Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba205h [2017/08/01 13:05] – mmccann | utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba205h [2024/04/20 17:37] (current) – mmccann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* age-based discrimination | * age-based discrimination | ||
* human rights doctrines vs. personhood (discrimination) | * human rights doctrines vs. personhood (discrimination) | ||
- | * Response to the speciesism claim | + | * Response to the speciesism claim? Or put that in Singer seminar? |
- | * Stories to include to illustrate things? | + | * FIXME Stories to include to illustrate things? |
* Nick Vujicic - our humanity and value should not be based on our abilities... | * Nick Vujicic - our humanity and value should not be based on our abilities... | ||
- | * | ||
- | Since we know that science has established that the pre-born are human beings. | + | We know that science has established that the pre-born are human beings. |
+ | |||
+ | ===== Human vs. Person: What's the difference? ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Abortion advocates such as Mary Anne Warren claim that the pre-born child, while scientifically a human being, is not a //person// and therefore not a member of the moral community. Warren asks, "What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person?", | ||
+ | |||
+ | * The objection is that pre-born children **lack some function which born human beings have**, and are therefore not " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first question we need to ask is, **What is a person? Why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such a thing as a human being that is not a human person?** What’s the difference? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Who gets human rights? ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | > "... the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of **all members of the human family** is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" - Universal Declaration of Human Rights((http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | > " | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME human rights documents - why do they not say " | ||
+ | |||
+ | We know the [[pba100y# | ||
===== Functionalism ===== | ===== Functionalism ===== | ||
- | The objection | + | * Second, even if Warren |
+ | |||
+ | > "I consider this claim to be so obvious that I think anyone who denied it, and claimed that a being which satisfied none of [the criteria] was a person all the same, would thereby demonstrate that he had no notion at all of what a person | ||
+ | |||
+ | In other words, she merely asserts | ||
+ | * Functionalism | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Consciousness and Sentience ==== | ||
+ | FIXME distinctions between terms: sentience vs. rationality vs. self-awareness...they are all different things, but in typical conversations get lumped under the same vague umbrella | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME brief intro to Peter Singer | ||
+ | * If the immediate capacity for self-consciousness makes one valuable as a subject of rights, and newborns (like fetuses) lack that immediate capacity, it follows that fetuses and newborns are both disqualified. | ||
+ | * Peter Singer in Practical Ethics bites the bullet and says there is none, that arguments used to justify abortion work equally well to justify **infanticide** and the **involuntary euthanasia of some disabled persons**. Abortion-advocates Michael Tooley and Mary Anne Warren agree((Warren: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Suffering ==== | ||
+ | Argument: the pre-born won't suffer when we kill them :. not " | ||
- | The functionalist argument comes in various forms (i.e. various functions): | + | - Wrongness of killing isn't based simply on pain. Is it OK to kill a toddler as long as you give her anaesthetic first? |
- | | + | |
- | - First, why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such a thing as a human being that is not a human person. What’s the difference? | + | - wrongness of rape isn't just about suffering, it's about violating another |
- | - Second, even if Warren is correct | + | - similarly, wrongness of killing isn't just about suffering |
- | * Libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson argues that humans have value (and hence, rights) not in virtue of the kind of thing they are (members of a natural kind or species), but only because of an acquired property, in this case, the immediate capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices. | + | |
- | * Newborns, like fetuses, lack the immediate capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices, so what principled reason can Narveson give against infanticide? | + | |
- | * Peter Singer in Practical Ethics bites the bullet and says there is none, that arguments used to justify abortion work equally well to justify infanticide. Abortion-advocates Michael Tooley and Mary Anne Warren agree. | + | |
- | * if the immediate capacity for self-consciousness makes one valuable as a subject | + | |
==== Ageism and Other Forms of Discrimination ==== | ==== Ageism and Other Forms of Discrimination ==== | ||
Line 32: | Line 60: | ||
* To define personhood based on functionalist criteria such as sentience, viability, or life experience is to define it based on one’s level of development. And an individual’s development generally corresponds with her age: The older one gets, the more developed she becomes. The younger she is, the less time has passed for her to develop the structures necessary to perform various functions. | * To define personhood based on functionalist criteria such as sentience, viability, or life experience is to define it based on one’s level of development. And an individual’s development generally corresponds with her age: The older one gets, the more developed she becomes. The younger she is, the less time has passed for her to develop the structures necessary to perform various functions. | ||
* So the question we must consider is this: //Do those of us who are older have a right to kill those who are younger//? Clearly, to select age-related criteria for personhood is arbitrary and discriminatory. It pits older humans against younger ones. | * So the question we must consider is this: //Do those of us who are older have a right to kill those who are younger//? Clearly, to select age-related criteria for personhood is arbitrary and discriminatory. It pits older humans against younger ones. | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
* Now some abortion advocates may argue they aren’t discriminating based on age, pointing out that some older humans never develop as they should (and should be classified as " | * Now some abortion advocates may argue they aren’t discriminating based on age, pointing out that some older humans never develop as they should (and should be classified as " | ||
* The question, they may ask, is not, "How old is she?" but instead, "How well does she function?" | * The question, they may ask, is not, "How old is she?" but instead, "How well does she function?" | ||
- | * | + | |
* Lincoln raised a similar point with slavery, noting that any argument used to disqualify blacks as subjects of rights works equally well to disqualify many whites. | * Lincoln raised a similar point with slavery, noting that any argument used to disqualify blacks as subjects of rights works equally well to disqualify many whites. | ||
Line 40: | Line 74: | ||
* Furthermore, | * Furthermore, | ||
- | * | ||
* If humans have value only because of some acquired property like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees. | * If humans have value only because of some acquired property like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees. | ||
- | * Philosophically, | + | * Philosophically, |
- | ==== Human Beings--Not Human Doings ==== | + | |
- | Once we draw the line anywhere later than fertilization, | + | < |
+ | FIXME condense this? Or does someone else have a better one? | ||
- | As such, it is far more reasonable to argue that, although human beings differ immensely, we are nonetheless equal. Thus, the only personhood definition that leaves all humans safe is one that acknowledges our basic human rights | + | Me: Do you believe in human rights? |
+ | Him: Yeah. | ||
+ | M: And who gets human rights? | ||
- | Other issues: | + | H: Hmm…I think that humans who are rational and self-aware should get human rights. |
- | * Natural versus legal rights | + | |
- | * Natural rights are those rights | + | M: I’d agree that our rationality is one of the things that makes humans special. I’m not sure though that it’s the reason we get human rights. Think of it this way: imagine there’s a man who’s |
+ | |||
+ | H: No, that’s | ||
+ | |||
+ | M: Well, imagine that tomorrow, you got into a car crash with some family members. Some of them die, and you become | ||
+ | |||
+ | H: Yeah, I don’t like that definition [of who gets HRs] either. | ||
+ | |||
+ | M: Isn’t it most philosophically consistent to say that all humans should get human rights? | ||
+ | |||
+ | H: Yeah, I guess so. [Pause] So why are you here showing pictures of aborted fetuses? | ||
+ | |||
+ | M: I’m here because throughout history, humans have been denied human rights and personhood for so many reasons. People have been | ||
+ | discriminated against because of their race, or gender, | ||
+ | |||
+ | H: Yeah—all the arguments go back to their age. [//Pause//] Well, if your goal was to get me thinking, | ||
+ | |||
+ | - //Maria at UTM// | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Human Beings--Not Human Doings ==== | ||
+ | {{ : | ||
* Functionalism versus Essentialism((http:// | * Functionalism versus Essentialism((http:// | ||
* one can fail to function as a person and yet still be a person. | * one can fail to function as a person and yet still be a person. | ||
* How many functions can I lose and still be myself? If I lose my sight, am I still me? If my legs and arms are lost, am I still me? If I cannot speak or hear, am I still me? What if I can no longer play chess or think critically? What if my IQ is less than 50? Wouldn' | * How many functions can I lose and still be myself? If I lose my sight, am I still me? If my legs and arms are lost, am I still me? If I cannot speak or hear, am I still me? What if I can no longer play chess or think critically? What if my IQ is less than 50? Wouldn' | ||
+ | * FIXME Maaike' | ||
* People under anesthesia or in a deep sleep cannot feel pain, are not self-aware, and cannot reason. Neither can those in reversible comas. But we do not call into question their humanity because we recognize that although they cannot function as persons, they still have the being of persons, which is the essential thing. | * People under anesthesia or in a deep sleep cannot feel pain, are not self-aware, and cannot reason. Neither can those in reversible comas. But we do not call into question their humanity because we recognize that although they cannot function as persons, they still have the being of persons, which is the essential thing. | ||
- | | + | * **Inherent Capacities vs. immediate capacities** |
- | * the rights of individuals in our society are not based on their current (actual) capacities, but on their inherent capacities | + | * the rights of individuals in our society are not based on their current (actual) capacities, but on their inherent capacities |
- | * no one doubts that newborn humans have fewer actual capacities than do day-old calves. Baby humans are rather unimpressive in terms of environmental awareness, mobility, etc. Yet this does not lead us to believe that the calf belongs in the nursery while the infant can be left in the barn. To the contrary, we understand that although the infant currently lacks many functional abilities, it nonetheless has the inherent capacity to function as a person. | + | * no one doubts that newborn humans have fewer actual capacities than do day-old calves. Baby humans are rather unimpressive in terms of environmental awareness, mobility, etc. Yet this does not lead us to believe that the calf belongs in the nursery while the infant can be left in the barn. To the contrary, we understand that although the infant currently lacks many functional abilities, it nonetheless has the //inherent// capacity to function as a person. |
- | * Bader: pick any function: growth/ | + | === What kind of world do you want to live in? === |
- | FIXME sort through what's left | + | |
- | * functionalism dehumanizes not only the unborn, but also many people outside | + | |
- | FIXME Beckwith Uncle Jed reversible coma but it'll take 9 months, and then a while for the brain to (re)develop | + | * functionalism dehumanizes not only the unborn, |
+ | * it's actually about the strong depriving the weakest, most vulnerable humans of their rights. This flies in the face of our moral intuition | ||
+ | * (Maria - testimony - not giving water to a 2yo vs not giving water to a 17 yo) | ||
+ | * Or look at public transit....the seats at the front are **reserved for those with mobility issues**, it's actually the law that you have to give up your seat to someone more needy in that part of the bus. **Why? Because they need the seat //more//** | ||
+ | Once we draw the line anywhere later than fertilization, | ||
+ | |||
+ | FIXME //What grounds human rights and human equality?// "It can’t be that all of us look human, because some have been disfigured. It can’t be that all of us have functional brains, because some are in reversible comas. It can’t be one’s ability to think or feel pain, for some think better than others and some don’t feel any pain. It can’t be something we can gain or lose, or something of which we can have more or less. If something like that grounds rights, equal rights don’t exist...**There is only one quality we all have equally—we’re all human.”** - Steve Wagner | ||
+ | https:// | ||
FIXME sort through these remaining notes | FIXME sort through these remaining notes | ||
Line 75: | Line 138: | ||
* Essentialism ([[https:// | * Essentialism ([[https:// | ||
* Daniel Bader PHL281 tutorial, growth/ | * Daniel Bader PHL281 tutorial, growth/ | ||
+ | * Bader: pick any function: growth/time | ||
* :?: Scientific Materialism: | * :?: Scientific Materialism: | ||
* http:// | * http:// | ||
- | ===== Speciesism? ===== | + | FIXME https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/ |
- | + | ||
- | - respond to Singer' | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Lethal Discrimination ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | - bring it back to HRs, human + x --> philosophers can choose all sorts of shifting goal-posts for who gets human rights, and each definition that doesn' | + | |