Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2015/12/03 10:22] – added link to TED Talk balleyne
+++ utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2016/10/15 14:07] – new introduction and skeleton outline balleyne
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-ess====== PBA305H: Peter Singer's Functionalism ======
+====== PBA305H: Peter Singer: Speciesism and Functionalism ======
-Most abortion advocates deny the humanity of the pre-born to justify abortion. Peter Singer instead argues that it can be justifiable to kill innocent pre-born (or newborn) human beings because they are not persons((http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm)), and because he doesn't consider membership in a species to be morally relevant (comparing speciesism to racism or sexism). He argues that the moral question for abortion should be based on a utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus -- and does not consider a fetus or newborn of having many serious interests.(([[wp>Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide|Peter Singer on Abortion]])) He agrees with pro-lifers that birth is not relevant, so he bites the bullet and says that infanticide isn't intrinsically wrong either -- the same argument used against the sanctity of pre-born human life applies against the sanctity of newborn human life.
+There are four main ways in which abortion advocates will argue:
+  - Abortion can be justifiable due to the circumstances of a crisis pregnancy
+  - Abortion is justifiable because the pre-born are not human
+  - Abortion is justifiable because the pre-born are not persons
+  - Abortion is justifiable even if the pre-born are persons, because of bodily autonomy
+Peter Singer's influential defence of abortion argues that (1) it doesn't matter if the pre-born are human, because species membership is not relevant for moral consideration, and (2) even though the pre-born are human, they are not persons((http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm)), and therefore don't have moral status.
+He argues that the moral question for abortion should be based on a utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus -- and does not consider a fetus or newborn of having many, if any, serious interests.(([[wp>Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide|Peter Singer on Abortion]])) He agrees with pro-lifers that birth is not relevant, so he bites the bullet and says that infanticide isn't intrinsically wrong either -- the same argument used against the sanctity of pre-born human life applies against the sanctity of newborn human life.
+===== Background =====
+==== Preference Utilitarianism ====
+FIXME
+==== Rejecting Other Pro-Choice Arguments ====
+FIXME
+===== Speciesism =====
+FIXME
+===== Functionalism =====
+FIXME
+===== Old Notes =====
+FIXME Refactor this in terms of two core components to the argument: (1) speciesism, (2) personhood (self-awareness, etc. Kaczor 30-35)
+FIXME David Boonin's functionalism, separate seminar?
@@ Line 9: / Line 31: @@
       * Chapter 6, //Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus//
         * The conservative position, and inadequate liberal responses (p. 138-149)
+          * Liberal arguments against the second premise, that the fetus is a human being
+            * __Birth__ (p.138-139): "the location of a being -- inside or outside the womb -- should not make that much difference to the wrongness of killing it"
+            * __Viability__: he rejects this based on the state of medical technology, or even unequal access to medical technology globally; he rejects the dependency argument too, "we do not hold that total dependence on another person means that person may decide whether one lives or dies" (p. 140)
+            * __Quickening__: he rejects this as outdated superstition, as inaccurate (movement happens before it's felt), and irrelevant: "the capacity for physical motion... has nothing to do with the seriousness of one's claim for continued life" (p. 141)
+            * __Consciousness__ ("the capacity to feel pleasure or pain"): relevant for later, but \\ "The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right, in a way that clearly shows fetuses to be in the latter category at the stage of development when most abortions take place. The conservative is on solid ground insisting that the development from the embryo to the infant is a gradual process." (p. 142-3)
+          * Other Liberal Arguments he rejects:
+            * __The Consequences of Restrictive Laws__ (p. 143-144): This is an argument about abortion law, not about the ethics of abortion -- important distinction and powerful argument, but it fails to meet the conservative claim that abortion is in the same ethical category as murder
+            * __Not the Law's Business?__ "The fallacy involved in numbering abortion among the victimless crimes should be obvious. The dispute about abortion is, largely, a dispute about whether or not abortion does have a 'victim.'"
+            * __A Feminist Argument__ (without denying the fetus is an innocent human body, claiming a woman has a right to choose what happens with her own body, e.g. [[PBA310Y|Judith Jarvis Thompson]]):
+              * Singer rejects the theory of rights behind it (p. 148), because as a utilitarian, consequences matter whereas Thompson considers rights independent of their consequences: "Therefore if the life of the fetus is given the same weight as the life of a normal person, the utilitarian would say that it would be wrong to refuse to carry the fetus until it can survive outside the womb." (p. 148)
+              * But he believes the argument is valid, and could be defended if her theory of rights can be defended
         * Singer's central [[wp>preference utilitarian]] argument for abortion, p. 149-152
+          * All (most?) of the liberal arguments accepted the //sanctity of human life//, but Singer rejects that (. 150)
+            * "The weakness of the first premise of the conservative argument is that it relies on our acceptance of the special status of human life. We have seen that 'human' is a term that straddles two distinct notions:
+              * being a member of the species Homo sapiens
+              * and being a person.
+            * Once the term is dissected in this way, the weakness of the conservative's first premise becomes apparent.
+              * If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premise of the argument, which asserts that the fetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a fetus is either rational or self-conscious.
+              * If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then the conservative defence of the life of the fetus is based on a characteristic lacking moral significance and so the first premise is false. The point should by now be familiar: whether a being is or is not a member of our species is, in itself no more relevant to the wrongness of killing it than whether it is or is not a member of our race. The belief that mere membership of our species, irrespective of other characteristics, makes a great difference to the wrongness of killing a being is a legacy of religious doctrines that even those opposed to abortion hesitate to bring into the debate.
+            * Recognising this simple point transforms the abortion issue. We can now look at the fetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and can value its life on the same scale as the lives of beings with similar characteristics who are not members of our species.
+              * those who protest against abortion but dine regularly on the bodies of chickens, pigs and calves, show only a biased concern for the lives of members of our own species. For on any fair comparison of morally relevant characteristics, like rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, autonomy, pleasure and pain, and so on, the calf, the pig and the much derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy - while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness.
+            * FIXME the rest of 152
         * Addressing an argument of potential human personhood, p. 152-156
+          * He considers the wrongness of killing potential human beings, but his focus is on potential, not capacities...
+          * acorn/oak; Princes Charles is not King Charles; etc. -- rejects that A is a potential to X means that A has the rights of X
+          * FIXME all the rest of this section...
+        * The status of the embryo in the labratory (p. 156-162)
+        * Making use of the fetus (p. 163-169)
         * Biting the bullet on abortion and infanticide, p. 169-174
       * Chapter 7, //[[http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1993----.htm|Taking Life: Humans]]//