As you know, in the last couple of months I have been working on the wrongness of killing and the replaceability argument.
After some thought, I decided I will accept the utilitarian arguments against killing (although this is clearly one of the weakest points of utilitarianism) and just focus on the replaceability argument, as it is the primary topic of my thesis.
At first, I began to focus on Singer 's treatment of infanticide and the killing of animals. Both are considered replaceable, but, I believe, there are some inconsistencies. However, I have come to the conclusion that these are not major, and therefore, I will not use them as my main focus of interest.
Instead, it may be productive to focus on the assumptions the argument makes. As I see it, Singer makes three primary assumptions, two axiological and one metaphysical. The axiological ones are: (1) death, at least in the case of non-persons, does not have negative value; and (2) coming into existence is, if the life is worth living, a positive thing. The metaphysical one is the total view (3). That is, the position that we should take into account the interests of potential non-existent people as well as existent people.
(When I say
…show more content…
First, it is what I believe. And I fear my thesis will lose strength if I do not make my full case against the replaceability argument. Secondly, I believe philosophers have a duty to defend controversial arguments, when these are justified and coherent with the rest of a theory. Thirdly, as far as I have seen, no one has taken that route to counter the replaceability argument (maybe for good reasons), so at least it will be an original approach. And finally, it will only be one of the chapters in my thesis, and even if it is not accepted, the other claims in my thesis, regarding the badness of death and animals ' cognitive abilities, will still stand as they can be separated from the antinatalist