Mary Anne Warren's Argument On Abortion
Ethics Take-home Assignment!
1.! a. Clearly state the formal reconstruction (i.e. premise 1, premise 2, and conclusion) of the Pope’s argument against abortion as it was presented in class. (1 point)!!
Answer
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
A fetus is an innocent human being
So it is wrong to kill a fetus
b. Mary Anne Warren argues that the Pope’s argument turns on an ambiguity. Which word does she say is ambiguous in the Pope’s argument? (1 word, 1/2 point)!!
Answer
Human c. What are the two meanings of that word that might be at issue according to Warren? (2 sentences, 1/2 point)!!
Answer
Moral sense and genetic sense
Human being is used in a moral sense to mean a person and in a genetic sense to mean biological human
d. Pick …show more content…
either one of those meanings. Explain why Warren thinks that adopting that meaning should lead one to reject the Pope’s argument. (Of course she rejects both, but I’m asking you to focus on one or the other... your choice.) (A short paragraph, 1 point)!!
Answer
According to Warren every person has a right to life, a fetus is not a person, killing people is wrong, and there is nothing wrong with abortion. A fetus is not yet a person, and does not possess the full moral rights of a member of the moral community. In particular, the fetus does not possess the right to live Traits of personhood or humanity in the moral sense. Anyone agreeing with Warren’s argument will reject Pope’s argument on the basis that the fetus is not yet a human and therefore it is okay to get rid of it.
2.!
a. Thompson offers the famous case of a person being kidnapped and hooked up to a violinist to save his life. The victim must stay hooked up for 9 months to save the life of the violinist, but Thomson notes that most people think they would have a right to unhook if they were the person kidnapped. This example is supposed to be an analogy relevant to the abortion debate. !!
(i)To what kind of abortion scenario is the case supposed to be an analogy? (1 sentence, 1/2 point)
Answer
Unwanted pregnancy (ii)If one agrees with Thomson about the violinist case, what should one say about the analogous cases in which abortion is at issue? (1-2 sentences, 1 point)!!
Answer
Anyone that with Thompson about the violinist case, would say that at least in some cases, abortion is morally permissible, as the woman’s is of utmost importance not the fate of the fetus.
b. Offer 2 everyday examples of cases where a person might want to seek out an abortion to which Thomson’s violinist case is NOT analogous. (2 sentences, 1 point)!!
Answer
Pregnancy due to rape
Sex using birth control
c. After discussing the violinist case, Thomson makes use of another thought experiment involving “people seeds”. Explain why Thomson bothers with this thought experiment and how it works. That is, explain where that thought experiment fits into the project of her paper and how it is meant to help her overall case. In class I talk about “tracking the debate/the dialectic”. That’s what you are meant to be doing here – track what was going on in the paper: say why the example was needed given the state of things after the discussion of the violinist and then say a bit about how the seeds example is supposed to help Thomson at that point.
Answer
To support her argument about unwanted pregnancy, Thompson employs the analogy of the people-seeds experiment to show that abortion is also morally permissible in cases of failed contraception.
" ... suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective." she uses this analogy to explain that if a woman has taken all preventive measures to avoid getting pregnant, she isn’t responsible for the presence of a fetus that might result from having a sexual intercourse. This analogy shows the homeowner isn’t responsible for the presence of the people-seeds growing in her carpet, because she took all preventive measures to avoid this from happening. To say abortion is wrong in cases of failed contraception, Thomson maintains, would commit you the claim that it is wrong for the homeowner to dispose of the people-seeds growing in her carpet.
3. According to Marquis, what makes killing wrong?
Answer
According to Marquis it is wrong to kill because of what it does to the victim, it deprives the victim of everything they will ever have or experience and of a “future like ours’’
b. Consider your answer to 3a. Explain why Marquis thinks abortions are (all else equal) impermissible.
Answer
Marquis thinks that aborting a fetus is prima facie seriously wrong. He argues that any normal fetus has a valuable future. Since abortion deprives the fetus of a future, it has the same wrong- making characteristics that killing an adult has.
4. A. Which actions are the right actions according to the utilitarian? (1 sentence, 1 point)!!
Answer
Actions that maximize happiness/pleasure for the greatest number b.
We discussed two versions of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Pick either one, state it clearly, and use it to explain why Kant thinks that stealing is morally impermissible. (A short paragraph, 1 point)!!
Answer
In Kant’s argument he argues that any action taken against another person to which the person could not consent violates the perfect duty explained in the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from a stranger, it may have been that the stranger would have consented to it, if he was asked by the thief. However, no one can consent to theft, because consenting would mean the transfer of items was not a theft, because the victim couldn’t have consented to the action, it could not be categorize as a universal law of nature, and theft opposes perfect duty.
c. Gensler appeals to arguments like this:!!!
1. If you are consistent and think that stealing is normally permissible, then you will consent to the idea of people stealing from you in normal circumstances. 2. You don't consent to people stealing from you in normal circumstances. 3. Therefore, if you are consistent then you will not think that stealing is normally morally
permissible.
(i)Reformulate the argument so that it is an argument against abortion rather than stealing. (1 point)!!
Answer
1. If you are consistent and think that abortion is morally permissible, then you will consent to the idea of having being aborted in normal circumstances.
2. You don’t consent to the idea of having being aborted in normal circumstances
3. Therefore, if you are consistent then you will not think that abortion is morally permissible
(ii)I suggested that I wouldn’t consent to having someone go back in time to the night I was conceived to stop my parents from having sex (say, by knocking on the door and making them a really great offer on a new TV). But I don’t think it would have been impermissible for my parents not to have had sex that night. I’m glad they did, but it wouldn't have been wrong of them to decide not to. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, explain how this point is relevant to Gensler’s argument against the permissibility of abortion? You might find it helpful to refer back to your answer to 4c(i). (A paragraph, 2 points)!
Answer
Let’s look at Gensler’s first premise, which he calls the universalizability principle. If you are consistent and think that it would be all right for someone to do a to x , then you will think that it would be all right for someone to do a to you in similar circumstances. If I wouldn’t consent to someone stopping my parents from having sex the night I was conceived, then I should view abortion as being morally impermissible. And if I would consent to someone stopping my parents from having sex the night I was conceived then I should view abortion as being morally permissible. This analogy show that because I do not consent and think that it would have been all right for someone to have stopped my parents from sex the night I was conceived, then I should not okay with someone else being aborted
1.! a. Clearly state the formal reconstruction (i.e. premise 1, premise 2, and conclusion) of the Pope’s argument against abortion as it was presented in class. (1 point)!!
Answer
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being
A fetus is an innocent human being
So it is wrong to kill a fetus
b. Mary Anne Warren argues that the Pope’s argument turns on an ambiguity. Which word does she say is ambiguous in the Pope’s argument? (1 word, 1/2 point)!!
Answer
Human c. What are the two meanings of that word that might be at issue according to Warren? (2 sentences, 1/2 point)!!
Answer
Moral sense and genetic sense
Human being is used in a moral sense to mean a person and in a genetic sense to mean biological human
d. Pick …show more content…
either one of those meanings. Explain why Warren thinks that adopting that meaning should lead one to reject the Pope’s argument. (Of course she rejects both, but I’m asking you to focus on one or the other... your choice.) (A short paragraph, 1 point)!!
Answer
According to Warren every person has a right to life, a fetus is not a person, killing people is wrong, and there is nothing wrong with abortion. A fetus is not yet a person, and does not possess the full moral rights of a member of the moral community. In particular, the fetus does not possess the right to live Traits of personhood or humanity in the moral sense. Anyone agreeing with Warren’s argument will reject Pope’s argument on the basis that the fetus is not yet a human and therefore it is okay to get rid of it.
2.!
a. Thompson offers the famous case of a person being kidnapped and hooked up to a violinist to save his life. The victim must stay hooked up for 9 months to save the life of the violinist, but Thomson notes that most people think they would have a right to unhook if they were the person kidnapped. This example is supposed to be an analogy relevant to the abortion debate. !!
(i)To what kind of abortion scenario is the case supposed to be an analogy? (1 sentence, 1/2 point)
Answer
Unwanted pregnancy (ii)If one agrees with Thomson about the violinist case, what should one say about the analogous cases in which abortion is at issue? (1-2 sentences, 1 point)!!
Answer
Anyone that with Thompson about the violinist case, would say that at least in some cases, abortion is morally permissible, as the woman’s is of utmost importance not the fate of the fetus.
b. Offer 2 everyday examples of cases where a person might want to seek out an abortion to which Thomson’s violinist case is NOT analogous. (2 sentences, 1 point)!!
Answer
Pregnancy due to rape
Sex using birth control
c. After discussing the violinist case, Thomson makes use of another thought experiment involving “people seeds”. Explain why Thomson bothers with this thought experiment and how it works. That is, explain where that thought experiment fits into the project of her paper and how it is meant to help her overall case. In class I talk about “tracking the debate/the dialectic”. That’s what you are meant to be doing here – track what was going on in the paper: say why the example was needed given the state of things after the discussion of the violinist and then say a bit about how the seeds example is supposed to help Thomson at that point.
Answer
To support her argument about unwanted pregnancy, Thompson employs the analogy of the people-seeds experiment to show that abortion is also morally permissible in cases of failed contraception.
" ... suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective." she uses this analogy to explain that if a woman has taken all preventive measures to avoid getting pregnant, she isn’t responsible for the presence of a fetus that might result from having a sexual intercourse. This analogy shows the homeowner isn’t responsible for the presence of the people-seeds growing in her carpet, because she took all preventive measures to avoid this from happening. To say abortion is wrong in cases of failed contraception, Thomson maintains, would commit you the claim that it is wrong for the homeowner to dispose of the people-seeds growing in her carpet.
3. According to Marquis, what makes killing wrong?
Answer
According to Marquis it is wrong to kill because of what it does to the victim, it deprives the victim of everything they will ever have or experience and of a “future like ours’’
b. Consider your answer to 3a. Explain why Marquis thinks abortions are (all else equal) impermissible.
Answer
Marquis thinks that aborting a fetus is prima facie seriously wrong. He argues that any normal fetus has a valuable future. Since abortion deprives the fetus of a future, it has the same wrong- making characteristics that killing an adult has.
4. A. Which actions are the right actions according to the utilitarian? (1 sentence, 1 point)!!
Answer
Actions that maximize happiness/pleasure for the greatest number b.
We discussed two versions of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Pick either one, state it clearly, and use it to explain why Kant thinks that stealing is morally impermissible. (A short paragraph, 1 point)!!
Answer
In Kant’s argument he argues that any action taken against another person to which the person could not consent violates the perfect duty explained in the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from a stranger, it may have been that the stranger would have consented to it, if he was asked by the thief. However, no one can consent to theft, because consenting would mean the transfer of items was not a theft, because the victim couldn’t have consented to the action, it could not be categorize as a universal law of nature, and theft opposes perfect duty.
c. Gensler appeals to arguments like this:!!!
1. If you are consistent and think that stealing is normally permissible, then you will consent to the idea of people stealing from you in normal circumstances. 2. You don't consent to people stealing from you in normal circumstances. 3. Therefore, if you are consistent then you will not think that stealing is normally morally
permissible.
(i)Reformulate the argument so that it is an argument against abortion rather than stealing. (1 point)!!
Answer
1. If you are consistent and think that abortion is morally permissible, then you will consent to the idea of having being aborted in normal circumstances.
2. You don’t consent to the idea of having being aborted in normal circumstances
3. Therefore, if you are consistent then you will not think that abortion is morally permissible
(ii)I suggested that I wouldn’t consent to having someone go back in time to the night I was conceived to stop my parents from having sex (say, by knocking on the door and making them a really great offer on a new TV). But I don’t think it would have been impermissible for my parents not to have had sex that night. I’m glad they did, but it wouldn't have been wrong of them to decide not to. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, explain how this point is relevant to Gensler’s argument against the permissibility of abortion? You might find it helpful to refer back to your answer to 4c(i). (A paragraph, 2 points)!
Answer
Let’s look at Gensler’s first premise, which he calls the universalizability principle. If you are consistent and think that it would be all right for someone to do a to x , then you will think that it would be all right for someone to do a to you in similar circumstances. If I wouldn’t consent to someone stopping my parents from having sex the night I was conceived, then I should view abortion as being morally impermissible. And if I would consent to someone stopping my parents from having sex the night I was conceived then I should view abortion as being morally permissible. This analogy show that because I do not consent and think that it would have been all right for someone to have stopped my parents from sex the night I was conceived, then I should not okay with someone else being aborted