Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!apak From: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion Message-ID: <1101@oddjob.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 21:41:10 EST Article-I.D.: oddjob.1101 Posted: Fri Jan 3 21:41:10 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jan-86 03:25:53 EST References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> Reply-To: apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) Followup-To: net.abortion Distribution: na Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 69 I recently asked whether anyone had arguments against abortion which were not religious in nature. The following quote is in response to that. In article <1730@druxu.UUCP> stanwyck@druxu.UUCP (StanwyckDA) writes: > >Just an equal challange in response: Can you make an argument against murder >(of adult humans) without resorting to a religious premise. Statements such >as "it isn't nice" or "it makes me feel bad" are not convincing. If the >argument is based on a moral statement, justify that moral statement. > > Don Stanwyck This seems a reasonable request. I certainly can't make an argument against killing adult humans IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, because I don't believe that's a tenable moral position. But I'll give you two arguments which suggest that it's generally wrong to kill people. These aren't watertight demonstrations (since, firstly, moral philosophy isn't mathematics and, secondly, I'm not a moral philosopher), but sketches of some sort of moral position. (That's all I'm asking for from anti-abortionists, in case that wasn't clear.) Here goes: (1) I start from a position of utilitarianism, so that an action which is intended to produce the greatest good for the greatest number is a moral action."Good" is a term which reflects my personal values, some of which will become apparent. This is a likely source of controversy. If, for example, you maintain that your values place the life of a member of homo sapiens above all else, you will produce a consistent moral position against abortion. I would criticise your values as arbitrary and speciesist, and would ask whether you really would destroy a planet of intelligent, friendly, talented aliens rather than a single human. But, if you steadfastly maintain your position, I certainly can't prove that it's logically wrong. I expect, by the way, that people will be able to persuade me that the values I profess aren't really quite what I mean, because it's almost impossible to be completely satisfied with any moral system. For the health of the net, perhaps you ought not to bother unless it's going to affect the consequences of my arguments. (2) First argument. Adult human beings tend to possess a variety of qualities which I regard as valuable (for example, kindness, intelligence, creativity). I'll refer to these qualities collectively as "character", emphasising that they combine to produce a whole world-view and behaviour-pattern. Mostly, people have characters which are on balance good. (Here and afterwards, it should be understood that I'm using my values.) Corpses have no discernible character, so people with good characters are better for the world than corpses,all else being equal. I therefore enjoin you not to kill people with good character. This argument does not apply to abortion, since the character of a foetus is little-developed. It is true that abortion removes the potential for an adult to develop, but no more than contraception does. If the human race were close to extinction, I might regard either as wrong, but the situation doesn't presently arise. (3) Second argument. A society in which each member evaluated the character of her sisters and brothers, and felt free to kill those she regarded as bad, would be a less pleasant society than one in which adult human life was generally protected. It is therefore moral for each of us to try to uphold respect for adult life, and immoral to diminish such respect (again, all else being equal). Killing people, of whatever character, tends to diminish the general respect for adult life. Some might (and do) argue that this establishes the immorality of abortion: that the lack of respect for human life shown by society's tolerance of abortion has wider social consequences. This is an empirical rather than a moral question: if I were persuaded of its truth then I would alter my views on abortion. However, I am not presently convinced. I believe that a clearly-established social contract is in effect, under which it is permissible to kill foetuses in certain circumstances, and this is understood to have no implications beyond birth. An absolutely firm dividing line, such as birth, is necessary to avoid the individual decisions about human worth which I argued above were deleterious. So, though I was asked to consider only adults, the same argument suggests that killing children is wrong. regards, ak " Salome, dear, NOT in the fridge."