#phil150

“An Argument that Abortion is Wrong” by Don Marquis

will argue that abortion is seriously wrong except in extreme cases such as rape, endangers woman’s life, and when the fetus is anencephalic. also not including abortion within the first fourteen days when a fetus is not an considered to be an individual.

using Thomson’s violinist analogy, it can be concluded that in cases of rape, the option of abortion should be made available. this also brings attention to the fact that the fetus is using the woman’s body as a life-support system and the woman does not depend on the fetus for that same function. however, an opponent of abortion might draw attention to the fact that the life that is lost is the fetus’s. pro-choice will say a fetus’s right to life does not mean it can use another person to preserve that life. pro-life will say a woman’s right to use her own body does not mean she can end someone’s life. these arguments go on and on and really come to a standoff. one might argue that this is because of the two rights discussed: right to life and right of a woman to control her own body. when comparing the two, it is obvious that right to life should take precedence over a woman’s right to control her own body for nine months. 

now we have to discuss if a fetus has a right to life. pro-life will argue for the most general definition of being human in order to justify their point. they will argue that anything that is human, no matter the age, and not of another species, has a right to life. pro-choice will argue for a narrow definition of being a human. they will argue that because fetuses are neither rational nor possess the ability to communicate in complex ways, no fetus is a person. so which classification should we reject? the pro-life argument is usually attacked by saying anything that is biologically human, such as cancer cells, have a right to life. then you would have to assume that being human has to do with moral consideration as well. pro-choice can be attacked by attacking its major premise in that only persons have the right to life. infants, the severely retarded, and some of the mentally ill seem to not fall under the category of being a person. pro-choice will follow the logic of “only those who have the psychological attributes of persons are capable of entering into the moral contract and, as a consequence, being a member of the moral community”. (143) and in regards to infanticide, some argue that infanticide is wrong, not because infants have the right to life, but because protecting infants have social utility. if we don’t treat infants with tender and care, they will be worse off in the future, as so will the rest of humanity. but this doesn’t resolve the weakness in pro-choice argument. if it is a good idea to treat the infants we intend to keep with care and consideration, that can be attributed to a fetus and a fetus that we don’t intend to keep. and as for the contractarian defense of pro-choice, it does not account for our duties to individuals who are not persons such as animals. if animals and a fetus are both not a person, should they both receive the same treatment? the point is that the classic arguments on both sides regarding abortion come to a standoff and require a different strategy. 

so let’s try to determine what about killing makes killing so wrong. killing us imposes on us the misfortune of premature death. it is a misfortune because we have been deprived of life. premature death will not deprive us of our past life. it doesn’t matter if i die tomorrow or thirty years from now. my past life will not be affected. but it’s not as simple as this. suppose i was in a coma for thirty years and then died. suppose i just died tomorrow. the first situation seems to describe a greater misfortune than the latter. “The loss of our future conscious life is what underlies the misfortune of premature death.” (144) but not any future conscious life qualifies as if i had cancer and was constantly experiencing pain and suffering, death would not be a misfortune. so the misfortune of premature death is the loss to use of the future goods of consciousness. what goods? the goods of our individuality of our experiences and the things that make life worth living. what makes life valuable are the aspects of life that i will eventually value and experience. this is why we try to save the suicidal because sometimes they have a negative judgement of their lives and others can make a clearer judgement of that person’s life. thus, killing someone is wrong when it deprives someone of a future like ours. this will be called “an FLO”. 

the FLO account of the wrongness of killing confirms why we view murder as the greatest crime and also why we justify killing in self-defense and war in order to prevent fewer premature deaths. [reminds a bit of consequentialism. fluid rules in order to create a greater good] 

applying the FLO account to medicine, we can see its logic align with what we consider to be right. if someone is permanently unconscious, we are allowed to “pull the plug” because that person has no future of value. that’s why we also allow for those who are have a life of severe intractable pain are allowed to ask and be given euthanasia. that life is presumed to have a future of no positive value. when it comes to the suicidal, we try to save their lives because it is not the desire to enjoy an FLO but having an FLO. 

the FLO theory also argues that if we were ever to come across extraterrestrials that are peaceful persons, it would be wrong to kill them because they would have a future like ours. this sentiment is shared with pro-choice who define personhood. but when it comes to animals, the FLO theory can’t come up with a clear answer. but this doesn’t detract from its soundness. the FLO theory also defends the notion that we should not kill infants as they will have a future of experiences that they will value eventually. following this logic, abortion is presumptively seriously immoral.  

let’s make an analogy with animals. why do we believe it to be wrong to cause animals suffering? we believe that suffering is a misfortune and is wrong no matter who is receiving the suffering. since this argument works so well for animals, it should work the same for abortion.

[rushed from here on out; incomplete]

let’s explore arguments to the FLO theory. potentiality

a fetus that is not sentient are not capable of caring what is done to them. but unconscious human beings. 

FLO goes against equality as older people have less of a right to life than younger people. but FLO only addresses why killing is considered bad and there other factors that determine how a killing can be bad. but adopting this equality of killing can be helpful as it pretty much impossible to quantify a person’s future and if it had more value than another’s. so FLO can be argued to force us to adopt this equality principle. 

abstinence and contraception results in one less FLO. 

“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” by Mary Anne Warren

defines abortion as “the act a woman performs in deliberately terminating her pregnancy before it comes to term, or in allowing another person to terminate it”. will argue that “abortion is morally permissible, and should be neither legally prohibited nor made needlessly difficult to obtain, for example, by obstructive legal regulations”. 

[some points are reiterated and taken from Thomson, which i made a post about, so i will leave out those points if i find them redundant] 

some philosophers argue that the issue of abortion can’t be resolved through rational means. then shouldn’t liberty just prevail? law shouldn’t prohibit personal behavior without any moral justification. 

using the violinist analogy from Thomson it is clear that abortion is not always morally impermissible when the situation is forced onto you such as in cases of rape. as a result, the right to life argument takes a bit of a hit. but what about in cases when the woman becomes pregnant because contraception wasn’t available or contraception failed? could the woman have done things differently in order to prevent conception? are there cases where the woman can be held partly responsible for her predicament? these questions go against those who advocate for the right to choose abortion as it suggests that the decision is not the woman’s but rather it is the decision of the people who will interrogate her behavior leading up to conception as they will determine if she can have an abortion. but remember that this situation arises when we assume the right to life to be seriously considered to the fullest extent. 

now we need to consider who makes up the moral community, those who receive full and equal moral right. John Noonan states, “it is wrong to kill humans, however poor, weak, defenseless, and lacking in opportunity to develop their potential they may be. ... it is morally wrong to kill embryos.” this statement speaks about humans in a genetic sense but what about morally in the sense in which all human beings have full and equal moral rights. Noonan uses an embryo’s genetics to give it human rights, but is it morally the same as a full, functioning human being? is the potential of it becoming a moral human being enough to give it the same rights? is genetics enough? let’s define the moral community. the moral community consists of all persons and not all genetically human entities. by persons, meaning those who invent moral rights and are sometimes capable of respecting and practicing them. so then what characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person?  instead of an exhaustive list, let’s focus on how a fetus does not meet the requirements. let’s say an astronaut has found a planet with beings. how does this astronaut determine whether to treat these beings as humans or a food source like animals? the astronaut might look for signs of religion, art, tools, shelters, weapons, or other kinds of cultural traits. but an absence of these does not mean these beings are not human. maybe they had no need for cultural development. these are the suggested list of characteristics: sentience, emotionality, reason, the capacity to communicate, self-awareness, and moral agency. a human does not need to meet all of these characteristics in order to be considered human. many don’t. but having none of these traits should rule it out as being human, as a fetus does not meet any of these traits. a seven-month fetus can apparently feel pain and can respond to such stimuli as light and sound but it still has less in common with a moral human than many non-human animals. many animals are sentient, possess reason, and are sometimes even self-aware. on this basis, a fetus has no more right to life than do some animals. since they lack these morally relevant aspects, it is unreasonable that they be accorded exactly the same moral and legal status.

but should a fetus get some consideration for the potential to become a human or because it resembles a person? people are uncomfortable about stopping the potential of life because people are seen as a valuable resource. but surely a full human’s rights should outweigh those of a potential person. suppose our astronaut fell into the hands of an extraterrestrial civilization that plan on creating clones of him/her to create a few thousand human beings. even though he/she won’t be harmed and his/her clones won’t be mistreated, he/she could still escape if he/she wanted to and depriving all of those people of their potential lives. the astronaut, no matter how harmless the procedure might be, has every right to escape. by analogy, a woman’s liberty and rights take precedence over the potential life of a fetus. 

a newborn infant, according to the characteristics of a moral human, is not much more personlike than a nine-month fetus and seems to allow for infanticide, or the murder of infants. in this day and age, infanticide is virtually never justified and it is certainly wrong to kill infants for the sake of convenience as they are considered to be incredibly close to personhood. nowadays there are other options if the parent(s) do not wish to raise a child anymore. there is adoption as many people are actively looking for a child to adopt for sometimes a very long time. killing a child would be unnecessary if it was for convenience as someone else would be more than willing to take care of it. even if the baby was physically disabled, people would still frown on killing the baby and would rather pay taxes to support foster care. people feel that it is wrong to let any infant die who has a chance of living a reasonably good life. so if infanticide is wrong, why should late-term abortion be considered wrong? the distinction between the two is that once the infant is born, its continued life cannot pose any serious threat to the woman’s health. her right to protect her own life outweighs other people’s desire that the fetus be preserved. so while this view doesn’t condemn infanticide, the moral distinction remains. perhaps our legal system is right to consider infanticide as murder. 

“A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Jarvis Thomson

not going to discuss when a fetus becomes a human as figuring out that point in time is extremely difficult. agrees that a newly fertilized ovum is not a person but recognizes that a fetus develops a face, arms and legs, fingers and toes, internal organs, and brain activity by the tenth week; incredibly fast. will focus on whether abortion is morally permissible.

let’s say that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. and let’s follow this line of logic: every person has a right to life, the fetus is a person, the fetus has a right to life, a person’s right to life is stronger than the mother’s right to decide what should happen to her body, therefore abortion may not be performed. 

let’s use the violin player example. a very good and famous violin player is dying and your body is the only body in the world that can help the violin player survive. the violinist’s supporters kidnap you and hook you up to the violinist while you are asleep. you wake up and are told of the situation and that you have to stay hooked up for nine months. you could stay hooked up but that would be a major inconvenience to your life. this example is similar in a case of rape where it was never intended for the mother or you to be in the situation. some would say that in cases of rape you are allowed to have an abortion. but doesn’t this diminish the argument that every person has a right to life? just because a person was conceived out of rape, that makes that person’s life less than another’s? but advocates of keeping the child usually don’t make this exception. often they would advocate keeping the child even if it meant that the mother’s life would be shortened. 

let’s look at the extreme case where the mother will die if she carries the baby to term. presumably they have an equal right to life. does the mother’s right to decide what happens to her body now prevail? the most familiar argument is that the baby is an innocent person and that by having an abortion you would be killing an innocent person. this would be wrong in that you are killing an innocent person, and the fact that you are consciously killing someone; murder. in the mother’s case, it is looked as we are letting her die and not actively killing her. the baby was never born with the intention of killing his or her mother. but the problem with this is that we cannot think of it as murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. we can’t say that she has to just do nothing and wait for her death. in the case of the violinist, what if you were to die while being hooked up to the violinist. the violinist is an innocent person and it’s argued to be impermissible to unplug yourself and kill the violinist. but that’s just preposterous. but obviously a mother can’t abort her baby herself so it must be up to a third party to decide whether it is morally permissible. but isn’t this diminishing the very status of person that we grant the mother just as we have insisted on doing so to the baby? why can’t the mother decide for herself to save her own life? no matter how innocent the baby is, if it is killing the mother, shouldn’t the mother be allowed to make the decision to save her life? if the mother and a growing baby were in a very small house and the baby was going to crush the mother and walk out of the house a free man, shouldn’t the mother be able to make the decision to kill the baby to save her life? no matter how innocent the baby is, the fact is is that the baby is actively killing the mother. the truth of the situation is that both the baby and mother are innocent individuals. the mother should have the right to make the decision to kill the baby to save her own life. 

but now let’s look at this so-called right to life. what does this supposed right really require? we might assume that having a right to life means that you should be given the bare minimum to survive. but does everyone actually deserve to receive the bare minimum to survive? if i am sick and the only thing that can save me is “the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow” [LOL] i have no right to be given that. he has no obligation to come and save me and, as seen in the violinist example, the violinist has no right against me to keep me hooked up. the violinist’s supporters have no right to abduct me and hook me up to save the violinist’s life. some argue that the right to life means that it is the right to not be killed by anyone. but does that mean no one has the right to unplug you from the violinist in that example? surely you should be able to make that decision yourself. so in conclusion, having the right to life “does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body - even if one needs it for life itself”. (128)

suppose the woman voluntarily had sex and then becomes pregnant. isn’t she at least partly responsible for the unborn person inside of her? she didn’t necessarily invite the baby in but she would be responsible for it. aborting the baby seems to be an unjust action in this circumstance. opponents of abortion often don’t make this argument for the dependence of the fetus but rather they often argue for its independence. this special responsibility of the mother would give the baby special rights not of a person. but by following this argument, in cases of rape, the woman would not be responsible for the baby as it was completely involuntary. but there are arguments that would make this position a little unstable. what if a person is in a room and opens the window and a burglar comes in through the window. obviously the person has the right to kick the burglar out even though the person was partially responsible for the burglar coming in as this person should know what a burglar is and how they “burgle”. this person should still be able to kick this burglar out even if the person installed bars over the window but there was a defect in the bars unbeknownst to the person and the burglar managed to come in. even if it was an innocent person instead of a burglar, the person should still have the right to kick the other out. the point is that there are a number of situations where abortion could be seen as unjust and also a number of situations where abortion could be considered just.

but let’s say that pregnancy was only an hour long and didn’t affect your health at all. in the violinist example, what if you were still kidnapped but they only needed you to stay hooked up for an hour and your health wouldn’t be affected at all. some may still argue that the violinist still has the right to life and you have to stay hooked up. but let’s say that there are two brothers and the older brother is given a box of chocolates. the younger brother is just watching enviously as the older brother is eating the chocolates. we’re likely to say for the older brother to be nice and give the younger brother some chocolates. but the younger brother does not have a right to those chocolates. not giving the chocolates would be greedy but not unjust. so with higher stakes, it should remain the same. delving further into the term “right” we can try to define what it really means to those who use the “right to life” to defend a fetus’s life. it seems that in this situation because the fetus has a right to life, it should be given to the fetus. how about in the Henry Fonda case? the violinist case? in cases of rape? the truth is that while people may say the fetus has a right to life, it doesn’t mean it should be given life in every single circumstance. if henry fonda could save your life with just his touch and he doesn’t do it even though he is just a foot away from you, it would be considered incredibly inconsiderate and self-centered. but we can’t say that it was unjust. if you could save the violinist’s life by just staying hooked up for an hour with your health not being affected at all but you unhook yourself, you would be considered mean and selfish. but, again, we can’t say that it was unjust. if a woman is raped and is impregnated, even if the pregnancy would only take a couple of days and wouldn’t affect the woman’s health, and she has an abortion, it would be considered cruel and indecent. but we cannot say that it was unjust. “Except in such cases where the unborn person has a right to demand it - and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases - nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.” (130)

in conclusion, abortion is not always morally permissible. in cases of rape, any law that states that a woman cannot get an abortion is an insane law. and in cases where the woman got pregnant while having consensual unprotected sex and she decides to have an abortion for just pure convenience, her action should be considered incredibly indecent. but to remind readers, all that was discussed does not regard a very early abortion. a fetus at that an early stage should not be considered a person. but also, the woman cannot ensure the baby’s death. if an abortion were to occur and it was found that the baby could be kept alive outside of the mother’s body, the mother cannot order for the baby to be killed. just as in the violinist example, if you decide to unhook yourself and the violinist survives by miracle, you are not permitted to come back and slit his throat. 

“Virtue Theory” by Rosalind Hursthouse

virtue can be generally defined as perfections of a good character or individual. virtue ethics can be traced back to Buddha and Confucianism in the east and Plato and Aristotle in the west. 

Aristotle: misogynist, defended slavery, disregard to plants and animals. “Plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of man; the tame for our use and provision, the wild, at least the greater part, for our provision also or for some other advantageous purpose...” 

aristotle argues that the human psyche is divided into a rational and non-rational side. the non-rational side is described as “nutritive” which is the cause of nutrition and growth. the rational side is divided into two parts. one possesses reason in the strictest sense and the other part contains our emotions and desires [i don’t fully comprehend the nutritive side] emotional reactions are up for assessment as they are not completely reasonable or unreasonable. “Excellence of character involves a disposition to act in certain ways for certain reasons, not just on emotional impulse, and feelings are involved particularly because of the relevance of how the agent feels about what she does.”

eudaimonia is “activity of the soul in accordance with arete (virtue, excellence). nowadays it can be considered as “the morally good life”. 

“Deontology” by David McNaughton and Piers Rawling

supererogation - doing more work then what your duty requires

focuses on special relationships and constraints

the people that are close to us and our special relationships deserve precedence and more attention because we owe it to them. it would be wrong to neglect our own children even if it meant a greater good for other children. 

we have the duty to avoid hurting anyone unless they deserve punishment. no lying, killing, or torture. these constraints often require us to not maximize good. [Kant is a big proponent of this notion in his “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” where he emphasizes contradictions] 

deontology differs from consequentialism in that things such as promises and relationships determine whether an action is moral rather than just looking at perceived results and the overall greater good. 

deontology, in terms of content, has no unifying theme. some argue for considerations such as fidelity to promises and commitments, gratitude, reparation, and avoiding harming others. 

but these considerations share a common form in that they are all agent-relative. an example of agent-relative theory is egosim where the agent has reason to promote only his or her own good. on the other hand consequentialism is an agent-neutral theory where the agent has reason to promote everyone’s good. consequentialism has a common aim and egoism has a distinct aim. 

“Suppose I can only prevent you killing two innocents by killing one myself. Constraints give each of us distinct aims: I have reason not to kill anyone myself, you have reason not to kill anyone yourself. Thus although you will do wrong in killing the two, I should not kill the one in order to prevent you. Each of us is morally permitted to give special weight to our own interests, just because they are ours.” (39)

Kant deontology: no contradictions and see people as an end and not as a means

“Consequentialism” by William H. Shaw

consequentialism is the ethical theory that actions are determined to be right or wrong by looking at the results of the action. the goodness or badness of an action’s consequences determines its rightness or wrongness. expected consequences are what counts and not actual consequences. 

nonstandard consequentialists argue that the right action is the action that would have brought the best results. standard preaches that the decision is still important and doesn’t want to marginalize the importance of the decision by determining if a decision was right solely on the actual results and not the expected results. 

some arguments against consequentialism say that it is impossible to know all scenarios and all possibilities in order to accurately decide what is the best course of action. countering is the notion that humans have gone through lots of experiences and are smart enough to know the best course of action. another argument is that their action, while small, could have eventual larger and more negative effects in the future. countering is the fact that all ethical theories struggle with knowing what will happen in the future so the point is moot. 

consequentialism is not a complete ethical theory as it never points out what “good” exactly is. most consequentialists follow utilitarianism. utilitarianism attaches its good to human beings or other sentient creatures. so the state of being of humans and other sentient creatures is how we determine what is good and bad according to utilitarianism. utilitarians also believe that well-beings can be ranked and measured. some people can be better off than others and everyone’s happiness is valued equally. a utilitarian also believes that personal bonds, knowledge, and other such things are only valuable because they lead to an enhanced well-being. 

critics say that it is wrong to do certain things even if our doing so would bring about the most good and argue that it demands too much as we cannot be continually seeking out to do the most good in everything we do. 

while doing extreme actions in very rare and specific cases such as torturing a small child or killing an innocent person might bring out more good, consequentialists will say these situations are highly unlikely and they will endorse most of the normative restrictions that commonsense morality places on our conduct. they prefer people to have the moral motivations that bring the best results in the world they actually live in. but an interesting question to ask is what if torture or anything similar can lead to less use of torture in the future? deontologists would say you cannot torture under no circumstances but in that case shouldnt not having to torture be the goal instead of some “higher” goal? consequentialists argue that these rules and restrictions from deontology and learned morality are not foundational and should not be considered absolute. 

as always there is the argument that shouldnt we spend all of our time helping those who are less fortunate? instead of buying something for ourselves we should buy things for other people? consequentialists will argue for the less demanding norm that we should aid strangers when the benefit to them is great and the cost to ourselves comparatively minor.

“For example, a world with more equality or beauty or biological diversity might be thought intrinsically better than a world with less even if no one is aware of the increased equality, beauty, or diversity, and it makes no individual’s life more valuable.” 

a criticism of the ice bucket challenge is that ALS only affects a couple thousand people a year and has no known cure while other diseases like malaria are effecting a lot more people and can be cured if they had the money to do so. some questions to consider are “should that 100 million dollars that the ice bucket challenge raised for ALS be given to a charity that represents a disease that affects more people?” and “does this type of fundraising encourage slacktivism?” 

i guess i’ll address the issue of whether it encourages slacktivism. in my opinion, of course it does. but i’d say that slacktivism is already prevalent and practiced to such a great extent before the ice bucket challenge that this trend really didn’t do much in increasing the use of slacktivism. in current society we are always looking out for ourselves and we will rarely give to any cause if at all. sharing an article about a cause and signing online petitions are what we do to show support. we shy away from opportunities to donate money or attend rallies. the ice bucket challenge was an easy way to “show” support for ALS without doing anything of substance. i do agree that the craze of the trend did spread awareness about the disease and it did attract a lot of attention, causing many celebrities and influential people to donate huge amounts of money to the charity. looking at the big picture, the ice bucket challenge really was a huge success and those who criticize it are only really nitpicking. yes, we indulge in slacktivism and encourage it by participating in this ice bucket challenge. but this is how things get attention in today’s society. this social media craze has taken over and those that defect and say that money should be raised and awareness should be spread in more moral ways are just going to simply lose out on a lot of money. it’s unlikely we’ll see such a craze about a charity ever again but you can’t say that the ice bucket challenge didn’t bring up a lot of good conversation about charitable causes.