tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post7369818902205152555..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: A thought experiment regarding abortionAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81278430271349713162008-09-16T07:46:00.000-05:002008-09-16T07:46:00.000-05:00The right not to be killed because of the potentia...The right not to be killed because of the potential for being made into a pet is not absolute, but relative to a culture, since what animals make pets is relative to a culture. (In principle, <EM>any</EM> animal could be made into a pet, after all. I guess you could say this is an argument for total vegetarianism.)<BR/><BR/>It would be wrong to kill a human being who is completely isolated from society. (Imagine that you hear that someone is living all alone on a desert island. And you send a cruise missile at him.)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-20258944938864733532008-09-16T05:12:00.000-05:002008-09-16T05:12:00.000-05:00It seems plausible that all mammals have conscious...<I>It seems plausible that all mammals have consciousness, but not all mammals have a right not to be killed.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps they do all have that right, in virtue of their being conscious. Or perhaps humans do not have that right, only the right not to be killed by unauthorised humans. Do we have a right not to be killed by bacteria? So perhaps mammals have the right not to be killed inhumanely by humans, in virtue of their being (if they are) conscious. (Perhaps much of the justification for not according them such a right is the thought that they might not be conscious.) I would bet that it is a quotidian belief that some mammals have special rights (not to be killed in certain ways) in virtue of their being potential pets of humans. Rights seem to concern humans as social animals, in which case the Lucky's rights would concern them as social animals, i.e. as Luckys amongst Luckys. That is why a transition to Lucky consciousness would be special. Even if there are degrees of consciousness across the species, there may be a different kind of point in the development of each individual at which she attains the degree of consciousness special to her species.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-82467954695351179602008-09-16T04:38:00.000-05:002008-09-16T04:38:00.000-05:00sure they dosure they doMartin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-31690695903704363162008-09-13T09:29:00.000-05:002008-09-13T09:29:00.000-05:00You don't think dogs feel pain?You don't think dogs feel pain?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-69661484749282365012008-09-13T06:29:00.000-05:002008-09-13T06:29:00.000-05:00What about a transition to Lucky consciousness? Ma...What about a transition to Lucky consciousness? Mammals do not have <I>that</I> transition, and it would naturally be of particular moral significance to the Lucky community. It would be analogous to the first moment of a pure thinking thing's creation, if we presume that such always think.Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-19808357378506781242008-09-12T08:37:00.000-05:002008-09-12T08:37:00.000-05:00Nick:The relevance of these differences disappears...Nick:<BR/><BR/>The relevance of these differences disappears, I think, if one agrees at Step II that it is <EM>murder</EM> to kill a lucky at any point from conception on. For when it is a matter of murder, there is no room for balancing.<BR/><BR/>A point that I've made in an earlier post once is that if one looks at the reasons women give for abortions, the burden of the pregnancy itself--except when maternal health is impacted, which is only a very small portion of abortions (I think about 5%)--is not one of the listed reasons. Rather, the reasons have to do with the raising of the child after the child is born.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-24168798742135217322008-09-12T07:39:00.000-05:002008-09-12T07:39:00.000-05:00I don't disagree with your analysis. However, I th...I don't disagree with your analysis. However, I think you leave important issues not discussed enough in stage 3:<BR/><BR/>1) For a lucky between conception and 9 months another lucky can adopt the infant, thus requiring no further impact on the mother. This is not possible with humans.<BR/><BR/>2) Between the ages of conception and 9 months a lucky's health does not impact that of the mother, where it does for humans.<BR/><BR/>I believe that "pro-choice" advocates (I am not one) would argue there is not an absolute right/wrong but rather a balance between the infant and the mother. This could be more clearly addressed.Nick Fortescuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11154498742042292761noreply@blogger.com