Three Errors in the Substance View's Defense

Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 32 (3):25-58 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
According to the theory of intrinsic value and moral standing known as the “substance view,” all human beings have intrinsic value, full moral standing and, with these, a right to life. The substance view has been defended by numerous contemporary philosophers who use the theory to argue that the standard human fetus has a right to life and, ultimately, that abortion is prima facie seriously wrong. In this paper, I identify three important errors committed by some of these philosophers in their defense of the theory---what I refer to as the “extratheoretical-proposition error,” “quantitative-differences error,” and “non-normative-answer error”---and conclude that these errors render their defense inadequate.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-10-05
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
127 ( #40,736 of 2,454,490 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
38 ( #20,266 of 2,454,490 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.