Abortion has been a long debated topic. Many philosophers have tried to justify and many try to deem abortion as immoral. For my paper I will be evaluating the two theories of Earl Conee’s accounts of the effect that metaphysics has on the morality of abortion, and also evaluating David Hershenov and Koch’s critique of Conee, and explain why each philosopher has parts that I can agree with. My thesis is that although Conee has some theories that can conclude that metaphysics does not have bearing on abortion, it cannot be universalized and claimed for all metaphysical theories. Conee believes that metaphysics makes no difference to the morality of the act of abortion, in which he uses four metaphysical theories to show this, but the three I
…show more content…
Amongst other objections Conee is able to conclude that the claim of Non-reductionism would have no grounding to say that metaphysics have an effect on the morality of abortion. Another theory introduced by Parfit that Conee finds problematic is the parallel argument to Non-reductionism which is Reductionism. According to Parfit Reductionist do not believe that in every instance they either or don’t exist. The reductionist argument leaves too much room for other counter arguments and does nothing to try and correct this issue, which why Conee feels as if should not have credibility. The theory of personhood based on the writings of Chisholm is the third theory in which Conee uses to prove his thesis. The problem Conee finds with this theory is how Chisholm uses the Cartesian theory of CD. CD is defined as “S is a person meaning that S is necessarily such that it is physically possible that there is a time when S consciously thinks” (Chisholm, 631). Based on this definition Conee finds it problematic that Chisholm would leave room to say that in certain situations abortion is morally justifiable, simply because CD encompasses the fetus as being a person. To look deeper into this theory Conee introduces some of the parts of the CD argument. The one he focuses on is the account of the soul. He believes that this account as he says “undermines CD” based on is explanation that if a fetus does not yet have a soul associated with it, then aborting it would have no moral implications. Another explanation Conee gives is that the account of CD does not give any justification as to why annihilation of person is morally wrong. He believes that in order for this claim to be able to say that the metaphysical claim has moral bearing it requires more information in which the theory
Amongst other objections Conee is able to conclude that the claim of Non-reductionism would have no grounding to say that metaphysics have an effect on the morality of abortion. Another theory introduced by Parfit that Conee finds problematic is the parallel argument to Non-reductionism which is Reductionism. According to Parfit Reductionist do not believe that in every instance they either or don’t exist. The reductionist argument leaves too much room for other counter arguments and does nothing to try and correct this issue, which why Conee feels as if should not have credibility. The theory of personhood based on the writings of Chisholm is the third theory in which Conee uses to prove his thesis. The problem Conee finds with this theory is how Chisholm uses the Cartesian theory of CD. CD is defined as “S is a person meaning that S is necessarily such that it is physically possible that there is a time when S consciously thinks” (Chisholm, 631). Based on this definition Conee finds it problematic that Chisholm would leave room to say that in certain situations abortion is morally justifiable, simply because CD encompasses the fetus as being a person. To look deeper into this theory Conee introduces some of the parts of the CD argument. The one he focuses on is the account of the soul. He believes that this account as he says “undermines CD” based on is explanation that if a fetus does not yet have a soul associated with it, then aborting it would have no moral implications. Another explanation Conee gives is that the account of CD does not give any justification as to why annihilation of person is morally wrong. He believes that in order for this claim to be able to say that the metaphysical claim has moral bearing it requires more information in which the theory