Harm Of Deprivation: A Case Study

4.) The concept of a “harm of deprivation” would be that it means the harm of death, it doesn't harm the person by causing her to be in a bad state, it harms the person by depriving her of bad things. Being dead is not like being in pain, you cant suffer if you’re dead. Death is not an ordinary harm, an ordinary harm for example would be if someone were to break your arm, they harm you because they cause you to be in a certain state: pain. Harm of deprivation means you are depriving someone of all future goods. Even if a person does not desire some things it would deprive them of even having the option of having them in the future. Marquis’s FLO account of the wrongness of killing is based off of Marquis main claim fetuses have the …show more content…
Tooley would give the premise and conclusion: 1. Its not seriously wrong to (painlessly) kill a newborn kitten instead of injecting it with a chemical, 2. If so, its also not seriously wrong to (painlessly) kill a kitten that has been injected with the chemical (before the end of the transformation process), 3. If, so, its also not seriously wrong to (painlessly) kill a human fetus/ newborn. Marquis believes in FLO and the kitten would be sprigged of that option, he believes that it would be seriously wrong killing the accidentally injected kitten. Marquis believes it would be wrong to deprive the injected or non injected kitten of FLO. The potentially intelligent kitten premise and conclusion is: 1. The kitten that has been injected with the chemical has FLO (in the same sense a human fetus has FLO), 2. The injected kitten’s FLO doesn't make killing it wrong, 3. Therefore, the FLO account of the impermissibility of killing i false. Tooley argues it is okay to kill the non injected kitten and the injected kitten despite its FLO, because it does not have FLO until