I’d love to have your explanations or arguments regarding the following problem I see with the pro-life position. Perhaps you can help sway me one way or the other.
Here’s my issue:
Slavery is clearly wrong. If someone contractually agrees to do a job, and then they find the job isn’t desirable to them and they want to quit, forcing them to continue in the job is slavery. As elucidated in the Wikipedia entry on specific performance, the law has traditionally found contracted personal service to be unenforceable in the event of a changed mind. If this were not so, then slavery would be possible de jure. Traditionally, “damages” are awarded in such cases as a sort of substitute for specific performance, usually in the form of a monetary payment. Such damages are only awarded if a party can prove a contract was breached. Valid contracts necessarily must be mutually consensual and fully understood by the parties involved.
In the case of the ostensible “contract” to provide sustenance between a woman who has sex and the resultant fetus, no faculties exist in the fetus to assent to such a contract. In fact, the fetus didn’t even exist at the time such a contract would need to be made. Accordingly, while it may be extremely morally repugnant of a woman to end the life of an innocent person who requires her specific sustenance for life, to legally disallow this option is a requirement of specific performance. Thus, it seems that the pro-life position is akin to a pro-slavery position.
Now, the reductio response to this could easily be, “well, doesn’t such an argument entail a woman being able to abandon her toddler at any time, also?” To this I can only respond in the affirmative. I would find such an action morally horrific, but I can’t see how it can justifiably be legally prevented.
In essence, my legal position is that of Murray Rothbard in chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty. However, I find this position to be morally abhorrent, putting me in an awkward philosophical position.
Any ideas?
Posted by Terrance H. on January 30, 2011 at 7:02 am
It’s all about SLED, something many pro-lifers are familiar with.
Size: If humanity is indeed granted, is it so based on size? If so, the life of an adult, or big person, is more important, theoretically, than a toddlers.
Development: Adults are more developed than teenagers, and teenagers more so than toddlers. So, I ask, do we generally grant humanity based on development?
Environment: The birth canal is a mere eight-inches. Is a mere eight-inches a justifiable reason to condition humanity on the female’s arbitrary whim?
Level of Dependency: Do we generally grant humanity based on the ability to be complete independent? If so, anyone on a medication necessary to preserve their life is less human than someone who isn’t.
The legal argument is, therefore, that the unborn child is a human being and it is illegal to kill a human being unless that human being poses an immediate danger to your life. (Most pro-lifers are fine with medically necessary abortions in order to save the life of the mother, because oftentimes, both will die. You save who you can.)
Posted by Terrance H. on January 30, 2011 at 7:06 am
Level of Depenency should have been second in the list. Ooops.
Posted by poppies on January 30, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I’m very familiar with SLED, but it’s problematic for two reasons:
1. It could also easily be applied to sperm or eggs, which is why I prefer unique DNA as the biological foundation of personhood and therefore human rights, though I admit it’s just a preference and is somewhat arbitrary.
2. The legal argument I present above assumes from the beginning that the fetus is a human person with rights, so SLED doesn’t affect the discussion. The issue is one of positive rights and negative rights coming into conflict, and only negative rights are logically defensible. It’s not the case that the law only recognizes defensive killing as justifiable; the famous Judith Jarvis Thomson “violinist” scenario would also generally be recognized as legally justifiable “letting die,” because the sustenance provider would have no legal responsibility to maintain the health of the violinist.
Posted by Terrance H. on January 30, 2011 at 8:27 pm
1). It could not be applied to sperm or eggs, because sperm and eggs are not engaged in a continual developmental process. They develop into nothing themselves.
Life is a continual developmental process from conception until death.
[b]The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.[/b]
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
Science has decided the issue; the pro-abortion rant to the contrary notwithstanding.
2).If it is indeed illegal to kill a human being without justifiable cause ([b]as legally defined[/b]), then your argument is rendered moot; as location has no bearing on an individuals humanity.
Furthermore, I don’t care what Judith Thomson has to say, because her asinine reasoning could in fact be an argument for infanticide by a failure to provide sustenance. That’s obviously not how the law works. As I said, you have to consider what is legally defined – and your argument has not done say.
You can rant all you want about being pro-life, but you are nothing of the sort. You’re a pseudo-philosopher with nothing exceptional to say. I’ll be steering clear from this idiotic blog, and I’d appreciate you staying away from mine.
Posted by poppies on January 30, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Fetuses develop into nothing themselves, also. They require exogenous input for further development, just as do sperm and eggs. Further, though science can’t really speak to law or morality (otherwise we come up against the is-ought barrier), the textbook quote you provide simply underscores the arbitrariness of such a starting point. Such a view taken rigorously would mean the latter of two identical twins is not really human.
Which is exactly what I pointed out, and exactly what I’m not comfortable with, yet I can’t find a way to logically overcome the argument.
I’m sad to see your discomfort with this line of questioning. It probably would indeed be best for you to stay away from this blog, because I intend to question all of my beliefs rigorously with no hesitations when I arrive at uncomfortable ends.
Posted by lbwoodgate on February 2, 2011 at 6:40 am
poppy,
arguing the points of abortion on some legalistic basis or biological determinative is an argument that won’t necessarily wash with the people who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Most don’t have a high school education. I realize your pursuit here is to satisfy any moral qualm you are having with it but, IMO, it all really gets down to a woman’s right to nullify an early term pregnancy that was at worst the result of rape or incest or, less serious, a mistake that occurred at a weak moment when she was vulnerable.
I know Terrance sees the fertilized egg at all stages as a human being with rights, and you may or may not agree (it’s not completely clear to me here since you keep referring to the “fetus”, which is a late stage term) but the best I can agree with here is that at less than 5 weeks it is a potential life, not a full fledged human life. The embryonic development hasn’t reached a point that comes to being human and at a full 5 weeks is “about the size of a sesame seed and looks more like a tiny tadpole than a human” as seen here in this depiction.
All this may be disconcerting to some but what we feel isn’t always shared equally with everyone and until there was the science and technology to view the womb during pregnancy, mankind pretty much viewed it as a seed sprouting, a potential life, not a human one with rights, at least in most secular societies.
For the record though I too oppose any late term abortions unless it poses a threat to the mother’s life and I view abortions after the the first trimester as a form of contraception as wrong-headed, something that should be opposed.
Posted by poppies on February 2, 2011 at 6:51 am
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, lbwoodgate. I’m confused as to the basis of your distinction between a “potential life” and a “human life” on what seem to be pretty arbitrary visual and/or temporal metrics. I’d greatly appreciate clarification.
Posted by lbwoodgate on February 2, 2011 at 7:24 am
Perhaps I should have said “potential human” vs. human. Humans have distinctive features that distinguish them from other animal forms, unlike the embryo at 5 weeks. They think, they have emotions based on real world environs, their is a shared history with other family members other than the womb experience of the mother and they become familiar with the complexities of love, heat, joy, sorrow etc. These are learned in the afterbirth years.
While still in the confines of the womb there are only sensory experiences from a warm, liquid environment and cognition has yet developed to a point that can be absorbed and retained. At least in the first tri-mester it might as well be a platypus spawn.
This of course is what I consider a reasonable perception. As is the belief that a newly fertilized egg or embryos are fully human concerning legal rights, it is not an absolute. It is a position based on views and attitudes within one’s cultural upbringing. Thus it is as valid as one that hold’s an opposite view and neither are fully legal in the institutional framework. Legal definitions too are open to interpretation and are not necessarily absolutes.
Does this help?
Posted by poppies on February 3, 2011 at 1:16 am
The distinctively human features you mention would be lacking in a person in a coma, and are indeed lacking in all of us when we sleep. I can’t imagine you would think we cease to have human rights when we go to bed. For that matter, associating rights with these particular traits ultimately seems an arbitrary choice, which speaks to the relativism you reference.
The validity of forced suttee was also “based on views and attitudes within one’s cultural upbringing,” but I would vigorously oppose such practices as absolutely wrong. Reasonable perceptions can only have meaning in the context of absolutes, otherwise there is no reference for what is reasonable and what is not. Having said that, most ethical or legal relativists with whom I’ve spoken are not nearly so self-aware as you, so I can only admire your internal intellectual rigor.
Posted by lbwoodgate on February 4, 2011 at 10:46 am
poppies
me think you protesteth too much on this issue. Let’s just agree to disagree on our takes of it.
Posted by poppies on February 5, 2011 at 4:41 am
Well, I would eschew the implication of disingenuousness in the “protests too much” phrase, but I do think you’re right that we’ve probably reached a place where further discussion wouldn’t be particularly fruitful. Thanks for all your thoughts, though, they were helpful.
Posted by lbwoodgate on February 3, 2011 at 2:31 am
The distinctively human features you mention would be lacking in a person in a coma, and are indeed lacking in all of us when we sleep. I can’t imagine you would think we cease to have human rights when we go to bed.
Of course I wouldn’t. That would be as silly as suggesting that all the humanity that we have attained up to that point becomes null and void because we are unconscious. I can’t even begin to fathom how you could make such a stretch. What’s arbitrary here is someone attempting to have their version of humanness declared as superior to someone else’s
The validity of forced suttee was also “based on views and attitudes within one’s cultural upbringing,” but I would vigorously oppose such practices as absolutely wrong
No one’s denying your right to be opposed to certain practices but I think the argument revolves around that person’s right to carry out an action that poses no threat to anyone other than themselves who are conscious of the actions they’re taking, however insane that may be to others.
Posted by poppies on February 4, 2011 at 5:02 am
I guess I’m confused. It seems that you’re arguing that the version of humanity where rights stemming from traits remain accrued even when those traits aren’t present, is a superior version to one where that’s not the case. It seems you would even label such a suggestion “silly”. But then you also argue that declaring the superiority of a particular version of humanity is arbitrary. This seems prima facie contradictory, but I could easily be missing something.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 24, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Here is my take on it.
1. My argument would be to sign a contract you have to be copus mentas, a fetus, like someone in a coma cannot enter into a contractual agreement. You cannot enter into a contract with an animal (I am not calling a fetus an animal, but it’s lack of congtive ability, makes it very roughly equatable for this argument). So we don’t extend it the same rights.
2. Unlike sleep, you were fully cogntive before, and if you don’t die, or have some sudden tragedy befall you brain, you will be when you wake up. The fact you were a person before sleep, and will resume the state after, differs from the fetus who was nothing, in the sence of seintence before, and won’t be after.
On the other hand, and this has always bothered me. At least in regards to later term abortions.
1. A mother can’t go into the hospital and kill her premature baby. Yet it can be done, as long as it is inside the womb. Even though it is essentially the same level of being.
2. In most cases, emergence health circumstances being the exception. The child could be given up for adoption, although the mother may not want to have a child, the idea the want superceddes life I think is a strange way to order priorties.
3.If you say abortion should be allowed only cases of rape and incest, one enters a rather disturbing argument. Is the son/daughter of the criminal less human, than a “normal” person due to the circumstances of his/her both? The would be what such a law would suggest.
On the pro abortion side.
If we don’t have sovergnity over our own bodies, do we really own anything? Do we have any real rights (but then you wouldn’t be able to take any forceful action against attempted suicides, or suicide prevention, if you are going to argue that, that autonomy is more important than existence).
Either side you choose, there are some rather disturbing philospical implications.
Posted by poppies on March 25, 2011 at 6:13 am
Will you please explain your reasoning as to why cognitive ability confers personhood? Further, would your rationale preclude the personhood of an adult who is mentally challenged to the point of showing no sentience, and has been their whole life?
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 26, 2011 at 1:59 am
I would clame a indvidual with no cognition is not a person. Why I can unplug a person in a coma. As I see it, past a basic level of self awarness, one is philoshpically a person, below that they are not, even if they are biogically. Hence someone brain dead is not, but a severaly mentally challenged indvidual is, because they are aware that they exist.
Posted by poppies on March 26, 2011 at 3:06 am
Some certainly have such awareness, but for others, we can’t ever know, there’s no unique brain activity associated with “self awareness” for which we can look. Accordingly, would such humans be expendable for utilitarian purposes by your rationale, or would you say since we don’t know that we should err on the side of personhood? If so, why wouldn’t such courtesy be extended to embryos, since we honestly can’t empirically say when “self-awareness” begins? It could indeed be as early as embryo-hood, since we really have no idea what physical elements contribute to “self-awareness,” or even if the source is indeed physical.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 26, 2011 at 4:37 pm
My rule would be reasonable doubt, going back to a coma patient. Perhaps one displaying not functions is self aware, but is usually assumed not to be.
I think we knew it is neurological in natural, as all thought/mind/brain functions are. We know what parts of the brain it isn’t, the so called “lizard brain”, which is the first to devolp, so we can safely say during some stages of devolpment, that the embryo is not self aware, later stages it gets more blurry.
Posted by poppies on March 30, 2011 at 7:27 am
I’m unclear from your wording, but I assume you’re saying that empirical evidence shows there is a physical source of consciousness, a source which is undeveloped in embryos. I would love to see this evidence, as I’ve not been made aware of its existence.
I would be pretty nervous to have someone deciding whether I deserved to live or die based on their subjective interpretation of whether I was displaying self-awareness or not.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 30, 2011 at 6:33 pm
I apologize that was a poorly written comment. If counciousnes isn’t physcal, seated in the brain, what would it be? Perhaps this is my scientfic leaning bias, but doesn’t all of science and research about such things, pretty much point to the brain itself. To ask for abosulte empircal evidence for anything is impossible. We have to, to function as a society, if something is proven enough, accept it as fact.
An embyro doesn’t have (depending on the stage) doesn’t have any of the higher functions. Let me ask do you eat meat? If you do, you have eatem something more aware than an embryo.
If a large swath of my brain was scooped out of my head, I’d feel quite comfortable in being put down.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm
My point would be, and I think this is what it comes down to. Is, is it better to err on the side of extreme caution or is it better to take what is rather solid but not concrete proof, that an embryo is human in the sense of the faculties it posses. Personally I think there is enough reasonable evidence to support that abortion isn’t murder. At least I feel that way in this point in time.
What evidence would satsify you, in declaring what is aware and what isn’t? Because you truly can’t defintivly prove an innamte object, isn’t self aware. Perhaps it just can’t communicate. Perhaps burning coal is murder, if concinous isn’t physcal, and we can’t determine through observation if it resides in something.
For me that is the hardest question about it, where do you draw the line, where you can or should say, I am confident that this isn’t aware, it isn’t alive in the philoshpical sense.
Posted by poppies on March 31, 2011 at 1:02 am
My point about the conjecture that “higher” brain elements are the source of consciousness is simply that it is indeed conjecture. A truly “scientific” bias wouldn’t jump to that conclusion because we literally have no evidence. All we can say is that the brain is correlated with consciousness, and that humans are the only thing we know which exhibits it robustly, nothing more. I’m open to evidence, it wouldn’t take much to convince me.
Much more important, however, is the fact that consciousness as a source of rights is arbitrary. It’s as arbitrary as basing rights on human-ness, on having fingernails, or being able to recite the complete works of Shakespeare from memory. You seem to think that the objectivity of that particular metric is self-evident, but I would love to see a real argument for it.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 31, 2011 at 1:28 am
I agree it’s abritary, any choice of who should live or die is abritary, if you get down to it, any choice at all, any action, if you go down the chain of why we are doing is, abritary. Valuing life over death, really is in itself. Perhaps there is some natural compulsion to do so, my it’s hardly logical to have any preferance.
As for hard(ish) evidence, look at tramatic brain injuries, and persistant vegetative states. While one could claim techincally, there is just a correlation between their injury, and their lack of responivness.
This is where I have an opinion that is perhaps unorthodox. I’m not concerned with humaness in itself. Rather I do think cognition is the cornerstone, of being a person, is passing a low thresehold of cogntive ability to feel. Not just as something with a neral net would where it is nothing more than a series of autonamic reflexes. If you could build me a computer that could do the same I’d consider it a person, even though it wouldn’t be human. I’d consider a person above say a human who was for what ever strange reason born without a brain and hooked up to a machine. I think the ideas of personhood, and human are related but seperate.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on March 31, 2011 at 1:34 am
Also related to this, and your post of dualism versus monoism in the brain, is this short article from wired in ’09. It doesn’t “solve” any of this, put it’s pretty intresting, and you might enjoy it.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/darpa-heat-energy-brains-now-make-us-some/
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on April 17, 2011 at 12:14 am
I hope nothing in my comments offended you, if so I apologize.
Also why do you feel that being human is so sacred? You seem to to be saying that it is self evident that being human = worth.
Posted by poppies on April 17, 2011 at 4:20 am
No offense at all, I actually really appreciate your rigor. Sorry if any offense was communicated.
I don’t particularly feel that being human is sacred in the sense in which I think you’re using that term. I simply find that most cultures throughout history and across a wide geography tend to elevate human-ness to a relatively high value state. For instance, most cultures don’t consider the utilitarian killing of animals to be murder, but those same cultures would recoil in moral horror at the utilitarian killing of humans.
Outside of a religious commitment, associating such high worth to human-ness is totally arbitrary. However, it’s inconsistent to have a non-religious conviction that the utilitarian killing of adult humans is wrong, but to also believe it’s not wrong to kill unborn humans in a utilitarian fashion. Human-ness is empirically biological, beginning at conception.
Note that most high cultural values hinge on human-ness, not consciousness. Many animals display conscious behavior, but no culture I’ve ever heard of legally prosecutes utilitarian killing of such animals unrelated to peripheral issues (poaching laws, etc.).
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on April 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I know this following comment is a bit disjointed. I just wanted to touch on the points you mentioned.
(1)Prevelance doesn’t nessarly equal right. Should humaness be our standard of values, or should cognvity. Can something suffer if it doesn’t “process suffering”. It is much more sure, that a woman who has to give birth to a child she doesn’t want, has her life comprimised, and the child who in all likelyhood won’t have the same ammount of oppturnity vs. one who is raised in a more well planned family, processes suffering more, than a fetus. A fetus in all likelyhood, doesn’t actually process what is going on. So the reaction to it is on our end. Is abortion wrong, possibly, but it is less wrong than murder.
See I would argue we should use conicnouss as a measure rather than humaness. Our appreciation of humaness, if I think rooted in, aesthetics, and selfishness. Consiouness at least makes a bit more sense (does something suffer if it doesn’t realize it is suffering). When I was a vegeterian, and later a pseudo-vegeterian, I’d decide which animals it was okay to slip into eating based on their congitave capaicty, (i.e. Fish<Chicken<Beef<Pork). I really love tha taste of red meat and pork, so I ultimently quit, but admit that my descion in all likelyhood was wrong.
If we don't believe in prosecuting for killing animals, below a certain thresehold, why is it not okay to abort something, even less congtively able. Also out of curioisty what is your view of pulling the plug on coma patients?
(2)Poaching
Also the biggest reason (I was at a confrence about it in DC a few weeks ago) anti-poaching laws exist, is because eco-tourism brings in a good amount of money to many of these countries. Poaching, if over done means less people will travel there, since the wildlife they wish to see many no longer exists, that hurts a countries GDP. So even there it's about humans. But it gets a bit intresting after that.
In (I forget exactly where, but a well read friend informed me of this), because of starvation, people try to steal the kills of lions (or maybe it's tiger, doesn't matter for sake of arguemnth tough). Now this is a problem, guess what people would rather save, an endagerned speices, or people in this instance, the endagnered species. See we support indirect killing of people, if it means not doing so might damage GDP or conservation. Of course it's not framed that way, but that is the result. I'll ask him monday, if you want the information clarified.
(3)-Utilitarian Killing of People Does Occur And Civilization Depends On It
Also we indirectly kill other humans every day (airlines decide acceptail accident rates, precaution aren't taken, an amount of aid is determined to give some nation, lower that what could be, because we chose an acceptable thresehold of loss of life) this death by acceptable life oppturnity cost, verses use of resources keep civilization going. It's not as infront of us as abortion is, but it results in the death of living humans. We accept this, because we know that there could in fact be no first world without it. Buy an iphone, the manufacturer in China decided what is the acceptable level of employee sucides before changes in policy and living conditions need to be implemented. What are the odd you or I are going to live of the grid to preserve life, slim.
Warfare is even more obvious, so there is really no need to get into that. I'm not a pacifist, so if I'm going to be honest with mylself I have to accept my role in this.
So it's the visceral disgust people want to avoid most times, and not the act. Utilitarian killing of people does occur.
Posted by poppies on April 17, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Outside of religious or other deontological systems, prevalence does indeed equal right, at least in the judgment of the great majority of humanity. You can disagree, and because non-deontological ethical systems are fundamentally arbitrary there is room for such disagreement, but you are in an extreme minority. Just understand that your personal subjective value elevation of consciousness is rationally equal to defining worth based on skin color or some other random metric. You may personally feel it’s a better metric and offer a wide array of supporting arguments, but others still may disagree, and because you seem to embrace ethical relativism there is no way for you to clearly “win” in such a disagreement. It’s just like arguing over which painting is the greatest.
One can’t embrace ethical relativism and simultaneously claim objective ethical standards.
Differing types of suffering can only be discussed in subjective ordinal terms, and can’t be objectively measured and compared. The surety you claim is merely your personal aesthetic judgment.
I believe such an action can only be justified if the patient has been fully abandoned in a Lockean homesteading sense, and no other party has taken over the guardianship of the patient after reasonable efforts have been made to advertise the opportunity. That is, I believe everyone has a negative right to life (no one can murder anyone else), but no one has a positive obligation to keep someone else alive (no one can be forced to keep another alive). My views on this make a distinction between killing and letting die. Rationally justified “letting die” doesn’t necessarily make a statement regarding the worth of human-ness, it makes a statement about negative rights versus positive rights.
This situation is simply a result of a lack of clear property rights, as are most ecological “challenges”. No one is actively supporting indirect killing of people in the situation, they’re simply confused over who owns the big cats and their prey. This is an instance of “letting die,” which I referenced earlier as very different from denigrating the moral worth of human-ness.
Again, there’s an important difference between letting die and killing, and the statements on human worth each imply. Your position seems to be similar to that of those who claim that pro-lifers must financially support unwanted children in order to be consistent. Such a position unjustifiably conflates a negative right to life with a positive right to life.
Thanks for all your commentary, these are helpful things to think about.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on April 17, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Were you a debator in highschool and/or college, it’s just bringing back memories for me.
I don’t believe in the distinction of letting someone die/ versus killing them. Also I don’t believe in ethical relativism, there are some things that are worse than other, I just don’t believe “nature” should be the barometer. I believe there are “nesscary wrongs” and “lesser evils”. I’ve gotten in many an argument with friends over cultural and moral relativism.
Also in your response to the coma question, and bringing the homesteading principle in it. Does the person in the coma no longer own their body? What if the person is a quadropolig, is someone obligated to feed them. If you answer yes to the later, but not the prior, that you are agreeing that higher functions are indeed more worth life than lower ones.
My question to you, is what do you consider suffering. If someone goes into surgery, and they are knocked out, do they feel pain, if it doesn’t register with anyone of their higher functions? If so than anesthetic doesn’t really help a patient, as suffering still occurs whether there is a realiztion of it or not. Is stepping on a jelly fish as bad a stepping on a cat?
Do you feel humanness itself is important? And if you do why, I’m interested to see why you believe that choice makes more sense than any other?
Why do you think letting someone die is diffrent than killing them, What about where it falls into a grey are (the trolley problem with the fat man for instance).
Also in regards to the big cats and their pre, they are fine with other animals stealing it, just not people. So the ownership is basically, you can own any dead animal as long as you’re not human.
Also no rush, I’m sort of busy lately in meat space myself, I’l assume I haven’t offended you, unless you say otherwise.
Posted by poppies on May 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Counter argument?…
…and yet every time you’ve backed up an ethical position, you’ve used subjective reasoning and have never appealed to any sort of deontological imperative. I wonder to what objective barometer you subscribe.
The coma patient does indeed own their body, but since they can’t effectively make use of said ownership, the guardian rights over their self-ownership, similar to the guardianship over a young child, can be homesteaded. I don’t believe in positive rights, so no, I don’t think any incapacitated person has a claim on the resources of anyone else in a legal sense. Others may still have a moral duty to provide as such, however.
Suffering is experiencing something one would take action to avoid, ceteris paribus. Interpersonal or interspecies suffering can’t be objectively compared, because suffering, like valuation, is subjective and ordinal.
I do, but in an axiomatic fashion which is therefore arbitrary, so I can’t defend it. The grounding axiom(s) of any deontological system is necessarily arbitrary. That still doesn’t obviate the need, however, to demand non-arbitrary implications to flow from an axiom.
As I said before, conflating killing with letting die “unjustifiably conflates a negative right to life with a positive right to life.” Thus, if one kills the proverbial fat man to save five others, one is legally culpable, but not if the five die. An onlooker has no obligation to save the five. If one did, there’s no logical stopping point. E.g., if one of the five feeds themselves poorly, affecting their health, it’s the onlooker’s obligation to improve their diet, through force if necessary. I think such a state of affairs is so obviously absurd as to require no further defense, but I’m game to dive in further.
Ownership doesn’t extend to animals; as historically defined, ownership requires uniquely human capacities.
I’ve been busy as well, thus the very late reply; I apologize. You’ll find it quite hard to offend me, no worries.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on August 29, 2011 at 9:49 am
Real life got to me, long office days and such. Anyway have been thinking about your points.
Here is where I disagree (postive rights to life). It’s sort of, as I see it, the humanistic equvileant of ignoring oppturnity cost. If the person was certain beyond a reasonable doubt (and only then) could he throw the fat man off the trollie. I’d like to hear why you don’t believe in postive rights.
I’d say the stopping point is a person of sound mind is allowed to do what ever they wish to themselvs, even if it is indirectly self destructive. Now if it is directly self desrtuctive (commiting sucide) according to your argument a person should not be able to focefully stop the person from such an action, even if they are physcally healthy and not trying to kill themselvs due to some terminal illness.
Two in regards to homesteading I recently read this intresting article.With regards to coma pations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/12/health.healthandwellbeing
Does that mean the person, was for lack of a better term somewhere in there? Then wouldn’t pulling the plug be a form of manslaughter.
As for ownership, humans do have a right to it, you say and animals don’t, wouldn’t that mean if anything, the tiger doesn’t own the carcass, but the human does. Or is the concept of ownership, completely void when dealing with a non-human?
Here is where I disagree with my orginal post. I suppose in thinking this through, I’ve realised the same arguments I’m using here are why I should be against abortion. Part of it is I’m starting a carrer in politics. And us on the hill are pretty stuck, so it’s hard to admit, being pro-choice, a democrate, that I’m wrong, but I never want to be one of those people who don’t debate, or change their minds, cause they are stuck.
Also you seem to be more well versed in philoshpy than I, I was wondering if perhaps you could suggest some works, as I’d like to have a deep knowledge of it, and all I have now is a smattering.
Posted by poppies on September 4, 2011 at 1:38 am
- You don’t seem to understand the difference between a positive and negative right to life. I’d recommend looking into the distinction further. A negative right to life is classically understood to not preclude suicide or any sort of self injury.
- Regarding coma patients, every ethical situation can only be understood in terms of context (that’s not to say that ethics are subjective, simply that ethical decisions must be based on all reasonably available details). If a possibility for recovery exists, an entirely new situation presents itself.
- As I said, “Ownership doesn’t extend to animals; as historically defined, ownership requires uniquely human capacities.”
- I would recommend some philosophical works, but if you’re going into politics, it would honestly mostly be a waste of your time. Politics is about violence, not philosophy. I’ll recommend the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kPsaxuM5Y&feature=related as a way of clarifying the difference.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on September 8, 2011 at 7:01 am
I don’t mind wasting my time, and reading is my favorite way to do it, as for politics it’s not a pleasant enterprise, there is a reason why there are more bars per person than I’ve even seen in an American city, in DC.
I’m quite honestly thinking of making a break for it, while I’m still in the entry level part of it, and before I invest (really waste some serious) time in it. No one listens in this field either really, it’s a lot of pomp, and a lot of resetentment towards the people we say we represent. Plus the really smart people only tend to make it into the middle, not always, but it seems that the top isn’t the cream of the crop. Sorry for my spewing my frustration with the mess of it.
Anyway sorry for my ignorance on the subject. I’d like to get to know it deeper, a short reading list would be a big help. Cause if we don’t have time to waste, what do we really have.
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on September 8, 2011 at 7:14 am
Also definetly checking out the videos, thanks for the link.
Posted by poppies on September 8, 2011 at 7:33 am
I can barely keep myself from jumping up and down with vigor due to the intensity with which I recommend you not go further into politics. If you really want to help people and change the world for the better, it’s about the worst avenue possible.
I do get the sense that you’re truly an open-minded individual, so I’ll go ahead and provide a few links which I feel are a decent introduction to reasonable political philosophy and philosophy in general:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block141.html
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/papersbyplantinga.html
http://mises.org/daily/1522
http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/37-garner-minarchy-considered/
http://mises.org/resources/1011/Anatomy-of-the-State
Posted by lookingforsomethingtofind on September 10, 2011 at 4:14 am
I try to keep an open mind, figure I’d rather admit I was wrong, than keep being it. Thanks a ton for the links. Know how I’m gonna kill the down time this weekend.