abortion - margaret little, `abortion, intimacy, and the duty to … · 2013. 9. 3. ·...

b

Abortion

AbortionMargaret Little, ‘Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate’

Dr. Clea F. Rees

[email protected]

Centre for Lifelong LearningCardiff University

Autumn 2013

mailto:[email protected]

[email protected]

Anders Tomlinson,Moments of Intertwinement

b

AbortionOutline

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Deadlock

Thomson’s Move

Little’s Thesis

ArgumentationThe State of the DebateArguments ILittle’s PremisesArguments IILogical StructureThe Importance of RelationshipAnticipating Objections

Evaluation

b

AbortionDeadlock

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Deadlock

b

AbortionDeadlock

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Deadlock

Typical Pro-Choice/Pro-Life Agreement

I Principles:I Persons have a right to control their bodies.I Persons have a right to life.I The right to life outweighs the right to control one’s body.

I Status:I The woman is a person.I The woman has rights to life and to control her body.

I Conditionals:I If the foetus is a person, then it has a right to life.I If the foetus has a right to life, then it has a right not to be

aborted. [At least unless the woman’s life is endangered.]

b

AbortionDeadlock

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Deadlock

Typical Pro-Choice/Pro-Life DisagreementPro-Choice

I Only persons have (full)rights.

I The foetus is not a person.I The foetus has no relevant

rights.or The foetus’s right(s) are

outweighed.

Pro-Life

I Potential persons have(full) rights.

or The foetus is a personfrom conception.

I The foetus has a right tolife.

I The woman’s right(s) areoutweighed.

b

AbortionDeadlock

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Deadlock

b

AbortionThomson’s Move

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Thomson’s Move

Thomson GrantsI Principles:

I Persons have a right to control their bodies.I Persons have a right to life.I The right to life outweighs the right to control one’s body.

I Status:I The woman is a person.I The woman has rights to life and to control her body.I The foetus is a person.

I Conditionals:I If the foetus is a person, then it has a right to life.

b


Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Thomson’s Move

Thomson Rejects

I Conditionals:I If the foetus has a right to life, then it has a right not to be

aborted. [At least unless the woman’s life is endangered.]

b


Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Thomson’s Move

Thomson Claims

I The right to life is the right not to be killed unjustly.I Abortion is not unjust killing.I The foetus has no right not to be aborted at any stage of

pregnancy, for any reason.I Even if the foetus is an innocent person and even though all

innocent persons have a right to life.

b

AbortionLittle’s Thesis

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Little’s Thesis

What is Little’s main thesis or conclusion?

Terminology:

b

AbortionArgumentation

The State of the Debate

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationThe State of the Debate

How would Little assess Thomson’s analogies (question 3)?

b


The State of the Debate

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationThe State of the Debate

Common problem with both sides of abortion debate (question 4):

b


Arguments I

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationArguments I

ArgumentsPhilosophers care a great deal about arguments, becausephilosophers try to answer philosophical questions by constructing,analysing and criticising arguments.

By ‘arguments’ we do not mean just any sort of argument. We arenot concerned with cases where two people shout contradictions ornames at each other or anything like that. We are concerned witharguments in a formal sense.

b


Arguments I

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationArguments I1

Definition (Argument)An argument consists of a set of sentences of which one is theconclusion and the rest are premises.

Definition (Conclusion)The conclusion is the claim the argument tries to convince you of.

Definition (Premises)The premises are claims which are supposed to support theconclusion.

1These definitions are somewhat simplified so be aware that things areactually a little more complex than they suggest.

b


Arguments I

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible


Example (Argument)

1. Some cows have calves.——

2. Some cows lactate.

Gisela Fabian, Cow Pasture

b


Arguments I

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible


Example (Argument)

1. Cats detest being wrapped intowels like burritos.

2. You ought not be cruel to cats.——

3. You ought not wrap cats intowels like burritos.

b


Arguments I

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible


Example (Argument)

1. Abortion is the deliberate killing of ahuman being.

2. If something is the deliberate killing ofa human being, then it is wrong.——

3. Abortion is wrong.

b


Arguments I

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible


Example (Argument)

1. My cat enjoys a good game oftiddlywinks.

2. If my cat enjoys a good game oftiddlywinks, then tiddlywinks is agame loved by the gods.——

3. Tiddlywinks is a game loved by thegods.

b


Little’s Premises

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationLittle’s Premises

What premises does Little’s argument rely on (question 5)?

b


Arguments II

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationArguments II

Definition (Sub-Argument)A sub-argument is an argument which forms one part of a largerargument.

Definition (Sub-Conclusion)The conclusion of a sub-argument is a sub-conclusion of the overallargument.

b


Arguments II

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationArguments II

Example (Argument with Sub-Conclusion)

1. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being.2. All human beings are persons.3. If something is the deliberate killing of a person, then it is

wrong.——

4. If something is the deliberate killing of a human being, then itis wrong. (From 2, 3)——

5. Abortion is wrong. (From 1, 4)

b


Logical Structure

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationLogical Structure

How are Little’s premises supposed to support her conclusion (6)?

b


The Importance of Relationship

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationThe Importance of Relationship

I What role does discussion of parenthood play in Little’sargument?

I Little suggests it is a more helpful comparison than standardanalogies.

I Why?I Do we need an ethics of parenthood?

I Would this be different from an ethics of other humanrelationships?

I Little’s discussion of relationships is key.I Thin relationship: obligation to openness.

e.g. Mere biological relationship.I Thick relationship: much greater obligations.

e.g. Social parenthood.I Is this a helpful way to think about the permissibility of

abortion?

b


Anticipating Objections

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

ArgumentationAnticipating Objections

Objections and responses (question 7):

b

AbortionEvaluation

Virtue

Vice

Moral

Imm

oral

Ethical

Unethica

lPe

rmissi

bleImpermissible

Evaluation

How good is Little’s argument?

abortion - margaret little, `abortion, intimacy, and the duty to … · 2013. 9. 3. ·...

Documents