I’ve ignored most of the renewed reproductive controversy but Democracy in America offers me an in, eulogizing Ruth Barcan Marcus EG writes
With regard to abortion, for example, she notes that people marshal a variety of arguments, some of which reference competing claims (such as the right of the fetus to live, or the right of a woman to control her own body), and some of which make prima facie claims (such as that a fetus is not a human, or that it is). She continues:
What all the arguments seem to share is the assumption that there is, despite uncertainty, a resolution without residue; that there is a correct set of metaphysical claims, principles, and priority rankings of principles which will justify the choice. Then, given the belief that one choice is justified, assignment of guilt relative to the overridden alternative is seen as inappropriate, and feelings of guilt or pangs of conscience are viewed as, at best, sentimental. But as one tries to unravel the tangle of arguments, it is clear that to insist there is in every case a solution without residue is false to the moral facts.
Abortion seems to me to be a particularly poor example of a lack of moral resolution. From listening to the discourse from almost every corner its clear that bordering on no one takes the issue seriously and is primarily just posturing.
I have heard no mention of whether or not fetuses or infants for that matter are p-zombies and if so would that matter. I have heard no serious treatment of the difference between the duty to prevent miscarriages and the duty to prevent abortion. I have heard no mention of whether or not all potential existing persons have moral relevance. I have heard no mention of wrongful life. These are trivially basic issues underpinning all this, yet the conversation does not even try to address them. Not fail. Not wave away. They simply don’t try.
Could it be that people don’t actually care about getting the internally consistent answer even supposing there was a internally consistent answer to be had?
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 1:26 am
alex
Abortion: A Clash of Absolutes, by Laurence Tribe
http://books.google.com/books/about/Abortion.html?id=oOtVjsdUPP0C
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 11:01 am
Arthur
People should cara very little about getting a internally consistent answer if there is none.
What strikes me the most on the abortion debate is that people think “life” and “human” are real things. Even when i try to explain they can’t graps it.
The universe is the universe. The categories we use are part of our system to explain the universe, but they are created by us. What is “Life” and what is “human” cannot be answered by reality, is something we have to decide.
Wednesday ~ February 22nd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Matt (@MeCampbell30)
That’s because not everyone thinks the issue should be decided analytically. I am not qualified to engage in a debate about abortion when the basis of pro-life argument rests on a particular interpretation of a person’s theology. I don’t speak that language.
In this country, when the two side can’t even come to an agreement on the warrant of the argument, we rely on the law. We ask questions like, “Does the constitution allow federal regulation of abortion?” and “How far can states go in regulating the procedure?” You may find this less academically rigorous, but I think it’s hard to doubt that it’s what the political debate should be focused on: the limits of the government’s involvement in the lives of its subjects. Not the more metaphysically abstract question of what an individuals duty is to the “moral good.”
The legal question, not the moral one, is more important one right now in the public debate.
Friday ~ March 2nd, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Joshua
I would simply say, “Yes they have.”
Now, I’ve never heard people say “p-zombie” but I saw a debate on the Corner a few weeks ago about the miscarriage vs. abortion issue.
Saying “I haven’t heard this,” though, is especially lame. It would be comparable to judging the progress of particle physics based on a conversation at the bar. Yes, the public discussion is not philosophically technical. But can you think of any philosophically technical public policy discussion on the 24 hour news networks or in congress? It’s crazy to assume that would happen on any issue, let alone abortion, particularly when neither side has an incentive to attempt to persuade people using this methods when nobody respects that philosophy.
I’m quite confident a non-insignificant number of these have been discussed in any number of circles, not the least influential of which is the Catholic church which arrived at it’s position through some means. But I don’t happen to run in those circles because I’m not Catholic or anything but an amateur philosopher.
I think, similarly, if we looked at the economic depth of say, the Republican Candidates and the nightly news, we might assume nobody had thought through the least implications of say, “Getting tough with China.” To actual find a nuanced view on either side, you have to know where to look.
As to abortion, I don’t know where to find those people who would use the term “p-zombies.” But I think you often hear bits and pieces of this addressed.
But I do want to say, if opposition to abortion rests on a religious principle, it is “thou shalt not kill.” If that has no currency outside the church, I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
Thursday ~ April 5th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
lenoxus
Saying that fetuses (at least, very early fetuses, i.e. embryos) are p-zombies implies that they at least act like they have sentient experience, but I see little evidence of such. Infants, on the hand, are either sentient or p-zombies.
I find the p-zombie argument silly so I would therefore conclude infants to be sentient. Now, this is distinct from right-to-life; mice are sentient but many more humans consider it acceptable to kill them for no reason except “I just don’t want mice around”, than with infants.