Three Errors in the Substance View's Defense

Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 32 (3):25-58 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Author's Profile

Rob Lovering
College of Staten Island (CUNY)

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-09-30

Downloads
383 (#40,209)

6 months
67 (#56,900)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?