I'd never heard this before! I had to go back and listen to the last sentence twice to make sure I heard it correctly! The author thinks like I do, but developed her arguments more thoroughly. To me, this is a phenomenal and indesputable justification for pro-choice legislation.
"A clump of cells eventually becomes a person. Should we then classify the clump of cells a 'person?' Well, an acorn eventually grows into an oak tree. Would you then say they are one and the same? That an acorn _is_ an oak tree? Of course not. Therefore, it is illogical to claim that a clump of cells _is_ a person simply because it may eventually become one."
Yes, I plan on uploading more in the future. Unfortunately, my current workload doesn't afford me much time for hobbies like this, so it may be some time before I'm able to record something new. However, I am currently in contact with some volunteers who wish to contribute to the project and submit their own recordings, so look forward to that in the near future!
Her argument is very weak. An acorn is not a human life, or an animal life even. A hierarchy of rights does exist in the natural world, and so in order to maintain consistency in her logic she needs to compare one complex living human organism to another complex living human organism. The reason she fails to do this, it seems to me, is because there is nothing else to compare to the value of a human life if you are a human. Humans value, and should value, human life above all. She focuses on the "growth" of an organism, but an acorn has no rights, and even if grown into a tree it still has no rights as we, humans, define rights. In order for her analogy to make sense and for her argument to be consistent, her comparison with the acorn needs to conclude with the grown organism being a life with value and innate rights, but she can't do that because acorns do not have rights and neither do oak trees - at least not comparable to humans. In no stage of the acorn-to-oak tree example are rights ever in question, and here is the fundamental problem and the primary flaw of her half-baked argument. She limits the discussion to "something" (anything at all, really) simply "growing" and deliberately leaves out the question of rights and the varying values of various life forms, which in fact is the core of the moral debate. I was reading her work expecting to be enlightened with a stronger argument for abortion, and quite the opposite occurred; it's possibly one of the weakest arguments I've heard. A somewhat tangential thought regarding the acorn analogy: if left to the outside elements of nature - it may or may not grow into an oak tree. However, if the acorn is deliberately planted by a person - not just by the wind and erosion - it is only rational to conclude it will most likely develop into an oak tree and only ever an oak tree, until the tree reaches the end of its' lifespan as a plant. But the act of physically planting the acorn drastically increases the likelihood of that happening just the same as the act of unprotected sex drastically increases the likelihood of a pregnancy. Why is our society no longer more cautious regarding unprotected sex? Unprotected sex spreads disease, death, and depression. Abortion addresses the end of the problem, not the beginning. It is an immoral society that answers the question of sexual liberation - at all costs - with an act of violence being the final answer. It is an immoral society that values latex free orgasms, and ultra casual sex, above life itself. The lump of cells she refers to is a human life from the beginning, yet she argues that it is no more a human life than an acorn. Would any rational person conclude that this "lump of cells" will one day grow into an oak tree? It's an irrational argument. The cells, which are uniquely human and only human, will only continue growing and changing through the different stages of its' lifespan. Judith Jarvis Thompson was such a lump of cells, herself. I won't entertain the violinist argument here; it's too simple and I'm not convinced that even many pro-choice advocates rely on this one anymore. It is her ignoring the fact that human life has more value than plant or animal life that requires a response because it's at the core of the rest of her flawed thinking. There are logical (if immoral) arguments for abortion, but Judith Jarvis Thomson does not present a single one of them.
The point of the acorn/oak tree example is not to give it the same moral weight as human life, but to say that you don’t say one thing IS another just because it one day MAY BE 🤦🏻♀️
@@vvieites001 Wrong, one day it *will* be, if allowed to live. It seems patently absurd to me to suggest that an entity at a later stage of development is a completely separate being from itself at an earlier stage of development. A caterpillar *becomes* a butterfly, yes, but it is fundamentally the same entity across those stages.
@@vvieites001honestly, how can you even say that OP didn’t engage with it at all when he wrote a long ass comment with his thoughts and counter points? Bruh
![Thomas Nagel - Death [Philosophy Audiobook]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tsXV9OVO8nw/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this video, I’m a student and hearing this alongside reading the text really helps with understanding the material.
I'm glad I could help!
This video was a massive help in comprehending Ms. Thomson's paper. Thank you.
You're very welcome! I'm happy you found it useful.
I'd never heard this before! I had to go back and listen to the last sentence twice to make sure I heard it correctly! The author thinks like I do, but developed her arguments more thoroughly. To me, this is a phenomenal and indesputable justification for pro-choice legislation.
I just finished this book and heard about her passing 😭 RIP Judith Thomson
She is in hell now.
She has other great books, such as Normativity and The Realm of Rights.
"A clump of cells eventually becomes a person. Should we then classify the clump of cells a 'person?' Well, an acorn eventually grows into an oak tree. Would you then say they are one and the same? That an acorn _is_ an oak tree? Of course not. Therefore, it is illogical to claim that a clump of cells _is_ a person simply because it may eventually become one."
this was incredibly helpful. thank you!!
You rock man! These are so useful.
Will you upload more audiobooks in the future? I'd really love it!
Yes, I plan on uploading more in the future. Unfortunately, my current workload doesn't afford me much time for hobbies like this, so it may be some time before I'm able to record something new. However, I am currently in contact with some volunteers who wish to contribute to the project and submit their own recordings, so look forward to that in the near future!
Very helpful, thanks for recording 👍🏻
I'm a pro choice Thomson too ❤
Thank you! This is so helpful :)
This is epic, thank you!
You're very welcome; I'm glad you found it useful!
Is this the whole book?
This is the entire paper that was published in 1971.
38:55 (bookmark)
12:30
Her argument is very weak. An acorn is not a human life, or an animal life even. A hierarchy of rights does exist in the natural world, and so in order to maintain consistency in her logic she needs to compare one complex living human organism to another complex living human organism. The reason she fails to do this, it seems to me, is because there is nothing else to compare to the value of a human life if you are a human. Humans value, and should value, human life above all. She focuses on the "growth" of an organism, but an acorn has no rights, and even if grown into a tree it still has no rights as we, humans, define rights. In order for her analogy to make sense and for her argument to be consistent, her comparison with the acorn needs to conclude with the grown organism being a life with value and innate rights, but she can't do that because acorns do not have rights and neither do oak trees - at least not comparable to humans. In no stage of the acorn-to-oak tree example are rights ever in question, and here is the fundamental problem and the primary flaw of her half-baked argument. She limits the discussion to "something" (anything at all, really) simply "growing" and deliberately leaves out the question of rights and the varying values of various life forms, which in fact is the core of the moral debate. I was reading her work expecting to be enlightened with a stronger argument for abortion, and quite the opposite occurred; it's possibly one of the weakest arguments I've heard. A somewhat tangential thought regarding the acorn analogy: if left to the outside elements of nature - it may or may not grow into an oak tree. However, if the acorn is deliberately planted by a person - not just by the wind and erosion - it is only rational to conclude it will most likely develop into an oak tree and only ever an oak tree, until the tree reaches the end of its' lifespan as a plant. But the act of physically planting the acorn drastically increases the likelihood of that happening just the same as the act of unprotected sex drastically increases the likelihood of a pregnancy. Why is our society no longer more cautious regarding unprotected sex? Unprotected sex spreads disease, death, and depression. Abortion addresses the end of the problem, not the beginning. It is an immoral society that answers the question of sexual liberation - at all costs - with an act of violence being the final answer. It is an immoral society that values latex free orgasms, and ultra casual sex, above life itself. The lump of cells she refers to is a human life from the beginning, yet she argues that it is no more a human life than an acorn. Would any rational person conclude that this "lump of cells" will one day grow into an oak tree? It's an irrational argument. The cells, which are uniquely human and only human, will only continue growing and changing through the different stages of its' lifespan. Judith Jarvis Thompson was such a lump of cells, herself. I won't entertain the violinist argument here; it's too simple and I'm not convinced that even many pro-choice advocates rely on this one anymore. It is her ignoring the fact that human life has more value than plant or animal life that requires a response because it's at the core of the rest of her flawed thinking. There are logical (if immoral) arguments for abortion, but Judith Jarvis Thomson does not present a single one of them.
You say her argument is weak because you don’t like it, not because you truly understood or engaged with it. That is all .
The point of the acorn/oak tree example is not to give it the same moral weight as human life, but to say that you don’t say one thing IS another just because it one day MAY BE 🤦🏻♀️
@@vvieites001 Wrong, one day it *will* be, if allowed to live.
It seems patently absurd to me to suggest that an entity at a later stage of development is a completely separate being from itself at an earlier stage of development. A caterpillar *becomes* a butterfly, yes, but it is fundamentally the same entity across those stages.
Thank you... Im not articulate enuff to put into words how lame her examples are.
@@vvieites001honestly, how can you even say that OP didn’t engage with it at all when he wrote a long ass comment with his thoughts and counter points? Bruh