The concept of moral status is critical, particularly when contemplating actions to an entity. In general, an entity is deemed to have moral status if its interests are important enough morally that it can be treated unfairly. In order to support their convictions, Don Marquis and Mary Anne Warren approach the concept of moral status from distinct perspectives. An examination of the philosophers' accounts will shed light on the notion while also assisting in the consideration of its practical consequences.
Don Marquis' paper discusses the contentious abortion debate. His philosophical argument for the anti- abortion is motivated by the observation that philosophical literature has shown little support for the view that abortion is gravely immoral bar rare exceptions. The anti- abortion position has been regarded as “unsophisticated” with many philosophers with claims of irrational religious dogma or confused philosophical arguments. As such Marquis’ argument is that “abortion is, except possibly in rare cases, seriously immoral, that is in the same moral category as killing an innocent adult human being” (Marquis 183).
Don Marquis analyzes the typical arguments of anti- abortionist and pro- choice in order to come up with an argument that deals with the deficiencies exhaustively. He asserts that some common arguments by both sides are true which often leads to a stand- off between the two sides. This is because while anti- abortionists typically argue that life starts at conception or that fetuses have a genetic code that makes them undoubtedly human, pro- choice activists argue that fetuses are not persons or that they cannot make rational choices like human beings can. The fact that one camp focuses on biological characteristics while the other is skewed towards psychological features of a person makes the debate a never- ending one with none of the sides willing to yield their positions.
Marquis’ account of the moral status of a human being follows an unconventional path. According to him, killing is wrong due to its effect on the victim rather than its effect on the murderer or the victim’s friends and relatives as is commonly presumed. This is because it deprives one of activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments that could have been part of their future. The biological state is not a factor, in this case, since killing will still deny one of their future experiences. Marquis asserts that his point of view is supported by basic considerations. First is that his argument explains why murder is regarded as one of the worst crimes. Secondly, the feeling of dying individuals e.g. cancer and AIDS patients is explained by the notion that they know dying is not good for them due to the consideration of their loss of future. Marquis also puts into consideration the controversial issue of euthanasia. The argument is that for persons who are severely ill and cannot be cured and face a future of pain and despair, killing is not necessarily wrong. This is because their future has no value.
The account of the moral status of an entity by Don Marquis has a variety of implications on different entities. The most conspicuous are the consequences on the status of human children, infants, and fetuses. According to Marquis, it is wrong to kill children and infants due to the presumption of the fact that their futures have value. This also applies in the case of fetuses which are the subject of abortion. The future of a fetus is identical to the future of an adult human being since both include experiences, activities, and projects. However, Don Marquis mentions that abortion can be justified in some circumstances. An example is if the child’s birth would seriously jeopardize the life of the expectant mother. This is only permissible if they were to occur early in the pregnancy. Marquis is of the opinion that contraception is not immoral due to the absence of an identifiable subject who could lose their future. In the case of nonhuman mammals, Marquis is of the opinion that since the futures of some of them are similar to ours, it would be seriously wrong to kill them. Mentally- disabled human adults, despite their limitations, always have a future in terms of activities and projects.
Mary Anne Warren on the Moral Status of an Entity
Mary Anne Warren, unlike Don Marquis, is pro- choice. As such, her account of the moral status of entities differs greatly. According to her, the most important thing is understanding the concept of personhood i.e. what characteristics entitle an entity to be regarded a person. As such Mary Anne Warren proposes five traits that are key to humanity in the moral sense: reasoning, consciousness, capacity to communicate, self- motivated activity, and the presence of self- concepts and self- awareness. According to this criterion, the fetus is not is not a person because it fails to satisfy any of the five traits proposed by Warren. This basically relegates the need for genetic humanity as a necessary and sufficient condition for establishing the moral status of an entity. The inference, in this case, is that one could be a human being and not a person and conversely, an entity could be a person even if it is not a human being.
The most important implication of Warren’s account of the moral status of an entity is that a fetus is not a person. This is because it fails to meet all the five conditions required for an entity to be considered a person. The fetus is not entirely conscious despite the fact that it can respond to stimuli such as pain. According to Warren, “even a fully developed fetus is considerably less person- like than a mature mammal, indeed the average fish” (Warren 47). Warren argues that in no case can the rights of a fetus override the right of a woman to get an abortion. Warren also asserts that a severely mentally disabled human adult could not and could never be a person since they lack the mental capacity. The same applies to an individual whose consciousness has been permanently impaired such as one in a lengthy coma. An intelligent non- human animal could hold the moral status of a person even though it is not a human being since it is fully conscious, unlike a human fetus.
Warren disputes the claim that since the fetus has the potential to become a person in the future, it should have the same moral status as an adult human being and therefore a right to life. She insists that a potential person doesn’t have the right to life. A woman’s right to her life, health, freedom, and happiness always reign supreme to the supposed rights of a fetus.
Critique of the Accounts of the Moral Status of an Entity
Don Marquis follows the ideals of utilitarian ethics when putting forward the theory. Marquis clearly perceives abortion as immoral since it increases suffering in addition to preventing the unborn children from realizing their potential and enjoying their future. However, Don Marquis fails to consider the notion that fetuses don’t have the consciousness to be interested in their future. If the fetuses really lack the understanding, then it could be argued out that it is not morally wrong to abort them. It is also important to consider that at the beginning of the paper, Marquis admitted that his view of granting full moral rights to fetuses is a perspective that no moral philosopher endorses. In the modern context, one could also include some scientific thought to question the theory by Don Marquis. The development of reliable cells cloning procedures is of particular interest, in this case. Since most cells in a person’s body have the potential to be cloned this means that they have a future whose value is identical to that of a human being. As such, every time one intentionally kills cells of their body then they are effectively depriving the cells of a potential future of great value.
Warren’s argument in favor of abortion has been a source of controversy over the years. Her insistence that fetuses and newborns are really not persons drew criticism as a support of infanticide. She had to write a postscript on infanticide in 1982. Her theory implies that if a mother feels that the fetus or newborn could pose a threat to their life or health in the future, they may kill them without being morally wrong. This could be used as a justification for infanticide if a parent insists that the child may grow up to kill them. Her postscript is no better since she argues that infanticide is not properly considered a form of murder.
The theory by Don Marquis is the most plausible when it comes to considering the moral status of an entity. The premise that it is wrong to kill any human being sets the stage for a gradual breaking down of the concept of personhood. Life is all about the expectation of future experiences and enjoyments The future life of a fetus is as important as the future life of an adult human being and as such moral rights should be conferred to the fetus. The theory does not justify questionable actions such as infanticide as is the case with Warren’s theory thus making it a perfect illustration of the importance of future value in conferring moral status.
Works Cited
Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion is Immoral.” Journal of Philosophy 86(1989): 183- 2002.
Warren, Mary A. “On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” JSTOR.
