Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2015/12/03 11:03] – flushed out a lot of chapter six with specific arguments balleyneutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2017/08/21 11:57] – mmccann
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== 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 
 + 
 + 
 +===== Speciesism? ===== 
 + 
 +- EHP not OHP 
 + 
 +<note>  
 +{{:utsfl:classroom:seminars:michelle_taa_2.jpg?300 |}} 
 +"After talking to a Ryerson student about the science of when life begins, she agreed with me that pre-born human beings also deserve human rights. Then she asked, 'What about animal rights?' She shared with me that she’s an animal rights advocate. I replied, 'I agree that that’s also an important issue, but to be honest I’ve never given much thought about it and I eat meat. Maybe dogs deserve some rights. But does giving dogs some rights mean we should give less rights to some human beings? Can’t we agree that all members of the human family deserve fundamental human rights? If we did give dogs some rights, wouldn’t we give all members of the dog family that right?' She said that it made sense and I’ve given her something to think about. Then we thanked each other before she left to eat her lunch." - Michelle Caluag of [[http://www.torontoagainstabortion.org/|Toronto Against Abortion]] 
 +</note> 
 +===== 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 13: Line 45:
             * __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)             * __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)             * __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__: 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)+            * __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:           * 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             * __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