And the latter issue is the focal point of this argument. This brings us to the fundamental question regarding, are we duty bound to do justice to feed the starving? From this comes the second point, if there is not, then is there a basic need of charity that we will be disposed to perform in that manner, and if such how strong is that need. We can start with the question whether it is unjust to allow other to starve to death. According to Rachel, he sees no fundamental distinction between killing and letting die. Secondly, several people insist that feeding the hungry is the duty of the justice although we if we do not accept the equivalence of killing and letting to die. Thus they require separate arguments, in favor of a positive right to be fed.

The two divergent opinions need very different discussions. Starving and letting to starve are particular cases of killing and letting to die. In order to be certain we often attribute causality to human inaction. However, the definite instances of such attribution are those in which the agent in question possessed an antecedent responsibility to perform the thing in question. Moreover definitely we may agree that in case we have a duty to feed the poor and fail in our duty to feed them, then we are at fault. Besides, what is our stand that killing and letting die are morally on the same platform. Once again, there is a risk of begging the question which is if we have a duty to feed the hungry and we do not, then in that case refraining from doing might be morally equivalent to killing them. However once again, the outcome definitely does not follow in case we do not have that duty, which is in question. Among the people who consider that we do not have fundamental duties to mutually take care of one another as a mark of fraternity, but just duties to refrain from killing and things similar to that will deny that they are morally equal.

3): As regards the evaluation of the author's argument, it appears correct when the author states that people should be given freedom to lead their lives by preventing interference among them. Everybody should mutually help one another but up to a reasonable point so that he himself is not reduced to breaking point. Hence it is agreeable that people will be prepared to help out each other when the necessity of help is of urgent nature and when its giving is not very difficult for us. The inclination and wish to do good for others is a virtue. Moreover it is a moral virtue because we all possess an interest in the usual attainment of this quality. As simple as it is for anyone to kill anyone else, so anyone can benefit anyone else; and till, as the personal cost of taking part in the general scheme of helpfulness is less, i.e. absolutely less compared to the return in that case it is worth it.

However, it is not justifiable to drag matters beyond that such that one's own near and dear ones curse you for shifting the attention they deserve to somebody else. Hence it is imperative that an ideal situation is to strike a reasonable balance and maintain it. However in the next part of the analysis, one would not agree with the author when he maintains that starvation in the present world is independent of the world population and depletion of the resources. But a careful introspection would make it clear that definitely the world population is a factor for poverty and there have been widespread depletion of resources, destruction of forests and habitats of animals, damage to the biodiversity all of which has put a telling effect of the environment causing widespread climate changes leading to food shortages. Finally however, the author gives an eye-opener about the politics of starvation which is definitely agreeable. Citing the example of Nicaragua where in some point of time and China some years ago, the power politics prevailing in these countries damaged the price structure of food stuffs to ensure their electoral arithmetic are not disturbed.

Instances have come to light when corrupt officials have sold the food grains outside which are meant to be distributed to the starving citizens. Besides, the concept of Western charity has also come under scanner, where countries have been forced to depend on them for years together. Due to this the home countries lost their impetus and self-sufficiency which they enjoyed in earlier times before the advent of Western gains like 'democracy' helped incompetent Governments to disrupt the food supply. There are other examples where Governments in Ethopia and Somalia evict people from their lands, damage their crops and combine acts of savagery of engineering disruptions of Western aids in reaching the intended people. The author rightly points out that these are man made famines and not crop shortages or failures as it is spelt out to be by these Governments. The American Peace Corps and CUSO engage themselves in distributing voluntary aid to Third World countries.

However the extent to which these organization succeed is difficult to answer, particularly because the basic question of what constitutes 'help' is difficult to spell out. Society is now in transition. Assisting people who are strikingly different from us is never an easy matter. It is understandable what the motives were when the Missionaries who came into the lives of Africans instead of advocating them about limiting the family size, the families found that more children have been born and diseases that were hitherto unknown in the regions were having diseases which their immune system were ill prepared. This is definitely a thought provoking question for thinking people. These efforts could very well bring havoc for people we are attempting to help out as also impose irrational costs on us. It is impossible to find a workable solution when the ground realities are not known and tackling the issues of the people vastly different from ourselves, ignorance will definitely trouble our endeavors. Feeding the hungry and caring for the miserable is the appropriate thing to do and it is morally advocated. Our charitable character can definitely address the problem which cause due to natural calamity, but there is absolutely no control on man-made famines which are engineered for petty selfish gains.