Abortion and Infanticide [Michael Tooley] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. This book has two main concerns. The first is to isolate the. text Michael Tooley’s recent book, Abortion and Infanticide Tooley advances his arguments for a liberal position with great so- phistication and in impressive. MICHAEL TOOLEY. Abortion and Infanticide’. This essay deals with the question of the morality of abortion and in- fanticide. The fundamental ethical objection.

Author: Volkis Mora
Country: Tunisia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 26 April 2011
Pages: 473
PDF File Size: 11.57 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.94 Mb
ISBN: 131-4-56621-192-3
Downloads: 77398
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akigrel

Harris – – Journal of Medical Ethics 11 4: Philip Turner – – International Philosophical Quarterly 25 4: So our treatment of many animals may be morally indefensible; we infantifide be murdering innocent persons.

Paul Langham – – Southern Journal of Philosophy 17 4: For example, suppose that I have been brainwashed or indoctrinated such that I do not desire to live.

A Defence of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing. There is some property or other, even if we do not know what it is, that adult humans possess and that endows them a right to life. Heberlein – – American Journal of Bioethics 7 1: So they do not have a right to life. Science Logic and Mathematics.

Michael Sbortion University of Colorado, Boulder. We would still want to say that I have a right to life even though I do not now desire to live. A Comment on Tooley’s Abortion and Infanticide. Rests on two pillars: Is the argument valid?

What properties must an organism possess in order to be a person i. Lawrence Torcello – – Res Publica 15 1: Between Abortion and Infanticide. It is clear that fetuses do not satisfy the SCR and, hence, do not have a right to life. But we would infantiicde want to say that I have a right to life. The SCR specifies a necessary condition infanticidde personhood. Abortion and infanticide are therefore morally permissible unless there are some other objections to these practices.

This is a purely factual question. Is the argument sound?

A comment on Tooley’s Abortion and Infanticide.

Is this claim plausible? If an organism does not satisfy the SCR, it is not a person.

Tooley also notes that it might turn out that adult animals belonging to species other than homo sapiens have a right to life. But he does not defend this position in his paper. A common argument against abortion: Devine – – Philosophy 59 Infanticide and the Liberal View on Abortion.

This is a moral question.

Tooley’s immodest proposal: Abortion and Infanticide.

That is, if an organism satisfies the SCR, does it follow that the organism is a infantixide An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.

Call this property P. Xiaofei Liu – – Utilitas 24 1: Infanticide in Applied Ethics. Assume that A and B do not have any other consequences, and that E is the only morally significant outcome of process C.

Tooley’s immodest proposal: Abortion and Infanticide.

Card – – Bioethics 14 4: Devine – – Philosophy 58 No keywords specified fix it. If this is toolej, then I do not now have a desire to live. Tooley thinks this argument is unsound. The former is a descriptive term; the latter is a moral term.