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
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba455y [2018/02/12 20:07] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba455y [2021/02/18 18:59] (current) – added some reframing notes balleyne
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== PBA455Y: Consistent Life Ethic: The Ethics of Killing ====== ====== PBA455Y: Consistent Life Ethic: The Ethics of Killing ======
  
-What are we to make of a [[wp>Consistent Life Ethic]]? How should we approach the ethics of killing on issues such as capital punishment, self-defence, tyrannicde, war, non-human animals?+What are we to make of a [[wp>Consistent Life Ethic]]? How should we approach the ethics of killing on issues such as capital punishment, war, euthanasia, non-human animals?
  
-===== Ethics of Killing =====+FIXME interesting: "New Pro-Life Movement" Manifesto 
 +https://medium.com/@newprolifemovement/the-10-pillars-of-the-new-pro-life-movement-e924728d839c 
 + 
 +FIXME need more Socratic structure to talk through this, more like burning IVF lab 
 + 
 +===== Apologetics: Ethics of Killing =====
 ==== Capital Punishment ==== ==== Capital Punishment ====
-FIXME+Decent overview of the debate: 
 +{{youtube>nnaw3UXIjAU}} 
 + 
 +:?: So, what's the pro-life position? (trick question) 
 + 
 +Real question is, can the pro-death penalty be consistent with the anti-abortion position? (Yes: difference between guilty and innocent) Can the anti-death penalty be consistent with the anti-abortion position? (Yes: respect for life, or other concerns about the death penalty) 
 + 
 +FIXME other notes
   * different perspectives on justice: retributive, reconciliation, mercy, punishment, deterrent, etc.   * different perspectives on justice: retributive, reconciliation, mercy, punishment, deterrent, etc.
   * empirical data:   * empirical data:
Line 21: Line 33:
 FIXME FIXME
   * Moral Status of Non-Human Animals: Are they persons?   * Moral Status of Non-Human Animals: Are they persons?
-    * Peter Singer: incompatible with pro-life view +    * Peter Singer: incompatible with pro-life view (utilitarian, ageist, abliest) FIXME summarize 
-    * Tom Regan: quite compatible with pro-life view+    * Tom Regan: quite compatible with pro-life view (rights-based, "subject of a life")
     * Mary Midgley: This is the wrong question, there has to be more than just person versus non-person     * Mary Midgley: This is the wrong question, there has to be more than just person versus non-person
-  * ConsiderVeganism.com: a question of unnecessary suffering+  * <del>ConsiderVeganism.com: a question of unnecessary suffering</del> 
 +  * :?: Key question: Is there a veganism that's incompatible with an anti-abortion view? Is there a veganism that's compatible with the anti-abortion view?
   * abortion: pro-life position is EHP((Every Human being is a Person), not OHP((Only Human beings are Persons))   * abortion: pro-life position is EHP((Every Human being is a Person), not OHP((Only Human beings are Persons))
  
 ==== War ==== ==== War ====
 +
 +FIXME simplify this: Just War / Pacifism (is there a priority of peace?), Obama Doctrine distinctions, etc
 +
 +Key question: Which view is compatible with the pro-life position? Which view is incompatible? (e.g. pro-lifers need to care about civilian deaths in a coherent way)
 +
   * FIXME realism, holy war   * FIXME realism, holy war
     * FIXME policy: interventionsim, non-interventionism, realism, pacifism?     * FIXME policy: interventionsim, non-interventionism, realism, pacifism?
Line 58: Line 76:
     * Police / communities     * Police / communities
     * Individual / self-defence     * Individual / self-defence
 +
 +Different perspectives on foreign policy (have nothing to do with different perspectives on "right to life"), from the [[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/|Obana Doctrine]]:
 +> One day, over lunch in the Oval Office dining room, I asked the president how he thought his foreign policy might be understood by historians. He started by describing for me a four-box grid representing the main schools of American foreign-policy thought. One box he called isolationism, which he dismissed out of hand. “The world is ever-shrinking,” he said. “Withdrawal is untenable.” The other boxes he labeled realism, liberal interventionism, and internationalism. “I suppose you could call me a realist in believing we can’t, at any given moment, relieve all the world’s misery,” he said. “We have to choose where we can make a real impact.” He also noted that he was quite obviously an internationalist, devoted as he is to strengthening multilateral organizations and international norms.
  
 Abortion: Abortion:
Line 64: Line 85:
  
 ===== Consistent Life Ethic ===== ===== Consistent Life Ethic =====
 +FIXME use Klusendorf and Camosy audio
 +
 ==== On Killing: Internal Movement Debate ==== ==== On Killing: Internal Movement Debate ====
 The consistent life ethic is a challenge to pro-lifers to evaluate the consistency of their opinions on the ethics of killing more broadly. There are moral distinctions that can be made, and differing coherent stances that can be taken. One position does not imply all the rest. But there is a challenge: do we consistently value the right to life in the way that we should across a wide variety of separate issues? The consistent life ethic is a challenge to pro-lifers to evaluate the consistency of their opinions on the ethics of killing more broadly. There are moral distinctions that can be made, and differing coherent stances that can be taken. One position does not imply all the rest. But there is a challenge: do we consistently value the right to life in the way that we should across a wide variety of separate issues?