Famous Violinist Arguments Against Abortion

A. The ‘Conservative Argument’ is based on two premises: it is wrong to kill an innocent human, and fetuses are innocent humans; therefore abortion is wrong (Singer, 1979, p.107). Whilst this argument is valid, there have been many attempts to show that the second premise is wrong. The primary method to show this has been to find the “moral dividing line” between fetus and human, most notably viability, when the fetus can exist independently (Singer, 1979, p.107-108). This main objection is flawed as countries have different levels of technology, which influences the age a fetus can be independent, meaning for developing countries the line drawn would be far later than developed countries (Singer, 1979, p.109). This is substantial as location
would unjustly determine the fetus’s right to life. Some people who argue for viability object that the fetus’s dependency means the mother should have the right to decide if it has life, however in other scenarios this has never been true (Singer, 1979, p.109). As Singer demonstrates, in the same way it would be unethical for an elderly mother dependent on her child to have their life taken by the child, so too would it be unethical to kill a fetus purely due to dependency (Singer, 1979, p.110). Therefore, since no adequate line can be distinctly drawn to disprove the Conservative Argument, it is difficult to see how fetuses cannot be granted the same right to life as humans.
B. Thomson’s feminist argument is based on the principle of bodily autonomy- the right to decide what happens with one’s own body. Thomson claims abortion should be permissible because only the woman who undergoes the significant physical costs of pregnancy should have the right to decide whether the pregnancy goes forward (Singer, 1975, p.113). To illustrate this she uses the Famous Violinist analogy, which states if a person were to wake up after being kidnapped and hooked up to a machine that in nine months would allow a violinist life, that, despite the consequence on the violinist, the patient would have no moral obligation to stay (Singer, 1975, p113-114). This analogy clearly makes a strong case for abortion, especially in situations when the mother had no choice. The analogy has also been adapted, with varying levels of success, to other situations to show how abortion may still be permissible due to the same principle (Singer, 1975, p.115). Overall, Thomson’s argument makes an important point that, even if a fetus is human, abortions are still morally permissible; the mother, despite what would be nice, has the right to decide what happens with her body.
C.
Due to boldily autonomy and the clear distinction between a fetus and a rational, self-aware person, abortion is morally permissible practically whenever the mother chooses it, given it is done humanely. Most people would agree that in cases where the woman did not choose pregnancy, like rape, abortion should be morally permissible due to bodily autonomy and the immorality of asking someone to undergo psychological and physical trauma due to something beyond their control. This is supported by the Famous Violinist argument which explains that women, especially those who are pregnant due to rape, are not morally obligated to endure this immense sacrifice, even if it would be nice to do so (Singer, 1975, p.113-114). Whilst Thomson’s argument has fallen under criticism based on utilitarianism, these arguments are countered by Singer’s deconstruction of the Conservative Argument and its flawed perception that human life is inherently special, which demonstrates the moral permissibility of most abortions. The Conservative Argument’s premise that a fetus is an innocent human can mean two things: either the fetus is a person that has self-awareness and rational thought or a fetus is a member of the human species (Singer, 1975, p.117). Clearly, the first argument is false and highlights the backwardness of a fetus having more rights than a fully formed, self-aware person. As for the second argument, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of valuing the life of a human fetus more than a
fetus of any other species. When personal bias and attachment is stripped away it is clear that abortion should be as morally permissible as killing equivalent animals of other species, which in most societies is if it is to resolve conflicting interests and is done humanely (Singer, 1975, p.118). A common objection is the argument of potential life, however, this is easily reconciled as potential status does not reward the same rights as something actually of that status (Singer, 1975, p.120), which again reinforces the backwardness of a fetus having more rights than a person. Thus, as is evident in Singer and Thomson’s arguments, my belief that if abortion is morally permissible as long as it is done humanely is justified, as the mother’s autonomy clearly gives her the right to choose, and furthermore, it would be immoral for humanity’s biased perception of fetuses to force a person to have less rights than one.
Locke, as an empiricist, believed innate knowledge was non-existent because knowledge initially came from experience through the five senses (Wright, 2005, p.113). Locke’s primary way of proving the fallacy of innate knowledge was to highlight the significant flaws in Ratuinalism’s main arguments. This is evident in his attack on the fallacy of universally accepted beliefs like religion, morality and logic, as well as his demonstration that the perceptions of ‘innate knowledge’ that exist in arguments of ‘pure reason’ and ‘automatic understanding’ are oversimplified and ignore the experience which allowed that understanding. Hence, Locke disproves innate knowledge by refuting the core rationalist arguments to demonstrate ‘innate knowledge’ is actually derived from experience.

One of the most significant arguments for innate knowledge is the argument that some knowledge is universally accepted, however Locke argues that from principles of logic to religion or morality, no knowledge is truly accepted by all of humanity.
A primary example of innate, universal knowledge used by rationalists is principles of logic such as the idea that “what is, is” or that something cannot “both be and not be” (Wright, 2005, p.114). Whilst it is true that these ideas are widely accepted across cultures, as Locke points out, there will always be some people who do not believe it, such as children (Wright, 2005, p.114). This may be due to an inability to understand but it still wholly proves that this knowledge is not inborn or innate. From this it is obvious that similar arguments for things far less universally accepted like morals or God’s existence are also flawed. Clearly, the existence of atheists and signficant variation in concepts of right and wrong proves God and morals cannot be innate truths (Wright, 2005, p.116). Therefore, as Locke highlights, the argument for universal knowledge is immensely inaccurate and provides no justification for innate
knowledge.

Another argument that Locke proves to be inadequate proof of innate knowledge is the assumption knowledge is innate if established by ‘pure reason’. Reason, the logic which allows the mind to understand an argument, cannot provide knowledge, let alone innate knowledge (Wright, 2005, p.116). Locke’s perspective is demonstrated in highlighting what reason does. For example, an argument is made up of premises; reason shows the conclusion is valid from the logical order of these premises (Wright, 2005, p.115). Rationalists believe that if a conclusion is clearly true from only deductive reasoning that this is innate knowledge (Wright, 2005, p.114). However, this is false, whilst reason shows the conclusion logically flows from the argument, it cannot create the logic needed for the premises to be true. Locke argued that innate knowledge must come out of “thin air” but pure reason does not establish knowledge, rather it relies on premises which are not inate (Wright, 2005, p.115). Instead, Locke argues these came from “the input of our five senses” (Wright, 2005, p.116) which disproves the notion that pure reason can be the basis for an argument. Hence, considering reason cannot provide the foundation, it follows that no knowledge can be innate as the logic is established through experience, not pure reasoning.

The other fundamental argument that Locke uses to demonstrate the implausibility of innate knowledge is the argument that propositions give innate knowledge if they can be automatically understood. Some rationalists argue that some propositions are innate because when they are understood they can automatically be seen as true (Wright, 2005, p.116). However, Locke argues that the notion that automatically understood propositions give innate knowledge is incredibly inaccurate, as shown through Locke’s example “Yellowness is not sweetness” (Wright, 2005, p.117), which he uses to demonstrate that immediate understanding does not equal innate knowledge. Clearly, it is immediately understood that the colour and taste of an object is not related and hence, the proposition is true but only through the person’s experience of the concepts of taste and colour through their senses (Wright, 2005, p.117). Through this Locke shows that without innate knowledge of the concepts of a premise, there is no innate knowledge of the proposition (Wright, 2005, p.117). Since Locke was able to show that his example of a clearly true statement does not have innate knowledge, it effectively proves that immediate understanding does not equate to innate knowledge, and hence is inadequate proof that innate knowledge exists.

Locke demonstrates that innate knowledge cannot exist as the rationalist arguments are fundamentally flawed by overlooking innate knowledge’s base in experiences gathered by the main senses. Locke’s demonstration that even logical principles are not universally accepted, due to children, which shows that knowledge is not known from birth. Similarly his explanation of the inability for pure reason to prove innate knowledge and the implausibility of automatic knowledge to exist demonstrates that innate knowledge cannot exist as it largely stems from underlying concepts and foundations based on our senses. Thus, Locke’s counterarguments against Rationalism prove that what is seen as ‘innate knowledge’ is actually knowledge gained from experience.