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 [2016/09/24 09:54] – balleyneutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba305y [2017/08/21 11:58] – mmccann
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== PBA305H: Sentience, Cortical Brain Activity, etc. -- Functionalism ====== +====== PBA305H: Peter Singer: Speciesism and Functionalism ====== 
-FIXME David Boonin's functionalism+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 
 + 
 +- 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?
  
-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.