Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2016/09/24 09:54] – balleyneutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2016/10/14 09:10] – balleyne
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== PBA305H: Sentience, Cortical Brain Activity, etc. -- Functionalism ====== ====== PBA305H: Sentience, Cortical Brain Activity, etc. -- Functionalism ======
-FIXME David Boonin's functionalism+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?
  
 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. 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.