Differences

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

--- utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2016/06/08 23:10] – balleyne
+++ utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2016/10/15 14:07] – new introduction and skeleton outline balleyne
@@ 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
+===== 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?