Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
So what is your stance on the abortion of a foetus that you have a genetic stake in? Do your arguments still apply if you are considering a partner rather than 'some woman'.
|
Yes.
If I don't want my partner to have an abortion, I should try to talk her out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
You say that morally we should always value the one that has the ability to suffer more/cause more suffering by proxy
|
No, I don't. I'm not a strict utilitarian. I think utilitarian arguments make sense in the question of abortion because, regarding abortions, I have no stronger moral instinct or normative rule I feel I have to go by which says it's wrong (f.ex thou shalt not kill). In other words, my preferred tools from my moral toolbox are not available and then I have to opt for something else. For me, then, it makes sense to try for the best possible consequences and I think the utilitarian idea of minimizing suffering often leads to good consequences (I don't like suffering, so in a sense, I am sometimes a utilitarian). So, when it comes to abortions, I want the consequences which leads to minimal suffering and best consequences for society.
A thought experiment that would perhaps put us more on the same wavelength here would be if you just forget about utiliarianism and think of me as someone who wants to minimize suffering in the question of abortions, regardless of established moral theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
but what about when one party is innocent and the other is directly responsible for the predicament? Would that principle extend to situations that involves weighing the interests of 2 adult humans, regardless of innocence or guilt?
|
Whether or not I would fall back on utilitarian arguments depends on context so it's hard to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
There's nothing that could make the death of a chicken worse than the death of an innocent human, in most people's eyes. No matter how you tilt the suffering scale in the chicken's favor. That's because people generally value human life beyond its ability to suffer.
|
Alright. You're trying to establish that humans have some basic moral worth which is a lot more than a chicken or any other non-human species, or even in a different category of worth which no number of chickens can achieve. As a thought experiment, let's mentally accept that and make it part of utilitarian theory. We want to maximize human happiness and/or minimize human suffering. We don't care about chickens. Even if you incorporate that as a rule into utilitarianism, it doesn't change the moral worth of the average human fetus vs. the average adult human. In other words, it doesn't really change the utilitarian argument I've made in the case of abortions.