Download Noonan's Argument on Personhood and Abortion: Determining Humanity and Moral Rights - Prof and more Study notes Introduction to Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!
Fact= the way things are, were, or will be Statement= an accurate or inaccurate description of a fact or facts. Either true or false. Belief/ opinion= accepting that a statement is true. Feelings/emotions/attitudes= undergoing an experience of some kind. Neither true nor false.
Unicorn realism: there are statements, beliefs, and feelings about unicorns. There are facts about unicorns which are INDEPENDENT of statements, beliefs and feelings.
Unicorn anti-realism: there are statements, beliefs, and feelings about unicorns. Aside from that, there are no facts about unicorns.
argument in favor of moral anti- realism: premise 1: People have different moral beliefs and feelings. premise 2: If premise number one is true, then that means that the conclusion is true.
conclusion: There are no moral facts independent of statements, beliefs and feelings.
Morals vs. Morality
Morals = people’s beliefs and feelings about morality. Morality = the actual moral rightness or wrongness of an action.
Makes sense to reject moral anti-realism because: Examples Child abuse, rape, slavery, torturing innocent people or animals – morally wrong regardless of feelings and beliefs. Accept Moral realism. Document 6 Not all questions of right and wrong have to do with morality. So: the same action can be morally right but wrong in another sense and vice versa. for example : military victory. Right to blow up cities to win a war, but wrong with respect to morality. : right to keep child on a leash to keep out of harm. Morally wrong.
Premise 1: An individual human of 3 years of age is a person. Premise 2: If viability theory is true, then an individual human 3 years of age isn’t a person (viable). Therefore, viability theory is false. *confusion as to the definition of viable. viable ≠ not dependent on another person. Premise 2 is false. Argument 3 Premise 1: if viability theory is true, then personhood is dependent on the level of technology. Premise 2: personhood isn’t dependent on the level of technology. Therefore, viability theory is false.
Noonan’s argument for human rights. Premise 1: Every human zygote, embryo, and fetus is a human being. Premise 2: If (1), then every human zygote, embryo, and fetus has the same moral rights as every human being. Premise 3: if every human zygote, embryo and fetus has the same rights as every human being then (4).
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong except in “self defense”. (4)
Noonan’s argument for human rights:
Premise 1: Every human conceptus is a human being Premise 2: If (1), then every human conceptus has all the same moral rights as every human being. Premise 3: If every human conceptus has all the same moral rights as every human being, the (4) Therefore, 4. Abortion is morally wrong except in “self defense”.
- Person P has a right to X ≠ P is allowed to do/ have X. Person P has a right to X = P should be allowed to do/ have X.
Noonan’s self defense principle: Violating a person’s moral right to life is morally ok if and only if doing so is necessary to save your own life. – assumed for argument to work
Argument for the human genetic code: !. Every human conceptus has human DNA
- If every human conceptus has human DNA, then every human conceptus is a human being Therefore, 3. Every human conceptus is a human being.
- Abortion is morally wrong, except in “self defense”
Thomson Paper Her View is abortion morally right? : In certain circumstances, yes. Pro choice vs pro life: vague unhelpful terms. What Thomson takes for granted. Assume for the sake of argument: The conceptus is a person The conceptus has a moral right to life. Argument she thinks are incorrect:
- The conceptus’ moral right to life outweighs the pregnant woman’s right to decide what happens in/to her body.
- If (1), then (3)
- Therefore, 3 Abortion is morally wrong.
What if someone said:
- The violinists right to life outweighs your moral right to decide what happens in & to your body.
- If (1), then (3)
- Therefore, 3. Disconnection from the violinist is morally wrong. Obviously wrong, so why accept the first one.
Passages p53 smith and jones example P58 burglar case P 62 good Samaritan
END TEST 1 MATERIAL
Euthanasia Argument for compassion
**1. In some cases a person’s dying is better for them than continuing to live.
- If 1 then AE is sometimes morally right. (active euthanasia )
- Therefore 3, AE is sometimes morally right. Says this is flawed argument because:….?**
Williams’ argument for nature
1. Every human tends to act or react automatically in a protective or evasive way toward deadly **threats.
- If 1 then survival is a natural goal of every human
- If survival is the natural goal of every human then AE is always morally wrong.
- Therefore , 4. AE is always morally wrong.**
Personal goal – personal dignity vs. natural goal – natural dignity
Reject. Not powerful argument.
Uncontroversial principle about preferential treatment
- Its morally ok to give preferential treatment to A & deny it to B only if A has some morally relevant characteristic to a higher degree than B.
Singer criterion (SC) :
- An animal experiment is morally ok only if it’s morally ok to perform the same kind of experiment on a brain damaged, orphaned human infant. Argument for the SC
- Brain damaged orphaned human infants have no morally relevant characteristics to a higher degree than nonhuman animals.
- If (1), then it it’s not morally ok to give preferential treatment to the infants and deny it to the animals.
- If it’s not morally ok to give preferential treatment to the infants and deny it to the animals, then SC is true. Therefore, (4). SC is true. Morally relevant characteristics:
- Having parents who care about you
- Sensitivity to pain.
- Self-directedness
- Awareness
- Potential for cognitive development
Brain damaged or orphaned infants have no morally relevant characteristics to a higher degree than adult non human animals?
Speciesism – a bias in favor of a certain species against other species. singer says anyone who rejects this is engaging in speciesism - compares it to racism saying that it is wrong. -doesn’t adequately explain issue. Singer’s argument is weak
Cohen – self proclaimed speciesist
A right = a claim or potential claim that one party may exercise against the other.
Cohen’s argument against animal rights
- Animals can’t comprehend moral rules and principles.
- If (1), then animals can’t make or respond to moral claims.
- If animals can make or respond to moral claims, then (4) therefore, 4. Animals have no moral rights An individual X has moral rights only If X can make and respond to moral claims.
An individual X has moral rights only is X belongs to a species that has members who can make and respond to moral claims?
Annas paper – seems to reject moral realism. What should determine who gets a transplant? *judgments about social worth
- All judgments about social worth are arbitrary
- If (1), then social worth should not determine who gets a transplant. therefore, 3. Social worth should not determine who gets transplant. arbitrary = not based on objective fact.
- Transplants should go to the highest bidder only if wealth is fairly distributed
- Wealth is not fairly distributed therefore, 3. Transplants shouldn’t go to the highest bidder “fairly” = according to how hard a worker?
Argument from the priceless-ness of life.
- If transplants should go to the highest bidder, then life isn’t priceless.
- Life is priceless. therefore, 3. Transplants shouldn’t go to the highest bidder.
- If a candidate should allocate transplants, then either (A) or (B) is acceptable A: there is a pattern to how the committee allocates B: there is no pattern
- Neither (A) nor (B) therefore, 3. A committee shouldn’t allocate transplants.
Lottery
- Using the lottery method will involve ignoring medical criteria like the following: a. post transplant probability of survival - b. post transplant longevity - all objective! c. immediacy of death without transplant - d. expense of post transplant rehabilitation. -
- If (1), then (3) therefore 3. We shouldn’t use the lottery method.
Cohen article argument against animal rights A right is a claim or potential claim on party may exercise against another – his definition of rights Objection to his argument- animals seem to understand moral rules from its behavior. Wolves in a wolf pack. House trained dog.
counter-objection- instinctive. Animals have no cognitive capacity of rules. All conditioned responses and instinct – no reasoning.
another objection – brain damaged human being. Comatose humans
counter objection – not individual capacity that matters. It’s the species that you belong to that have members that can respond to moral claims. Flaw – never defends his conception of rights.
Annas article judgments about social worth – he disagrees with this idea
assumes medical criteria are free of value judgments. – flaw.
