Philosophy Forums


abortion morally acceptable ?

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

abortion morally acceptable ?
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304
Posted 10/22/09 - 02:47 AM:
quote post
#81
Odin wrote:
I didn't say that, but their sex will not have the same purpose that sex between two fertile people will have. Their having sex will be for a self-ascribed purpose or no purpose at all, but not for a purpose assigned by nature.


This is "appeal to nature". Something is good because it is "natural". Nature assigns "fun" to sex, so having sex for the fun of it is natural and good, right?

Odin wrote:
You're strawman would be the same as me saying "so your opinion advocating abortion means that you think ALL people should be infertile and the human race should cease to exist?" I'm not saying anything about limiting anyone's actions, and I'm not even really saying that abortion should be outlawed, but the title of the thread is "is abortion morally acceptable, and clearly abortion is a transgression against our obligations as human beings, clearly it has the purpose of disconnecting the reality of the obligations entailed by sex with the obligations arising from childbirth, so now you see a society intent on its carnal indulgence, and millions of children are either aborted, or perhaps worse, born in wedlock with parents who are incapable of meeting their responsibilities toward the life that they create.


You previously argued for existential value to humanity and that it implied an obligation to increase the human race. However, overpopulation, pollution, and other human generated problems are a far greater threat. Wouldn't reducing the population and maximizing resources for those currently existing take precedence? The problems you cite are stereotypical. It isn't necessarily true that a child born out of wedlock had parents incapable of meeting their responsibilities, (if it were, abortion would solve that problem so that only those children who could be taken care of would exist).

Odin wrote:
Abortion is a total abdication of all responsibility. Even if the fetus is not a human being, which is still inconclusive, and abortion harms no one, it is still immoral because it breaks the most solemn obligations that humans can make to each other.


If the a fetus is not a human being, then there is no obligation to take care of it as a human being. It isn't that inconclusive. Most studies have determined that at about 20 weeks, (5 months), the fetus is able to meet the test of being a human being. It is that boundary that determines a "late term abortion" rather than abortions in general. If a fetus is a human being at time of conception, (actually, a "zygote"), then in-vitro fertilization would be equally immoral as the process creates dozens of "zygotes", all potential human beings, if not physically possible to carry them all to term, but most are destroyed.


Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207
Posted 10/22/09 - 08:46 AM:
quote post
#82
swstephe wrote:


This is "appeal to nature". Something is good because it is "natural". Nature assigns "fun" to sex, so having sex for the fun of it is natural and good, right?


Because you've been taught that there is a naturalistic fallacy, I'm not surprised you said this. There is no naturalistic fallacy. The fallacy is in not regressing every concept back to its most primary components. Oughts cannot be equated with is's, but oughts can be derived from is. And the idea of an "ought" can only apply to a being with the conscious ability to do what it "ought not to," and of course conscious beings only exist in nature.

Just saying 'in nature sex is fun' and concluding that the purpose of sex is that it should be fun is wrong because you haven't asked what "fun" derives from. Whether it serves a more fundamental purpose is important. Obviously sex is only fun because nature is giving us an incentive to reproduce. We reproduce for the purpose of perpetuating the species, keeping it alive. Why the species exists in the first place is a question we'll likely never know the answer to, but since we do exist we know that the first derivative of our existence is reproducing, which is the universal purpose of human life. In religious terms, it is to continue perpetuating/perfecting the 'image of God' on Earth by creating children in our own image. In secular terms, we'll never really know the answer if it even exists but we know that the purpose is to continue perpetuating the image of mankind and specifically, the image of us and our spouse through sex, the union designed for that purpose.



I'll get to your other points later, I just have to go now.
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304
3 of 4 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/22/09 - 07:49 PM:
quote post
#83
"Appeal to nature" is a fallacy because it assumes one particular example is "correct behavior" because it is observed in nature and therefore "better". The problem is that there is a wide range of behaviors observed in nature. The bonobo, a human's apparent closest relative, is rarely shown in zoos because they are so sexually promiscuous and engage in sexual acts which definitely don't lead to procreation, like homosexual acts and sex play. It seems to function as a way to build social cohesion and hierarchy. You are faced with a dilemma, either "appeal to nature" is valid, in which case you have to accept pretty much anything that is physically possible is permissible, or that "appeal to nature" is a fallacy and doesn't necessarily say which behavior is correct. Besides, humans commonly engage in behavior which is not observed in nature at all -- and therefore is "unnatural" and apparently not "correct" -- like wearing clothes, using a toilet, and cooking our food.

You need a brain to make a purpose. A rock rolling down a hill doesn't have a purpose for rolling down that hill. An animal's private purpose for having sex is because it gives pleasure and fulfills an urge in their bodies. That the urge was naturally selected because having sex sometimes leads to procreation is an outside observation. Most animals probably have no concept that what they are doing will lead to procreation. They might see the two activities as being unrelated.

Even ignoring the naturalistic fallacy and accepting "perpetuating the species" as the existential purpose of human beings, overpopulation is more of a risk toward the human species than dying out because of diminishing birth rates. There are many areas of the world that are incapable of supporting human life with the available resources -- due to drought, famine and disease. Conserving resources would be a higher value. At 6 billion population, there is little risk that any natural disaster is going to wipe out humanity, unless it is a major life-extinguishing event. Even in that case, the "solution", is to simply colonize space, not to prohibit abortion.

In all this "perpetuating the species", I see a humanistic bias. Why are humans so great that they need to perpetuate even at the total destruction of other species. If it is purely an appeal to nature, all species would have a right to equal protection, even at the minor expense of limiting our own population. But eventually you are faced with a transition to humanistic fragmentation. We tend to value some humans more than others. Preferring those more similar to ourselves or those who are valued more strongly. Then you get into racist, moralist and religious intolerance based on the same reasoning. Each decision has an affect on the total of humanity. I think the first derivative of existence is quality of life and not just existing for the sake of existing.

Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
Simon JM
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4
Posted 10/22/09 - 08:10 PM:
quote post
#84
swstephe wrote:

If the a fetus is not a human being, then there is no obligation to take care of it as a human being. It isn't that inconclusive. Most studies have determined that at about 20 weeks, (5 months), the fetus is able to meet the test of being a human being. It is that boundary that determines a "late term abortion" rather than abortions in general. If a fetus is a human being at time of conception, (actually, a "zygote"), then in-vitro fertilization would be equally immoral as the process creates dozens of "zygotes", all potential human beings, if not physically possible to carry them all to term, but most are destroyed.


Could you clarify what you mean by human being? I know in the academic lit it can mean both Homo Sapiens and human person depending on who is using it. I use Homo Spaiens and I know David Boonin and Peter Singer -among others- have no problem seeing the zygote as a Homo Sapiens

Or are you thinking that it is sentience that makes it a Human Being? Which surely cannot be true as many animals are also sentient but not considered human beings.

I'm quickly scanning through the other posts so my apologies in advance if this has been made clear before.

BTW I'm reasonably well aquainted with the lit on the subject.
mutemaler
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 664
Posted 10/23/09 - 08:25 AM:
quote post
#85
Hi swstephe, regarding the "wide range of behaviors" you mention as speaking against the "appeal to nature" justification:

In it you first assume that there is a "one correct way", and then go on to show how the "appeal to nature" as justification must fail, that the position is internally inconsistent. That is well argued. I think one can take this thought a bit further. Rephrase things a bit in perspectivist terms to do so.

First note that any particular "correct" behavior is present as a criteria in the deeming perspective. Then add what you said about the universe being the sum aggregate of all perspectives. Because it is then clear that the problem is not that the universe can't justify any perspective but that it can justify too many, all possible perspectives. And that it can't really even function as a perspective because a perspective needs an internal criteria (a here) directed towards that which is to be valued (a there), two points of reference in other words.

So the "appeal to nature" seen this way fails not only because 1) it can't preference a particular behavior, but also that it 2) can't really function as a perspective at all. Fails as "ultimate arbitrator" on both accords. As literally all points of view it is "ultimately" no particular one at all. Or alternately, the universe as entity is necessarily a-moral. Only particular points of view can be moral or immoral.

Just an aside, I am rather suspicious of the doctrine of humanism. It seems a bit too closely allied with a particular conquerer mentality and manifest destiny. The creation of a culture which thinks it speaks for all of humanity whenever it opens its mouth. The nerve really.

Edited by mutemaler on 10/23/09 - 08:31 AM
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304
Posted 10/23/09 - 06:20 PM:
quote post
#86
Simon JM wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean by human being? I know in the academic lit it can mean both Homo Sapiens and human person depending on who is using it. I use Homo Spaiens and I know David Boonin and Peter Singer -among others- have no problem seeing the zygote as a Homo Sapiens


I guess I'm referring to both zygote and fetus -- but I use the criteria of immediate independent viability and apparently voluntary response to stimuli. Using species identification is always a bit vague, but what we refer to as "homo sapiens" would usually do.

Simon JM wrote:
Or are you thinking that it is sentience that makes it a Human Being? Which surely cannot be true as many animals are also sentient but not considered human beings.


No, sentience or consciousness would also be extremely vague and unreliable to measure qualification for being a human being, since that isn't what is normally understood to be human. I'm always going through threads where people argue "X can't be conscious", when what they really mean is, "X can't be conscious exactly like we assume all humans are conscious", (even if they are not). That leads to "the hard problem", in determining whether something that can't communicate experiences consciousness or sentience in the same way that we assume others do.

I know this brings up a few exceptions. A person who has fallen into a persistent vegetative state or a coma is generally considered to be human, although he might not be considered independently viable and incapable of voluntary responses -- and also not really sentient or conscious in the normal way a human is conscious -- so I have to make a distinction on whether such a state is common enough.

Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876
Posted 10/23/09 - 09:00 PM:
quote post
#87
swstephe wrote:
That leads to "the hard problem", in determining whether something that can't communicate experiences consciousness or sentience in the same way that we assume others do.


I think that it follows from evolutionary principles that many other species just must. Evolution is a gradual process, the probability that something so complex as consciousness could arise uniquely in the human species, and was not a gradual process -- at least correlating with brain development -- is very low. So we should expect various degrees of consciousness in our close relatives, as well as in species with analogous convergent brain developments.

Not that this has anything to do with the thrust of the point that you are making. smiling face

"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie.

"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.


Simon JM
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4
Posted 10/24/09 - 02:17 PM:
quote post
#88
swstephe wrote:


I guess I'm referring to both zygote and fetus -- but I use the criteria of immediate independent viability and apparently voluntary response to stimuli. Using species identification is always a bit vague, but what we refer to as "homo sapiens" would usually do.



No, sentience or consciousness would also be extremely vague and unreliable to measure qualification for being a human being, since that isn't what is normally understood to be human. I'm always going through threads where people argue "X can't be conscious", when what they really mean is, "X can't be conscious exactly like we assume all humans are conscious", (even if they are not). That leads to "the hard problem", in determining whether smething that can't communicate experiences consciousness or sentience in the same way that we assume others do.

I know this brings up a few exceptions. A person who has fallen into a persistent vegetative state or a coma is generally considered to be human, although he might not be considered independently viable and incapable of voluntary responses -- and also not really sentient or conscious in the normal way a human is conscious -- so I have to make a distinction on whether such a state is common enough.



A bit of a mixture. I'm guess you know that in general moral philosophers are looking for underlying capacity or ontological nature to grant moral value, basically what a thing is instead of a relational where it is, given where it is is accidental to its nature. That is why there is criticism of viability, two entities which the same capacities could end up being treated differently solely due to chance. Which is something ethicists are trying to avoid.

Secondly even Liberal philosophers have pointed out that a baby can hardly be considered independent; it still relies on care and supplied nutrients. From a POV of bodily process a foetus is still distinct, no less than any parasitic organism who relies on another organism body for nourishment. It isn't like a baby alligator which is independent from the moment it hatches. Nor does one lose ones moral worth or identity status by being hooked up to a heart lung machine or similar device no matter the age or state of development.

Again from biology, embryology and even Pro-Choice/Liberal/Progressive philosophers there seem to be no problem accepting the biological approach to see a developmental stage of a human as a Homo Sapiens or that a species Homo Spaiences exists at all. Also they seem to be able to discern a difference between constituent sex cells and a unique functionally complete individual.For good biological reasons. Even twinning isn't a problem as far as I can see.

Lastly again the obvious counter would be many other animals are 'both immediate independent viability and apparently voluntary response to stimuli' so they must also be human beings.

So I don't know what else to say, the above obvious reasons are enough for many Pro-Choice and Pro-Life philosophers to disregard birth or viability because of the problems it creates.

& if you then look at someone like Warren who supports birth, my take on her is that she basically sees these problems with the, where it is and sentience, but since we cannot accept the consequences of where it would lead, namely infanticide, we have to accept birth and its near equivalence, no late term abortions. Which is bandaid philosophy an arbitrary patchup job.

I think she also justifies the spcial nature of birth that because then it truly becomes an interactive social creature. But so does a puppy or kitten, who are also independent and sentient. But we don't given them equal moral consideration.

I don't know but these appear pretty big holes.





Edited by Simon JM on 10/24/09 - 02:22 PM
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304
Posted 10/24/09 - 08:03 PM:
quote post
#89
Simon JM wrote:
A bit of a mixture. I'm guess you know that in general moral philosophers are looking for underlying capacity or ontological nature to grant moral value, basically what a thing is instead of a relational where it is, given where it is is accidental to its nature. That is why there is criticism of viability, two entities which the same capacities could end up being treated differently solely due to chance. Which is something ethicists are trying to avoid.


I don't agree. Society in general has already made the decision that rights are granted purely by relationship of the individual to the society. A criminal isn't granted the same rights as a law-abiding citizen and a child doesn't have the same rights as an adult, regardless of them all being human beings and having the same capacities. Society's assignments of rights and its basis for moral values are arbitrarily assigned based on any conditions that seem sufficient for the majority of its members.

Simon JM wrote:
Secondly even Liberal philosophers have pointed out that a baby can hardly be considered independent; it still relies on care and supplied nutrients. From a POV of bodily process a foetus is still distinct, no less than any parasitic organism who relies on another organism body for nourishment. It isn't like a baby alligator which is independent from the moment it hatches. Nor does one lose ones moral worth or identity status by being hooked up to a heart lung machine or similar device no matter the age or state of development.


The difference is that the fetus is dependent on the mother. Society has no access to the fetus except through the mother's body. In all the other cases, a baby or someone in an iron lung are both establishing a relationship with its society. A baby or iron lung patient can be cared for by a society. A society has no moral responsibility for babies or iron lung patients outside its jurisdiction, (in foreign countries), except for altruism.

Simon JM wrote:
Again from biology, embryology and even Pro-Choice/Liberal/Progressive philosophers there seem to be no problem accepting the biological approach to see a developmental stage of a human as a Homo Sapiens or that a species Homo Spaiences exists at all. Also they seem to be able to discern a difference between constituent sex cells and a unique functionally complete individual. For good biological reasons. Even twinning isn't a problem as far as I can see.


Fallacy of equivalence. You associate a developmental stage of "human" as being of the species "homo sapiens", and this is equivalent to the term "human being", which carries a lot of moral weight with it. Those same philosophers would not assign the same rights, (as a citizen of a society), to an early term fetus.

Simon JM wrote:
Lastly again the obvious counter would be many other animals are 'both immediate independent viability and apparently voluntary response to stimuli' so they must also be human beings.


Appeal to ridicule? Obviously I'm talking about a stage of development of human. It was contextual.

Simon JM wrote:
So I don't know what else to say, the above obvious reasons are enough for many Pro-Choice and Pro-Life philosophers to disregard birth or viability because of the problems it creates.

& if you then look at someone like Warren who supports birth, my take on her is that she basically sees these problems with the, where it is and sentience, but since we cannot accept the consequences of where it would lead, namely infanticide, we have to accept birth and its near equivalence, no late term abortions. Which is bandaid philosophy an arbitrary patchup job.

I think she also justifies the spcial nature of birth that because then it truly becomes an interactive social creature. But so does a puppy or kitten, who are also independent and sentient. But we don't given them equal moral consideration.

I don't know but these appear pretty big holes.


I think the key focus here is "infanticide is immoral, a fetus is an infant by most definition, therefore abortion is immoral". Why is infanticide universally immoral? The termination of human lives is entirely acceptable when justified by the needs of society. Capital punishment, resisting dangerous criminals with violent force, wars, occupation and exploitation of other societies, taking unhealthy and unnecessary risks. If there is some fundamental right to the protection of human life, even sentient life, then all such activities must cease immediately. However, I think society has necessarily followed the school that it arbitrarily assigns justification for taking of human lives for its own general reasons and satisfactions. At least, in the case of the fetus, I assign responsibility entirely to the mother, instead of society, (I note that, in general, the citizenship and identity of a child isn't determined until the child is born -- so legally, the child is not a citizen of any country and not subject to its jurisdiction anyway).

To prevent abortions based on membership to a species would be an unprecedented and unique moral statement. The societies making the rules make clear distinction on rights based on citizenship and jurisdiction.

Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 207
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/24/09 - 11:58 PM:
quote post
#90
swstephe wrote:
"Appeal to nature" is a fallacy because it assumes one particular example is "correct behavior" because it is observed in nature and therefore "better". The problem is that there is a wide range of behaviors observed in nature. The bonobo, a human's apparent closest relative, is rarely shown in zoos because they are so sexually promiscuous and engage in sexual acts which definitely don't lead to procreation, like homosexual acts and sex play. It seems to function as a way to build social cohesion and hierarchy. You are faced with a dilemma, either "appeal to nature" is valid, in which case you have to accept pretty much anything that is physically possible is permissible, or that "appeal to nature" is a fallacy and doesn't necessarily say which behavior is correct. Besides, humans commonly engage in behavior which is not observed in nature at all -- and therefore is "unnatural" and apparently not "correct" -- like wearing clothes, using a toilet, and cooking our food.


This is a complete strawman of my argument. And this rubbish about "appeal to nature" is a convinient, slick way of "discreding" someone without rationally examining their points. It's not about behavior that is observed in nature. Completely contradictory actions take place in nature. But human nature is universal and absolute. There is no such thing as an alternative human nature. Even if humans acted completely against their nature in nature, which they do, it wouldn't change human nature. Now not all human nature leads to morality. In fact, the part that does lead to morality probably shouldn't even be called human nature. It should be called the absolute of human existence. As you said below, what does not have life cannot have an inherent purpose, it can only be given a purpose by a conscious being. But a conscious being can have an inherent purpose. For a human being, its most fundamental inherent purpose is propagation: creating new life. Reason tells us that, but if you'd like further intuitive evidence, that is why the strongest love that can exist is from a parent to a child, and why the greatest evil that exists is destroying life, especially innocent young life.

You need a brain to make a purpose. A rock rolling down a hill doesn't have a purpose for rolling down that hill. An animal's private purpose for having sex is because it gives pleasure and fulfills an urge in their bodies. That the urge was naturally selected because having sex sometimes leads to procreation is an outside observation. Most animals probably have no concept that what they are doing will lead to procreation. They might see the two activities as being unrelated.


Seems in attempting to refute me you committed the fallacy you accused me of: "An animal's private purpose for having sex is because it gives pleasure and fulfills an urge in their bodies." As you pointed out, their private purpose in nature is irrelevant. Because it is subjective, and subjectivity cannot be a basis for objective morality. Only inherent purpose can be. But regardless, an animal is incapable of being 'moral.' A human being is rational, and morality is accomplised by our reason tempering our primitive instincts and desires. We can conclude the purpose for which those desires exist and ask whether our actions, even if they accomplish our primitive desires, undermine our inherent purpose.

Even ignoring the naturalistic fallacy and accepting "perpetuating the species" as the existential purpose of human beings, overpopulation is more of a risk toward the human species than dying out because of diminishing birth rates. There are many areas of the world that are incapable of supporting human life with the available resources -- due to drought, famine and disease. Conserving resources would be a higher value. At 6 billion population, there is little risk that any natural disaster is going to wipe out humanity, unless it is a major life-extinguishing event. Even in that case, the "solution", is to simply colonize space, not to prohibit abortion.


Now you're talking in the realm of practicality. People frequently use this excuse against the idea of all human beings being free: 'well that will never work.' The history of the struggle to achieve human freedom is full of that. Frankly I don't care whether you think morality is practical or convinient to follow. And yet still, worrying about 'overpopulation' or conserving resources for the future is not in your own self-interest. The earth can sustain any increase in population that will take place by the time you die. The only reason to care about it is because your fundamental purpose tells you to. Human beings have an instinct for the survival of the species. Forget about the consequentialist attitude, morality has nothing to do with what works to 'maximize' anything.

In all this "perpetuating the species", I see a humanistic bias. Why are humans so great that they need to perpetuate even at the total destruction of other species. If it is purely an appeal to nature, all species would have a right to equal protection, even at the minor expense of limiting our own population. But eventually you are faced with a transition to humanistic fragmentation. We tend to value some humans more than others. Preferring those more similar to ourselves or those who are valued more strongly. Then you get into racist, moralist and religious intolerance based on the same reasoning. Each decision has an affect on the total of humanity. I think the first derivative of existence is quality of life and not just existing for the sake of existing.


We don't need to pepetuate at the expense of all other species. It is actually in our benefit to perpetuate with as little cost to other species as possible. The issue is that we don't have any inherent obligations to other species like we have to our own species. We may value 'reverence to life' like Albert Schweitzer based his morality on, but I suspect that is only because we see a semblance of humanity in some animals, or something in them that reminds them of ourselves (or something we value) and is attractive to us. And that's probably laudible. But it is an issue separate from morality.

Also, all human beings are of equal worth. Again, its a 'naturalitic fallacy' to say that 'we tend to value some humans more than others.' As long as you are capably of thinking rationally you are a human being. Human beings are capable of morality. It was a horrible evil of the past that many non-white humans were subjected to being treated as animals.

"Quality of life" is just a vain construction by human beings to conclude that they should keep on living. There is really no reason to, except your vanity (or if you are trying to fulfill some inherent purpose of your existence). Death is the default setting in the universe, life is just a remote accident. Then, the option is to either take the default position now, or create a vain reason to keep on living. Quality of life, pleasure, and all those other excuses are just vain constructions. The only thing which can give life meaning is knowing that your existence is accomplishing an inherent purpose of humanity. Of course, doing so also probably gives us greater happiness and true quality of life than any other course in life.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.