Abortion:
Thomson presents his analogy by first introducing a “famous” violinist who for one reason or another is terminal ill. The Society of Music Lovers, after scouring all the available medical records, find that I (you) alone have the right blood type to aid him. Without further discussion the Society of Music Lovers proceeds to kidnap me (you) and connects the famous violinist’s circulatory system to that of my own. Upon awaking I become aware that I have indeed been plugged into another human being and to unplug myself from him would be murderous, unless I wait nine months. Furthermore, he explains that although it would be a great kindness to stay attached with the violinist, we are not morally obligated to do so. Thomson’s analogy …show more content…
. . Thus, the misfortune of premature death consists of the loss to us pf the future goods of consciousness” (Introducing Ethics, p. 402). Premature death, according to Marquis, prevents us from having a “natural death”; this in turn depriving us of experiences we would have experienced. Marquis then concludes that an abortion deprives the fetus a future like ours, or what he calls “FLO”. Because of this Marquis believes that abortions are seriously immoral. Marquis talks about valuable futures in his paper and uses it later to introduce the concept of FLO. The problem I have with this is statement is that fetuses don’t know they have a valuable future, fetus’ have no cognitive thinking. I would have to disagree with Marquis on the basis of his definition of valuable …show more content…
Bedau concludes, “A punishment can be an effective deterrent only of if it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet these conditions” (Introducing Ethics, p. 601). In theory this makes sense, but the problem I have with this argument is that a lot of criminals don’t think about the consequences, but rather on the mental/physical high or the payout. Bedau continues to advocate against corporal punishment by stating, “If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime” (Introducing Ethics, p. 602). This, like the earlier argument, is sound; however, to deter that of the most violent crimes is very difficult to do. A lot of criminals are away of the severity of the crimes they are committing, the problem is that they don’t care and/or they think they won’t get
Thomson presents his analogy by first introducing a “famous” violinist who for one reason or another is terminal ill. The Society of Music Lovers, after scouring all the available medical records, find that I (you) alone have the right blood type to aid him. Without further discussion the Society of Music Lovers proceeds to kidnap me (you) and connects the famous violinist’s circulatory system to that of my own. Upon awaking I become aware that I have indeed been plugged into another human being and to unplug myself from him would be murderous, unless I wait nine months. Furthermore, he explains that although it would be a great kindness to stay attached with the violinist, we are not morally obligated to do so. Thomson’s analogy …show more content…
. . Thus, the misfortune of premature death consists of the loss to us pf the future goods of consciousness” (Introducing Ethics, p. 402). Premature death, according to Marquis, prevents us from having a “natural death”; this in turn depriving us of experiences we would have experienced. Marquis then concludes that an abortion deprives the fetus a future like ours, or what he calls “FLO”. Because of this Marquis believes that abortions are seriously immoral. Marquis talks about valuable futures in his paper and uses it later to introduce the concept of FLO. The problem I have with this is statement is that fetuses don’t know they have a valuable future, fetus’ have no cognitive thinking. I would have to disagree with Marquis on the basis of his definition of valuable …show more content…
Bedau concludes, “A punishment can be an effective deterrent only of if it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet these conditions” (Introducing Ethics, p. 601). In theory this makes sense, but the problem I have with this argument is that a lot of criminals don’t think about the consequences, but rather on the mental/physical high or the payout. Bedau continues to advocate against corporal punishment by stating, “If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime” (Introducing Ethics, p. 602). This, like the earlier argument, is sound; however, to deter that of the most violent crimes is very difficult to do. A lot of criminals are away of the severity of the crimes they are committing, the problem is that they don’t care and/or they think they won’t get