Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

LuckyR either way

Okaaay, do you consider the two similar?

[Intellectual_Savnot]

Equal action on different entities is never the same, but I would say both are similarly free to occur in a theoretical optimal situation

[LuckyR]

Equal action on different entities is never the same, but I would say both are similarly free to occur in a theoretical optimal situation

I believe essentially everyone agrees that murder and suicide in fact do "occur", though that seems to be relatively low hanging fruit.

[Terrapin Station]

I answered "No."

First off, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, and I'd allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy. A la Peter Singer, I'd even allow infanticide (up to say 18 months of age) in at least some cases--at least where there is a serious chronic illness or disability that's going to seriously impact a child for the rest of his/her life.

I'd also allow assisted suicides. I'd just require that consent/an absence of being threatened into it is well-documented.

Another category is killing for political purposes--wars, revolutions, etc. Sometimes that's the only practical option to avoid living under intolerable conditions.

Aside from that, I'm sure there are other situations where I'm not against intentional non-defensive killing. It would be difficult to list them all. And they'd include things like the classic moral dilemmas a la needing to kill one person to save a million, etc. (Although I suppose that could be framed as "defensive," but it's not the traditional sense of self-defense.)

[Steve3007]

First off, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, and I'd allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy. A la Peter Singer, I'd even allow infanticide (up to say 18 months of age) in at least some cases--at least where there is a serious chronic illness or disability that's going to seriously impact a child for the rest of his/her life.

You've stated this position of yours on abortion before, and I've briefly discussed it with you. As far as I recall, you've stated that you would allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy, without requiring there to be an illness or disability. I think your reason for this was due to the foetus "occupying" the mother?

You've stated here that you would allow infanticide up to a certain age, but, unlike with abortion, you would require a reason like serious chronic illness or disability. Is this extra requirement due to the fact that the baby no longer occupies the mother?

[Terrapin Station]

First off, I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, and I'd allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy. A la Peter Singer, I'd even allow infanticide (up to say 18 months of age) in at least some cases--at least where there is a serious chronic illness or disability that's going to seriously impact a child for the rest of his/her life.

You've stated this position of yours on abortion before, and I've briefly discussed it with you. As far as I recall, you've stated that you would allow abortions for the entire length of a pregnancy, without requiring there to be an illness or disability. I think your reason for this was due to the foetus "occupying" the mother?

You've stated here that you would allow infanticide up to a certain age, but, unlike with abortion, you would require a reason like serious chronic illness or disability. Is this extra requirement due to the fact that the baby no longer occupies the mother?

Yes.

[Steve3007]

(up to say 18 months of age)

What would be the criterion you would use for deciding on an age limit? Would it be related to the extent to which we regard the baby as having developed into a being which is capable of giving/withholding consent? Or would it be related to the more technical consideration of the length of time that it takes to establish the seriousness of any serious chronic illness or disability?

[Terrapin Station]

(up to say 18 months of age)

What would be the criterion you would use for deciding on an age limit? Would it be related to the extent to which we regard the baby as having developed into a being which is capable of giving/withholding consent? Or would it be related to the more technical consideration of the length of time that it takes to establish the seriousness of any serious chronic illness or disability?

An arbitrary designation prior to the point where people would have later detailed memories of that time of their life.

[Grecorivera5150]

Well said Greta. Your account ignites me a palpable way as if my face was being smashed into a roiling cauldron of culpability.

[Ecurb]

I haven't read this entire thread, but since it's just been reactivated, I will chime in. I read a book by Oliver O'Donovan. I read it only because I was friends with his brother, and both of them are the sons of famous short story writer Frank O'Connor (nee. Michael O'Donovan).

Oliver is a cleric -- he was once the Professor of Moral Theology at Oxford. I mention it only because I never would have read the book but for the personal connection.

In any event, my somewhat blurry memory is that O'Donovan (speaking as a Church of England cleric) thought that self-defense was not an appropriate reason for killing. Christians, he wrote, are required to turn the other cheek. (One of the subjects on which he was an expert was the Christian approach to war.) However, violence can sometimes be justified -- and it's justification involves restoring JUSTICE.

I thought this was reasonable.
'

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In any event, my somewhat blurry memory is that O'Donovan (speaking as a Church of England cleric) thought that self-defense was not an appropriate reason for killing. Christians, he wrote, are required to turn the other cheek. (One of the subjects on which he was an expert was the Christian approach to war.) However, violence can sometimes be justified -- and it's justification involves restoring JUSTICE.

Thank you for providing the example of turning the other cheek in Christian teachings. In addition to some Christians, I am sure there are many others who as a matter of religion, their moral beliefs, or just the nonreligious amoral personal preferences would choose to not engage in self-defense

However, it's important to note the difference between saying, "I wouldn't do X," versus saying, "I want X to be illegal". The latter requires state-sponsored violence, or at least coercion using the threat of state-sponsored violence.

With that noted, I think we can agree that O'Donovan would presumably want it to be legal for one to engage in self-defense, rather than have government agent's directed to commit non-defensive violence against those engaging in self-defensive. That is despite the fact that he might choose not use his legal right to self-defense, due to his religious or moral beliefs.

Do you want non-defensive, intentional killing of born, brain-alive humans to always be prohibited?

Scott took argument: a or b, where a must make b not the choice and vice versa. He took any situation where b was the choice and said "that is excused and does not count" thus confirming a. He took all the value out of the argument by making the definition of a non-applied to the question: a or b? By committing this logical fallacy, he makes the question posed different than the one answered.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your objection. Is it possible to reword it a bit for me? What fallacy specifically do you think I committed?

[Steve3007]

I am not against killing defensively, but I think my stating that is almost worthless by itself because of the practicalities of defining what actually constitutes defence. All countries with a military, as far as I'm aware, refer to that military as a "department of defence" or something similar.

In the context of philosophy we often take the view that practicalities like that are for other subjects, like politics or science (as opposed to "the philosophy of..." those subjects), to discuss. We concern ourselves with broad, overarching principles, not practical details. But I think there are examples where the practicalities render the principles moot, so can't be ignored even by philosophers, if we want to say something meaningful. I think this is one example and there are others in things like the philosophy of science.

[LuckyR]

The most obvious answer to the title is the "Trolley Problem".

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I am not against killing defensively, but I think my stating that is almost worthless by itself because of the practicalities of defining what actually constitutes defence. All countries with a military, as far as I'm aware, refer to that military as a "department of defence" or something similar.

In the context of philosophy we often take the view that practicalities like that are for other subjects, like politics or science (as opposed to "the philosophy of..." those subjects), to discuss. We concern ourselves with broad, overarching principles, not practical details. But I think there are examples where the practicalities render the principles moot, so can't be ignored even by philosophers, if we want to say something meaningful. I think this is one example and there are others in things like the philosophy of science.

Steve, I agree with you about those points. To discuss one's feelings or opinions, even philosophically, about defensive killing calls for much more nuance than is needed for the topic at hand: intentional non-defensive killing.

In this topic, I seek not to discuss situations in which the killer genuinely believes they are defensively killing or in which the killing is otherwise alleged to be defensive.

Rather, in this topic, I seek only to discuss situations in which the killer is intentionally committing non-defensive killing of another human against the other human's will, and even then only in cases where the other human is already born and brain-alive.

By comparison to the topics you mention, this topic is much more philosophically simple. Thanks to that relative philosophical simplicity, I and about 35% of the poll respondents can say resolutely that we always oppose such non-defensive intentional killing of born brain-alive humans. Perhaps more importantly, those ~35% of respondents and I can therefore presumably each make a personal commitment to ourselves to not engage in such intentional non-defensive killing of our fellow human being, a sort of self-chosen diet of behavior much like one might commit to a food diet.

For those who make exceptions and do support and/or who would willfully and intentionally commit non-defensive killing of other humans, I would love to learn more about what those exceptions that they make are exactly, why they make those exceptions, and if that reasoning is consistent and logical (i.e. doesn't involve contradictions).

[LuckyR]

If you had Huntington's chorea and were starting to have symptoms at age 40 and your 20 year old daughter needed a heart transplant, would you donate your heart? Would the transplant surgeon behave immorally in your estimation ?