Anna B. Christensen

In ‘Why Abortion is Immoral’, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong for the same reason that murder is wrong, namely, that it deprives a human being of an FLO, a ‘future like ours,’ which is a future full of value and the experience of life. Marquis’ argument rests on the assumption that the human being is somehow deprived by suffering an early death. I argue that Marquis’ argument faces the ‘Epicurean Challenge’. The concept of ‘deprivation’ requires that some discernible individual exists who can be deprived. But if death involves total annihilation, then no discernible individual exists to be so deprived. I argue that the Epicurean Challenge must be addressed before it can be proven that Marquis is correct to claim that abortion and murder are wrong because they deprive someone of an FLO.

Disparities between Plato’s Phaedo and Laws have made some scholars question whether the texts can offer a consistent view of suicide. While the Phaedo’s arguments are presented in religious terms, the Laws’ arguments are expressed on legal grounds. Moreover, the Laws appears to endorse more permissive exceptions than the Phaedo does. I argue that the texts present a consistent account, despite initial appearances. Both texts have the same grounds prohibiting suicide, and the Phaedo’s exception is broad enough to include the Laws’ exceptions.

In ‘Abortion and deprivation: a reply to Marquis’, I argued that Marquis’ argument about abortion encounters the Epicurean Challenge. In this essay, I continue the conversation begun there. I aim to motivate the Challenge further by examining Marquis’ argument on his own terms and responding to objections about whom death deprives, whether we should focus on the action of killing or the result of death, and how harms suffered before existence compare to harms suffered after death. Finally, I suggest that perhaps the solution to the ethics of killing lies in considering another account of harm entirely—one that does not rely on deprivation.

Since the Phaedo characterizes Socrates’s death as a punishment by Athens, many scholars argue that he could neither have been responsible for nor have intended his death, so that his death was not suicide. This is no mere semantic quibble: the question turns on issues of responsible and intentional action. I argue that the dialogues portray Socrates as committing suicide. To do so, I use a Platonic account of responsibility and intention to show how Athens and Socrates were jointly responsible for Socrates’s death and that his intention was not only to do what justice requires but also to kill himself.

Though Epicurus recommends that his followers eschew politics and live “unnoticed” apart from society, he also recommends that they live in communion with other Epicureans. I show that both pieces of this seemingly contrasting advice function to help the Epicurean achieve her goal, tranquility. Politics is (usually) to be avoided because it disrupts tranquility; but the Epicurean community of friends supports and strengthens the ability to reach tranquility, secure from the challenges that beset the traditional, non-Epicurean political community.