Why respond when you say you won't even consider the argument? Your main point is this is merely Don's opinion and nothing more - it's worthless, according to you. So my answer to your post is you reject the conclusion of the argument, not on the basis of showing how the conclusion is not deducible from the premises, but by claiming it is mere opinion. This is a classic example of the subjectivist fallacy. You ask if I can speak for myself but I frankly am not sure how else to explain this to you. It's not hard to understand. And what else is ironic is while saying morality is only an individual thing you turn right around and talk about "rights" as if rights have nothing to do with morality. You are blissfully unaware of your own contradictions. This is a thread about Marquis' arguments so if you don't want to discuss their merits or demerits then you don't have to.
Before I answer, I'd like to give a little background here for anyone interested... The traditional arguments in the abortion debate focus on the fetus or the embryo (as do your questions) and personhood. But it is particularly difficult to come up with a definitive definition of personhood philosophically. The pro-choice arguments focus on psychological attributes such as sentience and self-awareness.. In other words, it relies on a more narrow definition of personhood. The pro-life arguments focus on biological attributes such as a beating heart and the fetus looks like a human person. In other words, it relies on a wider definition of personhood. Both sides exploit the inherent difficulties with a narrow or wide definition of personhood and so results in a standoff so to speak. So, the traditional arguments focus on what value we place on the fetus. What interests me in Marquis' argument is he looks for a way out of the "standoff" by asking what makes killing an adult ordinarily wrong (something we can all agree on). What is the great loss when we are killed or face a premature death? What is particularly victimizing about being killed? If the answers to these questions also apply to a fetus, then we have a good argument that killing a fetus is prima facie morally wrong as well. The answer proposed is that the great loss in being killed or facing a premature death is the loss of our future, a future that is valuable. We lose time spent with friends, family, and pets, things we wanted to learn, skills we wanted to acquire, places we wanted to see, grandchildren we wanted to see grow up, etc. This is confirmed by listening to those on their deathbeds express their grief. So he focuses not on the value of the fetus or embryo in this argument, but on the value of our futures. So can this be applied to a fetus? Since a fetus will usually go on to experience and enjoy a "future like ours", a future that is no less valuable than our own, it follows that depriving a fetus of it's future is a serious moral offense. Because of this line of reasoning, this is often called the "deprivation argument". So the questions of when is viability or when does life begin (I assume you mean when does "human" life begin), do not apply to this argument. All that is necessary is that there is a definitive being (such as a fetus - this assumes life is present, of course) that typically goes on to have a future like our own (i.e. adult persons). Incidentally, in accepting this argument, it is theoretically possible that one can believe personhood comes later in development, yet still believe that abortion is a serious moral offense because of what it deprives the fetus.
1) Regarding point 1 my reference is metaphysical: the ontology of the embryo (as being something that has a specific future) is called into question by the twinning concern. If Marquis resists the personhood criterion regarding embryonic (and fetal) ontology then he has to draw a straight line back to the embryo, but now notice that if he says that a future becomes actualized at some point after the 5th day, what criterion does he use? What makes the embryo a holder of a valuable future at 10 days but not 2 days? To claim that whenever we pass the twinning age will do it, seems to beg the question about when something becomes a subject of predication (in the case someone who is said to have a specific future associated with it). My concern here is that Marquis sneaks implicit personhood (or subjectivity) into the argument without proper justification (i.e. only specific subjects can have specific futures -when does one become a specific subject? What criteria is used? The same concern informs my second and third points). 2) I'm not convinced that being a determinate individual being without being a person is a morally significant being to whom one owes an obligation toward. As you state, there must be a subject of harm, it seems that Marquis must invoke come sort of potentiality here. But here is where I think my third point becomes crucial. A blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, all require various materials/resources and specific environments to move from potentiality to actuality: there are necessary events that have to take place for one to become a subject of harm. 3) Given this developmental requirement, it seems difficult to see why the cloned DNA example is not a problem for Marquis, given that the DNA found in our cells contain everything necessary (if given the proper materials and environment) to develop into a person, hence they have a future like ours when allowed access to the right environment (they would become an identical twin). So I don't see how one can claim that preventing an embryo the environment and resources necessary to develop, would be qualitatively different from preventing a cell nucleus from being implanted in an enucleated egg cell and allowed to develop. Both contain all of the necessary genetic material to develop into a person, both require sustained access to resources and environment. The only thing that differs here is spatiality, where they are located. And that does not seem to be philosophically significant. Surely you wouldn't argue that a viable embryo awaiting uterine implantation is ontologically different from one already implanted (i.e. that it does not contain a FOV). So how can one claim that DNA awaiting implantation in an enucleated egg is any different? Hence, I am unclear how, without invoking some sort of criteria for personhood to distinguish subjects from merely potential subjects, Marquis can avoid this charge.
Rights have nothing to do with morality.....if you can't understand that "morality" is different from person to person, it is not cut in stone, then you can hardly discuss or debate it... And, no morals don't have anything to do with rights ...a good example is abortion being legal(women have a right to their own body no matter if others think it's immoral.) .... I considered the "argument"....it's wrong. """A person's life has only the value others place on it. IF a fetus has the rights of a person then it also has the restrictions....it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life, you can't, I can't, no one can not even the fetus""" End of argument
Ridiculous. To use another example: this would mean that only those who have been abused as children or are child abusers can talk about the unethical nature of child abuse, all other views would be worthless. Ironically this would undermine your own position on abortion (assuming you haven't been pregnant), including talking about people talking about abortion.
And as you so philosophically discuss abortion millions of women actually LIVE in the real world and have the same rights as everyone else even though in your opinion the fetus should have more rights , more "value" than any woman.... In this forum we seem to get these airy fairy"" let's discuss this philosophically because I just got my degree"" posts every once in a while....and they usually finally fold up, show themselves to be no different from their pals who scream, "the s--- should just keep her legs together". Women who have an unwanted pregnancy deal in the real world of jobs and school and poverty...they really don't have time to get all metaphysical....
You're confusing descriptive morality (what people believe) with normative morality (what rational people ought to believe). Anyone engaged in a discussion of what rights people should have is making an ought based argument (normative claim) and hence engaging in moral discussion (normative morality). For example, the civil rights movement in the 60s was engaged in moral argument when it argued against a legal system that codified and legitimated white supremacist racism.
Oh, dear, now there's different "moralities" or how we perceive them or "someone just got their degree in philosophy"..... Here's the real world: Rights have nothing to do with morality.....if you can't understand that "morality" is different from person to person, it is not cut in stone, then you can hardly discuss or debate it... And, no morals don't have anything to do with rights ...a good example is abortion being legal(women have a right to their own body no matter if others think it's immoral.) .... I considered the "argument"....it's wrong. """A person's life has only the value others place on it. IF a fetus has the rights of a person then it also has the restrictions....it cannot use another's body to sustain it's life, you can't, I can't, no one can not even the fetus"""
Ironically, your post completely supports my position which was to point out that all of your claims would be mere opinion, if moral argument was as you said nothing but opinion. Just because people disagree doesn't mean there is no truth. See Flat Earthers. If you aren't discussing moral claims here, then what are doing? Making legal arguments?!?
People have different views about science too, does this mean there is no truth in science? At least read the post, before you comment. That's all I ask. I mean you literally claimed that women can have abortions in the US despite others disagreeing with it morally. Are you really suggesting that the argument here is about whether or not women can actually get an abortion in the US? The only people you seem to be objecting to then is those who are saying "some people believe abortion is wrong, so this must mean no one can legally receive an abortion in the US - they just don't happen." By all means then, you should set those poor fools straight. But if you are responding to those who claim that there shouldn't be a legal right to have an abortion, you can't point to the law to say they should - this begs the question. You can't get an "ought" from what "is" (google naturalistic fallacy).
Those aren't the interesting parts. Well, I guess they're interesting in a curious kind of way, but not a useful kind of way. Things people do sometimes, or even often, only tell us about possibilities, or tendencies at best. If people make the same rule in every single culture we can examine for it, that tells us something we can predict to a relatively certain degree. Whatever one wants to make of it, it tells us something about human nature. There aren't very many things like that, but there are and have been laws against murder in every culture throughout history without exception. This should make it clear, even to people who don't experience empathy, that normal people value human life for its own sake.
Actually (though it seems your ego prevents understanding) my commentary revolved around the rather disgusting and cruel belief that anyone thinks they are so special that their OPINION should be used to guide someone elses life and body. Child molestation is actually a good example as it also forces someone to do something they cannot control.
The legitimacy of an argument comes from the reasons given in defense of it, not from the authority of the arguer. The trauma of experience (which seems to have risen to a sort of cult status today) is not a legitimate grounds for justifying any claim. That is to say that the rightness or wrongness of abortion is not derived from experience but from conceptual judgments/evaluations. The weight of reason carries the day regardless of who says it. Some just make better arguments than others. Radical libertarian relativism is nonsense.
The legitimacy of an argument comes from the reasons given in defense of it, not from the authority of the arguer. The weight of reason carries the day regardless of who says it. Some just make better arguments than others.
Be nice if there were reliable contraceptives don't you think? (((((((((((((((((((((Sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) And here we go again with someone who does not realise that condoms have a failure rate of around 15% - that is 15 out of every 100 women relying on a condom will get pregnant
I sm talking of evidence from the oldest continuing culture on the planet - who are you talking about?
You have dismissed the fundamental difference between an adult and foetus and the argument is fallacious because it does not address that fundamental difference A foetus is only a person in potentia They are only POTENTIALLY a person The criteria for becoming a person is attainment of viability. Prior to that many things can happen - they may miscarriage they may stop developing and in some cases resorb (happens not infrequently in twin pregnancies) or they can be so malformed that viability will never be obtained
Oh, you don't like my opinion....? Or just can't respond when facts are presented? which is it? So what if your little philosophical gods might speak what you consider truth....that has nothing to do with women's rights to their own bodies and the real world (which I suspect you may have not encountered yet). You can't seem to even get the fact people's lives only have the value others place on them. Or that not everyone has the same set of "morals" that other do. These aren't opinions, they are facts...
Science is not the same as "morals"...sad I had to point that out. . Yes, I did. What did you find wrong with that FACT? Not me, I didn't suggest anything.. - Yes, I can point to the law and say things like"" mind your own business"", ""have your little opinion but leave people's rights alone""", """learn something about abortion before "philosophying" all over the place like a new graduate who just learned new words"", ""the law protects women despite what others want to do to them""", etc. ). No, I'm not going to google that just like you're not going to read any threads here to get educated on abortion. I don't need to google "naturalistic fallacy" to know that women have a right to their own body ..........it's a not a deep subject...
The weight of the law carries the day in real life,...and that says women have the right to their own bodies just like men do...and no amount of "conceptual judgments/evaluations " or other ""gobbledeygoop designed to make one look ' intellectual' " will or should change that.
Since you are so into "real life", how do you think these questions get decided anyway? In "real life" these questions are decided by careful reasoning and argumentation. Have you ever watched arguments before the supreme court? In this "real life" scenario, if you argued the way to do, you would be obliterated. And as the starter of this thread, I want to remind you that this is a thread to discuss the merits or demerits of Marquis' arguments. This isn't a thread to discuss the merits of philosophy. If you'd like to discuss that topic then start your own thread under the philosophy section where you can "argue" your anti-intellectualism.
I was talking about all existing cultures and all cultures having left a record in history, but this is quite a distraction from my point in the post you first responded to.
I wasn't talking about contraceptives, even though that is part of being careful. I was responding to you trying to introduce a debate over when personhood, or sentience, begins. I said we should be careful when in doubt. I don't see any conclusive arguments one way or another, so I think we should be careful.
Have you ever had to assist someone through a termination of pregnancy - knowing that if we did not intervene she would not have survived? Have you ever really tooled into the complexity of the argument fully? The Marquis arguments also dismissed or rather did not address the two more fundamental issues Firstly that of self defence Secondly that of proof of existence of the body in question. Very early pregnancy terminations - which BTW is the norm - who is there besides the woman herself who absolutely knows of the existence of the "potential person" So, if we are looking at societal reactions as a benchmark - the act of abortion - particularly when using an abortifacient such as mifepristone.
