Philosophy is often pretty pointless. We do what we do because we just do it. No real reason. No deep thought involved. Indeed, when we do think about it we usually end up drunk trying to stop thinking about it.
Don Marquis' pro-life argument shows us why philosophy goes nowhere--and worse. Marquis is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas. He wants to make a secular case against abortion. So he needs to show what it is about abortion that is so fucking wrong.
Marquis thinks he's found it in this: '[w]hat makes killing wrong is...its effect on the victim. The loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one's life deprives us of all the experiences, activities, projects and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily, because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.' And what is good for the goose and gander is good for the gosling, too. Abortion kills a fetus which also has a future of value; and so, because it takes away this valuable future it is also wrong. Seems airtight, non? Marquis thinks so.
The problem is his argument unravels once we look at his fundamental assumption. Marquis says: 'What makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his...future.' Yes, on the face. Well, this facial doesn't stick.
Marquis assumes that life is good and valuable--and that this fact doesn't need to be proven or defended. What if he is wrong?
Pessimists like Arthur Schopenhauer, Julius Bahnsen, Peter Wessel Zapffe and Thomas Ligotti all argue that life is horrible, meaningless and painful. What if they are right? What does that do to arguments about 'valuable futures' and such?
So Don, what if life isn't worth living? What if it would have been better to have never been born?
Need I say more? Drink up me hearties!
No comments:
Post a Comment