Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba121h [2017/08/23 11:25] – mmccann | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba121h [2017/08/23 15:38] (current) – mmccann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* numbering? | * numbering? | ||
* Content? Pull from https:// | * Content? Pull from https:// | ||
- | * **moral relativism** re: choice; briefly, epistemological relativism vs. objective truth... | ||
- | ===== " | ||
- | |||
- | * objective truth vs. opinion | ||
- | * opinions and preferences vs. objective claims | ||
- | Imagine being offered some jelly beans from a bowl—which ones would you choose? The red ones? The orange ones? Perhaps a few people would even choose the black licorice ones. In the long run, of course, it wouldn’t really matter which of these jelly beans you chose. | + | {{: |
But what if some of the jelly beans in the bowl were poisoned, and making the wrong choice would be lethal? Would it matter then which flavour you chose? Would you simply dismiss the claim, that the beans were poisoned, as a personal belief and allow people to eat the beans anyway? Or would you verify the claim first by testing if it is true? | But what if some of the jelly beans in the bowl were poisoned, and making the wrong choice would be lethal? Would it matter then which flavour you chose? Would you simply dismiss the claim, that the beans were poisoned, as a personal belief and allow people to eat the beans anyway? Or would you verify the claim first by testing if it is true? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== " | ||
A lot of Canadians think moral debates like abortion are like a bowl of jelly beans. As the belief goes, we can choose whatever flavour of belief we prefer because in the long run, what we choose is the truth for us. | A lot of Canadians think moral debates like abortion are like a bowl of jelly beans. As the belief goes, we can choose whatever flavour of belief we prefer because in the long run, what we choose is the truth for us. | ||
- | Abortion advocate, Joyce Arthur emphasizes this point in an article titled, the Fetus Focus Fallacy: | + | Abortion advocate, Joyce Arthur emphasizes this point in an article titled, |
- | We all have our own opinions about what the moral status of the fetus might be. Some people believe a fertilized egg is a full human being with an absolute right to life that supercedes any right of the woman. Others believe that a fetus attains moral value only after it becomes viable, or upon birth. But that's all these beliefs are - opinions. There' | + | > We all have our own opinions about what the moral status of the fetus might be. Some people believe a fertilized egg is a full human being with an absolute right to life that supercedes any right of the woman. Others believe that a fetus attains moral value only after it becomes viable, or upon birth. |
- | In other words, because there is disagreement about what the fetus is and how we should value the pre-born, she believes the pre-born have no objective | + | In other words, because there is disagreement about what the fetus is and how we should value the pre-born, she believes the pre-born have no objective |
+ | ==== Moral Claims vs. Preference Claims ==== | ||
- | **But claims don’t become subjective just because there is a lack of consensus.** Every right, including the equality rights Arthur discusses, were, at one point in history, controversial. Not everyone agreed with the notion that women should be treated equally to men. However, no one would argue that because there was a lack of consensus that that meant there was no right or wrong answer to the question of equality rights. | + | But claims don’t become subjective just because there is a lack of consensus. Every right, including the equality rights Arthur discusses, were, at one point in history, controversial. Not everyone agreed with the notion that women should be treated equally to men. However, no one would argue that because there was a lack of consensus that that meant there was no right or wrong answer to the question of equality rights. |
What would Arthur say if we argued that because there is lack of consensus on the status of women around the world, societies should continue oppressing women? In fact, the reason why we call certain actions " | What would Arthur say if we argued that because there is lack of consensus on the status of women around the world, societies should continue oppressing women? In fact, the reason why we call certain actions " | ||
- | When pro-lifers claim that abortion kills children, we are not saying we do not prefer abortion, just as someone would say they do not prefer a certain flavor of jelly bean. Rather, we are claiming that abortion is lethal, just like a poisoned candy is lethal. | + | When pro-lifers claim that abortion kills children, |
- | Scientifically and philosophically, | + | ==== " |
- | Interestingly, if each person decides on the value of the pre-born, why does Arthur insist that pro-lifers | + | Scientifically and philosophically, pro-lifers make the objective claim that a human being' |
- | And if pro-lifers | + | FIXME is this stuff needed? < |
- | The truth of the matter is, the pro-lifers’ claim about abortion | + | And if pro-lifers claim to believe that the pre-born are valuable human beings, how then could she expect us to not want to stop abortion? Why say we personally believe that the pre-born are human beings in one breath and then say it is okay for others to kill them? |
- | > What’s wrong with this response? Maher was confusing | + | <note> |
+ | **Science-based Public Policy** | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | “What we’re advocating | ||
+ | |||
+ | The truth of the matter | ||
===== Don't force your morality on others! ===== | ===== Don't force your morality on others! ===== | ||
Abortion advocates often argue against legal restrictions on abortion because they say it is imposing someone’s morals on other people. Furthermore, | Abortion advocates often argue against legal restrictions on abortion because they say it is imposing someone’s morals on other people. Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Moral Relativism: A Self-Defeating Argument ==== | ||
But in making that argument they have made their moral belief clear: According to them, it is wrong to impose one’s values on others. Moreover, since they insist that this imposition is wrong for everyone, they are actually forcing that moral belief on others. They are doing exactly what they say is wrong to do. | But in making that argument they have made their moral belief clear: According to them, it is wrong to impose one’s values on others. Moreover, since they insist that this imposition is wrong for everyone, they are actually forcing that moral belief on others. They are doing exactly what they say is wrong to do. | ||
Line 49: | Line 56: | ||
Furthermore, | Furthermore, | ||
- | And, governments " | + | ==== The Obligation to Interfere: Aren't Some Choices Wrong? ==== |
+ | |||
+ | Furthermore, governments " | ||
The most important question then is not, "May governments impose laws on others?" | The most important question then is not, "May governments impose laws on others?" | ||
Line 64: | Line 73: | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | In the 18th century, a British man named Thomas Clarkson was researching the issue of slavery in order to enter an essay competition. He chose the topic of the slave trade—not, | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Long months of doubt followed his roadside moment of revelation. Could a lone, inexperienced young man have 'that solid judgement…to qualify him to undertake a task of such magnitude and importance; --and with whom was I to unite?' | ||
+ | On the issue of abortion, our society must face the same kinds of questions which Clarkson faced. We must examine the scientific facts about when human life begins, and examine the evidence of what abortion does to pre-born children. Because if abortion really is the legal killing of 300 children every day--then surely we should interfere. | ||