David Boonin Argument Analysis

The article by Michael Binyon and the cartoon by Tom Toles make the claim that President Obama did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his presidency. Toles and Binyon share similar viewpoint, so they approach the subject in similar ways. Both of the speakers describe President Obama’s lack of accomplishments at the time he received the award. They both appear to pose strong arguments about this subject; however, the article by Michael Binyon seems to be stronger than the cartoon. Even though both provide effective arguments about the topic, “Comment: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize” seems to pose the strongest argument because Michael Binyon was able to develop his claim and effectively impact his audience using background information, evoking strong emotions, and comparing President Obama to deserving winners of the past.

Gerald Graff is a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Graff, in his essay, emphasizes the importance for instructors to teach and increase enjoyable courses that students shall truly understand. Graff assures that all kids have hidden intellectualism trying to emerge from within, and as a teacher he feels partly accountable to help those kids develop their competencies in educational work. The essence of Graff’s argument is for students to know that intellectualism lurks within them all, and they need to implement their potential at school. Furthermore, he enriches the essay based totally on his own life experiences, along with his hidden intellectualism, while he attended school during the anti-intellectualism

A strong written argument is supported by several methods that are used to legitimize the author’s position as well as to discredit any counterargument brought forth. The techniques include introducing a counterargument and weakening it’s position with evidence. Providing legitimate academic research such as statistics as well as anecdotes from scholars on the given subject can reinforce the author’s argument. Another important method used is requiring the reader to critically think about a subject brought forth by challenging their preconceived ideas about a topic. This may also include using hidden assumptions that use implicit statements which have a certain opinion such as “If I follow the rules, good things will happen”, this is common

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral”, Don Marquis offers his anti-abortion argument known as a “future like ours" (Marquis, 558). Marquis takes a step back from focusing on the complicated moral status of the fetus, and instead asks seemingly less controversial questions: what makes killing an innocent adult wrong, and what right we adult humans possess not to be killed? His answer serves as the first premise for his argument: killing is prima facie morally wrong because it deprives an individual of their future of value. His second premise is that killing a fetus, i.e. abortion, also deprives it a future of value, which he refers to as a “future like ours” (559). Marquis concludes that because fetuses possess the innate property that is sufficient to make killing adult human beings wrong, that killing fetuses is also wrong. Simply stated, abortions are prima facie immoral, for the same reason that killing an innocent adult is prima facie immoral (559)

This essay will look at Marquis’s “future like ours” argument and challenge the premises and implications of his conclusion. I will not be considering exceptional circumstances, such as rape or major health implications, as Marquis’ focus was on general deliberate abortions. I will argue that the ideas of personhood, future-directed preferences and bodily autonomy establish a great moral difference between killing an adult and killing a foetus. In disproving Marquis’s conclusion and his counter-examples to criticisms, I will draw upon utilitarian and rights-based theories.

In his essay "Why Abortion is Immoral," Don Marquis argues against the morality of abortion on the premise that the value of a fetus' future is so great that it is immoral to take that potential future away from it. Essentially, he contends, abortion is tantamount to murder: killing an individual is prima facie wrong because the loss of the goods of one's future is the worst loss a human can suffer. He calls this potential future a "future-like-ours," which is the basis for his contentions. In the next few pages I will delineate the general progression of his argument, and later, will evaluate the plausibility of said argument. Though Marquis makes both logical and compelling claims, there are

Americans today are no strangers to stretching every dollar earned in an attempt to live the American dream. Most people work long hours and eat on the fly with very little thought to what, or where, the food they have purchased came from. The reason food is so inexpensive has not been a concern to the average American, but the article written by Michael Pollan “The Food Movement Rising” attempts to convince the people that it is time to remove the blinders and take an accounting of the situation that America finds itself in. With obesity at epic proportions, and preventable diseases like

Marquis motivates that the loss of life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer and it deprives one of a value for their future. Although a fetus cannot fully value their future at this point in time, they can value their future later on in life. Thus, just having the potential of a future in it of itself is sufficient enough to draw to the conclusion that killing is seriously wrong (195).

In Marquis’s Why Abortion is Immoral, Marquis presents his argument against abortion. The basic idea behind the argument is that, abortion is seriously morally wrong because it is the act of killing a human being with the right to live life. Additionally, abortion is seriously morally wrong in Marquis’s claim because it deprives a being of its future – a future that has the potential to be as worthy and as great as that of an human being – while he explains that the wrongfulness of murdering a fetus is superior to any excuse with a few exceptions. My aim in this paper is to show that the argument fails. In section I, I present the argument and explain the motive, reasoning, and purpose behind the various premises of Marquis. In section II, I present my further evaluation and critique of Marquis’s argument. Lastly, in section III, I will address the several objections that may be brought upon against my thoughts and criticisms.

The overall emphasis of this work is on humans and human free will. Pico demonstrates the importance of free will. It is because of free will, according to him, that humans can choose their

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

believe their child's life may have meaning or purpose they do not yet understand. They believe they

“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, an essay written by Mary Anne Warren, defend abortion in any stage of a woman’s pregnancy (pg 468). Warren argues that the potential to become a human being is not the same as being human and deserving the same right to life (pg. 468-472). This essay asserts that in order to be human, one must possess five particular traits (pg. 470). These trait are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and awareness of oneself (pg. 470). Warren claims that since a fetus has not yet acquired all of the traits, then that fetus is not human and therefore does not have the right to life (pg. 470).

Don Marquis spearheads the potentiality argument in his essay on the immorality of abortion (Study Guide, pp. 167-73), claiming that it is impermissible because it deprives the foetus of a “future like ours,” and is consequently morally on par with killing a healthy adult (Study Guide, p. 170). Despite Marquis’ claims that his argument combines the best aspects of the personhood and sanctity of life ideas to produce a superior ethical theory on the immorality of abortion (Study Guide, p. 170), his argument features many flaws, including seemingly ad hoc explanations to avoid speciesism (Study Guide, p. 169) and exclude contraception (Study Guide, p. 173), and, most prominently, ill-defined terminology. His entire argument centers on the value of a “future like ours” and yet he fails to define what exact quality makes such a potential future valuable, giving only a vague indication that it is somehow different to personhood. The vagueness of what is essentially the key to his entire theory makes it difficult to accurately dispute his claims, yet he concedes himself that his theory is simply an indirect and unconvincing way of reaching the same conclusion as the personhood argument (Study Guide, p.171). His conclusions are in essences the same as those drawn from the personhood argument, it argues that foetuses should be granted legal personhood based on