-Does the abortion debate only hang on the issue of fetal person-hood?
The 'future like ours' argument could be construed as either they will be people or they are already people because they have the futures of people. Also a bit of a bad question because an issue can always be brought up.
My position on morality would actually ignore the thing itself. Since fetuses are not part of society the same way humans or animals are they need not be dealt with with any special moral considerations.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Q&A Question 1
-Where is the line between person-hood and being an animal, are there important qualities that overlap?
Ultimately the root of the the question of weather or not it is moral to kill/harm animals. It's already quite obvious that it is wrong to kill or harm a human, with certain exceptions of course.
I think the relevant difference is that they do not automatically invoke the same amount of empathy within us, the way we get from another human being. This may be a cultural convention. It may have been that in the past humans had no empathy fostered in them by their milieux and where more capable of harming and killing each other. The most relevant overlap is more metaphysical. The overlap is that they have the capacity to feel pain and, intuitively, I think that certain animals have 'consciousness' or some continuous experience of living comparable to human's.
The basis for my own argument for animal ethics is both that animals do have certain capacities that would seem to put them on a similar level of moral consideration as humans. Secondly, we would want to enforce the ethical treatment of animals because their mistreatment could inspire a lack of empathy and lead the animal abuser to be more comfortable with abusing humans.
Ultimately the root of the the question of weather or not it is moral to kill/harm animals. It's already quite obvious that it is wrong to kill or harm a human, with certain exceptions of course.
I think the relevant difference is that they do not automatically invoke the same amount of empathy within us, the way we get from another human being. This may be a cultural convention. It may have been that in the past humans had no empathy fostered in them by their milieux and where more capable of harming and killing each other. The most relevant overlap is more metaphysical. The overlap is that they have the capacity to feel pain and, intuitively, I think that certain animals have 'consciousness' or some continuous experience of living comparable to human's.
The basis for my own argument for animal ethics is both that animals do have certain capacities that would seem to put them on a similar level of moral consideration as humans. Secondly, we would want to enforce the ethical treatment of animals because their mistreatment could inspire a lack of empathy and lead the animal abuser to be more comfortable with abusing humans.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Singer
I will come out and say it, I think singer is right. His argument seems to me to be completely cogent and entirely reasonable. That being said, I do not think that his proposal will, in the long run, eliminate poverty and starvation.
I find the structural issues that cause wide spread poverty and starvation to be more immoral than the things themselves. That the world's economy marginalizes, and except in the case of exploitable resources, excludes the third world from the advances of man, because those third world populations are irrelevant to the world economy, to be morally unacceptable. This relies on a fragile ethical position, which is that it is the general movement of humanity, in its many abstract and ultimately meaningless endeavors, that lends meaning to the individual. If an individual or community is excluded from the greater movements of humanity that creates a void of meaning and relevance.
I find the structural issues that cause wide spread poverty and starvation to be more immoral than the things themselves. That the world's economy marginalizes, and except in the case of exploitable resources, excludes the third world from the advances of man, because those third world populations are irrelevant to the world economy, to be morally unacceptable. This relies on a fragile ethical position, which is that it is the general movement of humanity, in its many abstract and ultimately meaningless endeavors, that lends meaning to the individual. If an individual or community is excluded from the greater movements of humanity that creates a void of meaning and relevance.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Frey Oddly Stipulative
Frey's stipulative definition of the terms 'want' and 'desire' seems to me to take away from his argument. He stipulates by saying that he believes in wanting as in needing. Why don't we just say that animals can need but not desire?
In popular usage want and desire are used interchangeably, so by using these terms he accomplished confusing the issue a bit. Now is it true that animals only have needs but not desires? Frey says no, because desires can only be formed if one has belief's to form them with, and belief's can only be formed with language. Though I can not back this up, I think Frey will have a hard time proving that you absolutely cannot form beliefs without language.
Maybe he thinks that the quality of a declarative statement does not arise from a thought behind the language but rather from the structure of the language itself. My intuition says that language should not be confused with though, and while language and thought are related, the mind can deal with mental objects and have beliefs without using language.
In popular usage want and desire are used interchangeably, so by using these terms he accomplished confusing the issue a bit. Now is it true that animals only have needs but not desires? Frey says no, because desires can only be formed if one has belief's to form them with, and belief's can only be formed with language. Though I can not back this up, I think Frey will have a hard time proving that you absolutely cannot form beliefs without language.
Maybe he thinks that the quality of a declarative statement does not arise from a thought behind the language but rather from the structure of the language itself. My intuition says that language should not be confused with though, and while language and thought are related, the mind can deal with mental objects and have beliefs without using language.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Gay Marriage in California
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?ref=us
If you haven't heard, the Californian Supreme Court struck down Prop 8. While things aren't going into effect immediately, the decision is being appealed to the US Supreme Court, this is a huge victory for gay marriage advocates.
If you haven't heard, the Californian Supreme Court struck down Prop 8. While things aren't going into effect immediately, the decision is being appealed to the US Supreme Court, this is a huge victory for gay marriage advocates.
Society Failing
I am an avid Al Jazeera reader and came across this article about homelessness, particularly in Washington DC. I think we all recognize that as a national community we should strive for a nation where even the worst off are cared for in some way or another.
The myth that if you work hard you can become wealthy or even keep your head above water is nothing but a myth. You cannot control your health and if you loose your health there is nothing you can do to continue to work, and on top of that you have to some how pay for your medical care. I don't feel that while we are still the richest nation on earth it is moral to allow this to happen when, through the government or some other institution, we can pay to provide a safety net for every American.
The myth that if you work hard you can become wealthy or even keep your head above water is nothing but a myth. You cannot control your health and if you loose your health there is nothing you can do to continue to work, and on top of that you have to some how pay for your medical care. I don't feel that while we are still the richest nation on earth it is moral to allow this to happen when, through the government or some other institution, we can pay to provide a safety net for every American.
Responding to 'Analysis and Feeling'
In response to Avery's Analysis and Feeling (found here)I would contend that emotion does play an initial role in what course one will take in their argumentation. It is necessary to feel out what ones initial opinions are on the subject, but emotional attachment needs to be completely shed when thinking rational. In short I agree with Avery.
One of the most striking examples is found in the response I have observed to Peter Singer's 'Singer Solution to World Poverty.' Where he outlines a case where it is the moral duty for everyone to give up a significant amount of their worldly wealth in order to help those humans in need around the world.
I read this in College Writing II, and what was fascinating was that while no one could come up with a reasonable counter response, everyone in the class was against his philosophy. People simply did not want to give up all of their excess money and goods like Singer suggested, and even while they could not develop a response they were firmly against.
One of the most striking examples is found in the response I have observed to Peter Singer's 'Singer Solution to World Poverty.' Where he outlines a case where it is the moral duty for everyone to give up a significant amount of their worldly wealth in order to help those humans in need around the world.
I read this in College Writing II, and what was fascinating was that while no one could come up with a reasonable counter response, everyone in the class was against his philosophy. People simply did not want to give up all of their excess money and goods like Singer suggested, and even while they could not develop a response they were firmly against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)