Judith Jarvis Thomson discusses the meaning of the right to life in a 1978 lecture given at Iowa State University. #philosophy #ethics #moralphilosophy
When it comes to abortion, an arbitrary decision needs to be made, that the society can live with. Either a fetus is a human, or a 3 month old fetus is a human, or a fetus is not a human. Just like most societies decided that with 18 you are an adult and can stand trial.
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda lol i did not even imply the correct answer to the issue, i just stated that we need to make a decision. What exactly do you find underwhelming about that?
@@skeptic1124, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies. Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
No disrespect meant but this is a poor arguement. It's not that MAYBE the forfeiture of one's rights justifies the violence, it is indeed because of that. If one is a utilitarian and disagrees with the social contract (which is how we currently operate in the United States) then one can try to make these arguments. However if one forgoes their rights by infringing upon the rights of other then they forfeit those inalienable rights. With the exception of a few types of cases, if one has sex of their own volition and sound mind then they know of the possible consequence and as such should have to deal with the consequence of their actions. It is simply not the same as the innocent man getting pushed on the tracks to save the 5 or the innocent organ donor sitting in the waiting room.
Yep, they only ever have good arguments against raped case scenarios. Which also explains why most anti-abortionists would be okay with exceptions for raped pregnancies.
@tonybalzan3160 You undervalue the importance of philosophy. Whether you like it or not everyone on a daily basis behaves according to philosophical presuppositions. Living a life of science has little or nothing to do with morality. We are social beings. Ignoring philosophy does no good but only harm.
@@tonybalzan3160 philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
The violinist argument sucks because it doesn not take into account the responsibility of the actions of the mother. A better thought experiment is this: There's a sick woman with failing kidneys who needs needs a healthy body donor for 9 months to cure her. The woman, together with her husband, kidnap a little child and hook her up to the sick woman. They have made the machine with a failsafe mechanism that if the connection within these 9 months is severed, the kidnapped child dies. After three months the sick woman is tired of being hooked up to the child and wants to sever the connection, this will kill the kidnapped child. Should the kidnapper be allowed to sever the connection to the kidnapped child, assuming there's no way to sever the connection without killing the child? The kidnapper says she should be allowed to on basis of bodily autonomy
I think it was mainly to argue that a theory of personhood is not required to determine the moral permissibility of abortion. A fetus could be a person but abortion would be permissible.
@@wesduvall It's not about the child requiring to survive or not, in this scenario. It's about the woman, and man's, actions that have directly led to an innocents person coming into a vulnerable and helpless situation. And that there's a certain degree of responsibility that comes with sexual activity. Pro-abortion activists will always negate this and try to manouver every woman, and her male sexual partner, as victims of circumstance and chance. Which is unequivocally false.
@@vizuz There is no reason to postulate a woman with kidney failure requiring a child and kidnapping it. When people make analogous scenarios in philosophy, the point is to highlight similarities between cases, not to make up irrelevant circumstances. There is no case where a woman kidnaps a child because she needs it for her survival. At the very best this is irrelevant to abortion, at worst it is misleading. As for "responsibility that comes with sexual activity," the consequences you are speaking of are either natural consequences (getting pregnant), which can be avoided by aborting pregnancy, or human consequences (forcing a woman to give birth). In the former case, no one would argue that because one natural event may follow another, one is morally obligated to let it happen when one can simply avoid it by acting freely. In the latter case, the consequence does not follow; it is one person initiating force on another and restricting their liberty and threatening their health. This is not a natural consequence of having sex and is a perversion of justice.
There is a better analogy than this: a woman and a man play an enjoyable luck-based game against another player (could be a computer) and if they lose the the child has to be kidnapped and hooked up to the woman for 9 months in such a way that unhooking them will kill the child. The man and a woman get some wins but eventually they lose and after some time of being hooked to a child the woman choses to sever the connection, killing the child. What the man and the woman did in this scenario is clearly morally wrong, at least it's clear to me. The typical pro-choice response to this would be that the child in question has rights and what the woman and the man did after losing the game (kidnapping etc) violated that child's rights. But the potential child doesn't have any rights for only people that actually exist can have rights. So, even if the man and a woman play a game (have sex) and it results in them losing a game (unwanted pregnancy), they didn't violate anybody's rights. Btw I have to say, some people responding to OP are missing the point on purpose.
You gonna write a paper to show how it's poor reasoning? yeah lol thought not. If she were still alive, she would fucking decimate and embarass you. It wouldn't even be close. it would be savage. and the whole room would burst into tears laughing at your impotent demise.
@@FireXandXRock, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES: Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job: Daughter. Wife. Mother. Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers. So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins. Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all. As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal. Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism. The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores. In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths. Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures. Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations. In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats. Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts. Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS. The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave? “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.” Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha), Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased). Paṭicchanna Sutta “...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.” ************* “Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” ************* “Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” St. Paul of Tarsus, Titus 2:4-5. 1 Timothy 2:15. 1 Corinthians 14:34.
When it comes to abortion, an arbitrary decision needs to be made, that the society can live with. Either a fetus is a human, or a 3 month old fetus is a human, or a fetus is not a human. Just like most societies decided that with 18 you are an adult and can stand trial.
Your “logic” is UNDERWHELMING, Sir. 🙄
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda lol i did not even imply the correct answer to the issue, i just stated that we need to make a decision. What exactly do you find underwhelming about that?
@@skeptic1124, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
No disrespect meant but this is a poor arguement. It's not that MAYBE the forfeiture of one's rights justifies the violence, it is indeed because of that. If one is a utilitarian and disagrees with the social contract (which is how we currently operate in the United States) then one can try to make these arguments. However if one forgoes their rights by infringing upon the rights of other then they forfeit those inalienable rights. With the exception of a few types of cases, if one has sex of their own volition and sound mind then they know of the possible consequence and as such should have to deal with the consequence of their actions. It is simply not the same as the innocent man getting pushed on the tracks to save the 5 or the innocent organ donor sitting in the waiting room.
Yep, they only ever have good arguments against raped case scenarios. Which also explains why most anti-abortionists would be okay with exceptions for raped pregnancies.
She's sure a fetus isn't a human being. Sorry Jarvy baby, you lost me there. No wonder I'd never heard of her prior to this post.
She's an extremely famous moral philosopher, if you haven't heard of her, it's because you're not a philosopher.
@FireXandXRock that's right, after contemplating philosophy I thought better of it.
@@tonybalzan3160cope
@tonybalzan3160 You undervalue the importance of philosophy. Whether you like it or not everyone on a daily basis behaves according to philosophical presuppositions. Living a life of science has little or nothing to do with morality. We are social beings. Ignoring philosophy does no good but only harm.
@@tonybalzan3160
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
The violinist argument sucks because it doesn not take into account the responsibility of the actions of the mother. A better thought experiment is this: There's a sick woman with failing kidneys who needs needs a healthy body donor for 9 months to cure her. The woman, together with her husband, kidnap a little child and hook her up to the sick woman. They have made the machine with a failsafe mechanism that if the connection within these 9 months is severed, the kidnapped child dies. After three months the sick woman is tired of being hooked up to the child and wants to sever the connection, this will kill the kidnapped child. Should the kidnapper be allowed to sever the connection to the kidnapped child, assuming there's no way to sever the connection without killing the child? The kidnapper says she should be allowed to on basis of bodily autonomy
I think it was mainly to argue that a theory of personhood is not required to determine the moral permissibility of abortion. A fetus could be a person but abortion would be permissible.
Why on earth would a scenario where a woman requires the child to survive be comparable to abortion?
@@wesduvall It's not about the child requiring to survive or not, in this scenario. It's about the woman, and man's, actions that have directly led to an innocents person coming into a vulnerable and helpless situation. And that there's a certain degree of responsibility that comes with sexual activity. Pro-abortion activists will always negate this and try to manouver every woman, and her male sexual partner, as victims of circumstance and chance. Which is unequivocally false.
@@vizuz There is no reason to postulate a woman with kidney failure requiring a child and kidnapping it. When people make analogous scenarios in philosophy, the point is to highlight similarities between cases, not to make up irrelevant circumstances. There is no case where a woman kidnaps a child because she needs it for her survival. At the very best this is irrelevant to abortion, at worst it is misleading.
As for "responsibility that comes with sexual activity," the consequences you are speaking of are either natural consequences (getting pregnant), which can be avoided by aborting pregnancy, or human consequences (forcing a woman to give birth). In the former case, no one would argue that because one natural event may follow another, one is morally obligated to let it happen when one can simply avoid it by acting freely. In the latter case, the consequence does not follow; it is one person initiating force on another and restricting their liberty and threatening their health. This is not a natural consequence of having sex and is a perversion of justice.
There is a better analogy than this: a woman and a man play an enjoyable luck-based game against another player (could be a computer) and if they lose the the child has to be kidnapped and hooked up to the woman for 9 months in such a way that unhooking them will kill the child. The man and a woman get some wins but eventually they lose and after some time of being hooked to a child the woman choses to sever the connection, killing the child. What the man and the woman did in this scenario is clearly morally wrong, at least it's clear to me.
The typical pro-choice response to this would be that the child in question has rights and what the woman and the man did after losing the game (kidnapping etc) violated that child's rights. But the potential child doesn't have any rights for only people that actually exist can have rights. So, even if the man and a woman play a game (have sex) and it results in them losing a game (unwanted pregnancy), they didn't violate anybody's rights.
Btw I have to say, some people responding to OP are missing the point on purpose.
Both philosophers and psychologist are totally impotent when it comes to religious zealots.
very poor reasoning, even for a woman
that’s a good argument, you should consider pursuing a degree in philosophy
@@captainstrangiato961 hahahahhah
You gonna write a paper to show how it's poor reasoning? yeah lol thought not. If she were still alive, she would fucking decimate and embarass you. It wouldn't even be close. it would be savage. and the whole room would burst into tears laughing at your impotent demise.
@@FireXandXRock, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
🐟 25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
*************
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
*************
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.