An Inconsistency Within the Abortion Debate

Posted on January 18, 2009 by shaunmiller

I’ve been prepping up to teach abortion in my ethics class.  Teaching abortion is either really fun to teach, or really disastrous.  It’s one of those topics that can get into really heated discussions, which is the best in a philosophy class, but it can easily turn into bad arguments where no one is having a dialogue and they just want to aim for the jugular.

I’m going to start with something different this semester by providing flaws in the “typical” pro-life camp and the “typical” pro-choice camp.  What are these “typical” arguments?

First, let me show the flaws in the pro-life camp.  Usually, pro-lifers say that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s health is in trouble.  I want to say that that’s an inconsistent philosophy.  This seems to suggest that abortion is wrong because it’s taking a life away.  But what I don’t understand is that in cases of RIM (rape, incest, and when the Mother’s health is in danger), then it’s ok to take that life.  Why is it ok to take a life in one instance but not in another?  The usual reply is: “Because in the first case, the mother is taking a risk of having sex.  She could’ve chosen to have sex or not.  In the second case, she didn’t have a choice.  She was forced to have sex.”  This doesn’t follow.  First of all, this seems to work only in cases of rape.  There have been documented cases where incest was with consent, what shall we say of those cases?  Secondly, I find it odd that if the argument turn’s into whether the mother had a choice of having sex or not, it seems that the focus is on the mother’s actions and not on the fetus itself.  What this means is that you’re blaming the mother for having sex, but you’re not blaming her for getting raped.  Nowhere in that whole argument is there a mention of the fetus, which is what the whole abortion debate comes down to.

Thus, I think that if one is going to be consistent, one must say that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape.  I mentioned in a previous post that Sarah Palin had this view, and I find her views consistent.

Ok, now what’s the “typical” pro-choice view, and what’s wrong with it?  I’ve gotten most of this argument from a philosophical forum.

Pro-choice is based upon the principle that the women should decide the outcome of their pregnancies. Basically, this means that each woman decides who and who is not, a person. When applied to other situations, this means that whoever is more powerful (or has the legal right) gets to decide who, and who is not, a person. Just as a mother has the right to decide that the fetus is not a person, so too would the master over his slave (where the slave lives in the master’s house) and the sovereign over the subject (where the subject lives in the sovereign’s state).  Now, I can imagine a pro-choicer reply, “But because it’s the mother’s body, she can choose if something within her body is valuable or not.  Since we all value different things, it makes sense that each individual can value something, and another individual won’t value it.  However, Doris Gordon, a libertarian pro-life advocate, has offered a thought experiment:

Doris Gordon, “Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly”: Imagine two pregnant women debating prenatal personhood. One says that her fetus was a person at conception. The other says hers will not be a person until birth. Both fetuses were conceived the same day. As the women debate, a drunk driver hits them, killing both fetuses. What wrong has the driver committed? If it is a mother’s choice whether her fetus is a person, then to be consistent, we would have to say that the death of one fetus is a homicide but the death of the other is only, say, destruction of property. This is absurd, of course, for the two fetuses were, objectively, the same kind of being when alive.

This begets the question: what objective criterion is there to differentiate between “just a fetus” and “my child” beside purely subjective values? Is there objective criterion?  If one allows this distinction to be subjective, just as a master’s arbitrary control over his slave is subjective, then one is committed to an ethical subjectivism. If one does not see the distinction, then to speak of the same object with two senses is contradictory. This is the essence of the intellectual bankruptcy of pro-choice advocates.

Thus, it seems that pro-life, to be consistent, is asking way too much where it leads them that abortion is wrong no matter what.  Pro-choice seems to be asking too few where it leads them to the point of ethical relativism.  So what’s the solution.  I propose three solutions:

  1. To be consistent, we must say that abortion is morally wrong, no matter what.  There are philosophers out there who have this view.  John T. Noonan is one of them, and Sarah Palin is another example.  Now while this view is consistent, I think a lot of people wouldn’t want this view.  Now I’m not suggesting to abandon this view, but do recognize that it is off the periphery.
  2. To be consistent, we must say that abortion is morally permissible, no matter what.  Again, there are philosophers out there who have this view.  But again, this is also in the periphery.
  3. I think a middle approach would be to find some standard, and say that this standard–regardless if the situation came from rape or from accidental pregnancy–is the criteria.  For example, the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made the standard viability.  Thus, if the fetus is not viable–regardless if the situation came from rape or accidental pregnancy–then abortion is permissible.  If the fetus is viable, then abortion is wrong.  Other standards I’ve heard is when the fetus has a heartbeat. Thus, if the fetus does not have a heartbeat–regardless if the situation came about from rape or from accidental pregnancy–then abortion is permissible.  Otherwise, it’s not.  Other standards I’ve heard is having a brain, being able to feel pain, able to display emotionality, or the point where it has “human characteristics.”

The problem, however, is which standard should we take?  I think that the abortion debate should be focused on that.  If we start from that, we can gain some commonality (namely, that there should be some standard), and then we can continue to find out what that standard should be.  But if we are already disagreeing about the permissibility of abortion because of rape or accidental pregnancy, then we can’t start the dialogue.  Also, it’s because the “typcial” pro-choice and “typical” pro-life arguments are inconsistent.  I think the only way out is the middle ground, which would be the third solution.  Now, I’m not going to pretend to say which standard we should provide.  I’ll let doctors and philosophers who are experts in the abortion debate figure that out.

Posted in Abortion, Ethics, Paper Topic, Rights, Values | 13 Comments

Loving Who You Are vs. Loving What You Do

Posted on January 17, 2009 by shaunmiller

When it comes to love, it seems to be the exception out of all emotions.  After all, it makes sense to be angry, sad, or joyful for a few minutes, a couple hours, or even a full day.  But with love, it sounds odd to say, “I love you, but this is only for a few minutes.”  So why does love have this weird emotional status?

One famous reply is because happiness, joy, and anger deals with some event out there in the world, but love deals with some general term (such as “I love cake”) or it considers the person as a whole.  Thus, people always say that they love someone because of who they are.  There is something about that person that is lovable, and that is inherent in that person (or cake).

I find many problems with this view:

  1. If we love a person for who they are, then it seems that the loving attitude should stay no matter what happens.  Well, what if that person does something so untrustworthy or so disrespectful?  According to the “love who you are” philosophy, you should–or perhaps, can–still love that person.  But this seems like a stretch that most people can do.
  2. The notion of loving someone because of who they are seems to consider the person as not being free.  Someone is means that it pure being.  But beings aren’t free.  Things that become are free.  Loving a being is like loving a rock or a pen: it stands still, without any movement.  There is no action in what things are, only things that can do things can be praised or blamed.  (This is coming from a Sartrean influence, if you can’t tell.)  I’ll quote it that comes from my research paper I’m doing:

In short, it seems that Irigaray is saying, “I love you because of who you are.”  But this goes against Sartre’s notion of humanity.  I do not love you because of who you are.  That would be loving a static in-itself.  I love you because of what you do.  I want a freedom (a for-itself) not a static being (in-itself).  And frankly, sometimes I do not love what you are doing right now.  Irigaray misses the point because she wants to focus on sexual differences, which focuses on one aspect of who that person is, but not on the actions.  For Sartre, if one tries to explain away an action or denies a mode of behavior based on some circumstance beyond his or her control (such as sexual difference), then one is opening a door to a world of excuses; it is a way for that person to tell him- or herself that circumstances are beyond the individual’s control.  It is a way to deny freedom by creating a way of shifting responsibility away from the individual.  To love someone truly means that you love that person in his or her freedom.  This means no possession, no faithfulness, and no obligations.

Instead, I propose that we love people because of what they do.  I think it makes more sense because there’s no confusion and we can still make sense of how love can fit in with the rest of the paradigm of emotions.  When we love people, it’s because those actions are deemed lovable.  It’s impossible to love someone who they are when you first meet them because you don’t know who that person is; you can only judge them by their actions.  But after getting to know them, you start to realize, “Hey, I like this person.”  But I still think that you’re loving the actions.  It’s just that these actions have established a habit and so you’re used to these particular actions from this person.  Indeed, you can predict (usually) what this person is going to do.  The reason why there’s conflict is because the other is doing something that you found disagreeable.

In the end, my stance on loving people stems from their actions, not on who that person is.

Posted in Paper Topic, Relationships | 5 Comments

Book Review: Socrates in Love by Christopher Phillips

Posted on January 10, 2009 by shaunmiller

There are two types of philosophy books.  There are the serious types that you typically read in philosophy classes and that professional philosophers read.  They present problems in philosophy and are asked to be taken seriously.  Then there are the fun types.  Good examples of these books are Family Guy and Philosophy, South Park and Philosophy, Simpsons and Philosophy, and Plato and the Platypus, and so on.

Socrates in Love falls somewhere in the middle.  Phillips has started a concept called Socrates’ Cafes.  What are Socrates’ Cafes you ask?  It’s where you get a group of people (where most of them haven’t studied philosophy professionally) and then you ask simple questions.  “Why are we here?”  “What do you consider friendship?”  “What is the good life?”

In this book, the author goes to different places asking questions that pertains to love.  He goes to Las Vegas and asks “What is passion?”  He goes to Iraq and asks soldiers “What do you consider your duty?”  He goes to New Orleans and asks “What is a community?” after Hurricane Katrina hit.  He goes to a maximum security prison and asks “what is unconditional love?”  He goes to an evangenlical conference and asks “what is humanitarian love?”

The book talks about what these average people have said, then the author sprinkles in some anecdotes about what historical philosophers have said, as if it as apropos to what the average people have said.  For example, someone says that passion is doing what you love doing best, and gaining pleasure from it.  To which the author switches to saying something like, “ahh, well that reminds me of what Socrates said,  he said. . .”  At first, it can get irksome, but you get used to it.

Some of these answers were interesting, but I wouldn’t take it seriously.  It seems that the author only puts in positive aspects of his Socrates’ Cafes experiences.  I wonder if any of them have failed.  At the same time, it seems that he doesn’t go further with the Socratic method.  He takes in a simple answer and leaves it at that, whereas Socrates would’ve really pursued further in the hopes to the truth.  Most of the answers that the people gave, I found, were too simple and didn’t have a lot of philosophical underpinnings.  But then again, these people don’t have any philosophical training.

Someone who has little philosophical training might like this, perhaps may even be inspired with this, but like I said, this isn’t serious philosophy.  Others might read this as a self-help book, which I wouldn’t consider at all.  I didn’t really see this as “inspriational,” but more about “here’s what people have to say about love.”

Posted in Book Review, Culture, Education, Plato, Sexuality, Socrates, Teaching | Leave a comment

Israel and Hamas: What counts as Victory?

Posted on January 5, 2009 by shaunmiller

There’s an article at the Christian Science Monitor about what each sides constitutes victory.  This fight looks pretty serious and there hasn’t been this extreme kind of fighting since the 80’s.

The article is interesting because it looks at both sides and what they want as victory.  So what counts as victory for both sides?

For Israel:

The Israeli military says the ground offensive is aimed at eliminating militant rocket-launching sites, destroying weapon caches, and pursuing fighters hiding in the crowded coastal strip.

Will it be satisfied if the militants stop firing rockets or if it destroys the hundreds of tunnels to Egypt that make up Hamas’s supply line? Some experts say Israel wants to force a more extensive cease-fire with Hamas, compel the creation of an international peacekeeping force in the coastal strip, or destroy the Islamist group altogether.

For Hamas:

survival might be victory. It will be lauded across the Arab world if it can hold out against the region’s strongest military.

If this is what is considered victory, this fight might go for a while.  And if so, there’s no way Bush can do anything.  What will Obama do?  It’ll be interesting to see what he does, but I’m guessing it’ll be more proactive than Bush’s condemnation of Hamas.

With things building up, it could be as it was in Lebennon in 1982.  If it keeps going longer, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hezbollah got involved.  But if that happens, the United States will probably get involved which will infuriate the Arab World even more.

Optimistically, I’m hoping for a cease-fire.

Posted in War | 4 Comments

Dogmatic Politics

Posted on January 4, 2009 by shaunmiller

I’ve never understood why certain positions automatically claims you in a political camp.  To me, this is very dogmatic.  Dogmatism just tells me that you’re not thinking about why you have the beliefs that you do, and that whenever someone inquires into why you have these certain beliefs, the answer is usually “Well, that’s how I was raised.”  Good thinking.  :-/

To show what I mean, check out what is usually considered “right-wing” on these issues (I mean this on the American sense):

  • Abortion: against it, although there may be some exceptions (mother’s health is in danger, rape or incest cases)
  • Capital Punishment: for it
  • War in Iraq: Usually for it
  • Economics: Free trade/Free Market
  • Euthanasia: Usually against it.
  • Same-sex marriage: Against it.
  • Legalizing drugs: wants to criminalize drugs
  • Pornography: wants to restrict it.
  • Environmental concerns: it’s not really a problem (although this is kind of tricky since there are many conservatives that endorse alternative fuels)
  • Politics: Republican
  • Attitude on the world: Conservative (although there are exceptions, conservative usually means “traditional”)
  • Race Issues: there should be equality but it shouldn’t be forced (like affirmative action or reparations)
  • Sex Education: none, or at the least, abstinence-only programs
  • Immigration: they should get out (if illegal), or learn the language
  • Health Care: it is up to the citizens and businesses to figure that out, government should stay out.

Now with the list above, is there some rule that says if you believe in two or three of those, then you must believe in all of them?  I don’t see why all of those issues must be consistent with one another.  On the opposite view, here’s the list from the “left-wing” perspective (again in America):

  • Abortion: considers it terrible, but makes sure it’s available to women (up to a certain point which is usually the end of the second trimester)
  • Capital Punishment: against it
  • War in Iraq: Usually against it
  • Economics: Fair trade/Fair Market
  • Euthanasia: Usually has no problem with it.
  • Same-sex marriage: Has no problem with it.
  • Legalizing drugs: Usually wants to  decriminalize drugs
  • Pornography: since it’s part of free speech, it must be allowed.
  • Environmental concerns: since it’s man-made, we must find a solution
  • Politics: Democrat
  • Attitude on the world: Progressive (although there are exceptions, progressive usually means “against tradition so that we can move forward”)
  • Race Issues: there should be equality and the only way to do that is to have some form of affirmative action
  • Sex Education: there must be a full-fledged sex education, or at least provide abstinence a choice
  • Immigration: they should take the test to become citizens, language is irrelevant.
  • Health Care: since health is considered a (positive) right, it’s up to the government to provide it for each citizen.

Of course, I’m sure you can think of other issues that can go with both of these lists.  Now to show why these are dogmatic positions, imagine some guy.  Let’s call him Joe.  Suppose he held on to these issues:

  • Abortion: considers it terrible, but makes sure it’s available to women (up to a certain point which is usually the end of the second trimester)
  • Capital Punishment: for it
  • War in Iraq: Usually against it
  • Economics: Free trade/Free Market
  • Euthanasia: Usually has no problem with it.
  • Same-sex marriage: Against it
  • Legalizing drugs: Usually wants to  decriminalize drugs
  • Pornography: wants it to be restricted.
  • Environmental concerns: since it’s man-made, we must find a solution
  • Politics: Republican
  • Attitude on the world: Progressive (although there are exceptions, progressive usually means “against tradition so that we can move forward”)
  • Race Issues: there should be equality but this shouldn’t be forced (like affirmative action)
  • Sex Education: there must be a full-fledged sex education, or at least provide abstinence a choice
  • Immigration: they should get out (if illegal), or learn the language
  • Health Care: since health is considered a (positive) right, it’s up to the government to provide it for each citizen.

All I did was pick an opposite issue every other point.  Now Joe believes this.  Is there anything inconsistent with his views?  I can’t think of any.  It seems that one can hold on to this without contradiction.  So then why do so many people have such a dogmatic view about these issues?  It’s as if to say, if you’re a Republican, then you must be against sex education?  Or if you’re a Democrat, then you must be for affirmative action?  These dogmatic ideas, I think, are part of the problem on why people don’t think, or even want to think.  They have this attitude of “I already know what I believe in.”  Yes, but my reply is always why do you believe that?  The answer is usually not satisfactory.  What would I like to see?  I would like to see more Joes in the world.  Not in the sense of people having these different beliefs and not know why, but people having a variety of beliefs because they don’t fall into dogmatism.

Posted in Culture, Education, Paper Topic, Respect, Rights, Values | 4 Comments

Taxing Soda in NYC

Posted on December 30, 2008 by shaunmiller

Dr. Richard Daines explains why taxing soda is actually beneficial for Americans, helps our children, and makes America healthier.

I was skeptical until he explained that it’s actually cheaper for everyone because health care would be cheaper if there was a tax on soda.

Posted in Economics, Experts, Health | 2 Comments

Sex Education: The Netherlands vs. The British

Posted on December 29, 2008 by shaunmiller

An article in the British Times showed the differences between the two.  You can see the similarities between the British and American views about sex and sex education.

Check it out here.

Posted in Education, Ethics, Experts, Health, Relationships, Same-Sex, Sexuality, Teaching, Values | 5 Comments

My Meaning of Life

Posted on December 24, 2008 by shaunmiller

This comes from a previous post but I didn’t want to go too far off on that post, so I decided to write a completely different post for this one.  For me, the meaning of life comes down to doing something where you consider that activity greater than your own life. To put it another way, it’s where you use yourself as a means to further some other end. Socrates died for Philosophy, Bill Gates is dedicating his life to computers (and now to charities), and terrorists are killing themselves for some cause that they consider greater than themselves.

For example, my friend does computer programming and programs video games.  I’m sure he considers that as a full meaning of life and he’s happy about his prospect where he says to himself, “this is the goal that I want to do with my life.”  He uses himself If I was able to do that, it would be cool to know the talent, but I don’t think I could be happy doing it for my whole life.  For me, playing games is what I do to pass the time, something to do while hanging out with friends, or simply to have little pleasures in life.  I can’t see myself doing that as the end result of my whole life.

Now with me, I dedicate my life to philosophy and wisdom.  I love learning about new ideas and what the world looks like with these ideas, or perhaps what the world should look like.  I use myself (I’m a means) to reach out some goal (toward an ends).  I can say to myself, “I am happy by doing this for the rest of my life.”  With other people that I meet, these are the responses that I usually get:

  • “That seems hard.”  They see philosophy as something that is too challenging for their life and so they don’t want to think about.  I call these the philosophical lazy people.
  • “I’m afraid I might lose my faith in. . .”  They see philosophy as challenging common held beliefs like religion or the external world.  I call these people the philosophical cowards.
  • And perhaps the common answer: “It’s fun, but I don’t think I could do this for the rest of my life.”  They see philosophy as something to pass the time, something to do while you’re socializing with friends over coffee or alcohol, and not something that you do academically.  I call these people pleasure philosophers.

Now they all don’t see philosophy as the meaning of their lives.  In the same way, I can’t see myself making video games as the meaning to my life.  (I’d probably be in the third category when it comes to video games.)  But that’s ok.  I would rather have people do something for the rest of their life being fulfilled at whatever they do; it’s something where they can say to themselves, “Yes, I can see myself doing this for the rest of my life.”  But more than that, it’s where you dedicate your whole life towards it.  In a way, it’s a form of immortality.  We all know Plato, regardless if you’ve studied philosophy or not because he dedicated his whole life to philosophy.  If I write a book, then I will be immortal, in a sense, because my “footprint” or “stamp” is left on the world.  With my video game friend, his “footprint” or “stamp” is left on the world when he dies, and thus he’s leaving a part of him behind as well.

So to sum up, if someone asks me what I consider the meaning of life, my answer would be something like “it’s where you do some sort of activity where you consider that activity greater than your own life.”

Or perhaps as an alternative: if you’re doing some activity and you say to yourself, “is this all that life has to offer?” then you are not fulfilling your meaning of life.  It’s where you can be proud of leaving your “footprint” or “stamp” behind when you die.

I realize there can be many replies to this, but I wanted to see what everyone else thought and perhaps give some responses to this.  Any thoughts?

Posted in Paper Topic, Values | 3 Comments

The Strange Case of the Rejuvenated Artist and Art

Posted on December 19, 2008 by shaunmiller

Everyone recognizes this portrait.  It is over 500 years old!  Leonardo Da Vinci painted it and it now hangs at the Louvre in Paris.  One of the unfortunate aspects of its age is that it’s slowly deteriorating.  The humidity, age, and the simple wear and tear, and storage are making this painting slowly disappearing. You can see in the image below that it’s in a special containment spot so that the painting can be preserved even more so that it doesn’t warp.  This painting is so famous and so well-known throughout the world, that if this painting were to ever disappear, the artworld would certainly consider this as a travesty and the world would consider this as though it lost something valuable.  To make this analogy closer, imagine your favorite song or movie, and for some reason, some company got rid of it.  All notions of sounds, images, and words from that favorite movie/song is completely gone.  You’d be devastated.  Well, that’s what would happen if we got rid of the Mona Lisa.  With this in mind, imagine this:

Suppose that we could bring Da Vinci back from the dead.  Suppose next that we take him to the Louvre and show him his own painting.  Now what if he looks at the painting and he says that he doesn’t like it anymore, and he wants to change it.  Or even more so, he wants to destroy it.

Now on the one hand, as I mentioned before, if we got rid of the Mona Lisa, it seems that the world would lose something.  On the other hand, when you create something, that thing is yours.  If I write a book, then that book is mine.  I can do with what I will with the book.  If I decide to publish, alter, or even destroy my writings, I have the right to do so.

So with all this, da Vinci wants to go to his painting and alter or even destroy it.  Here’s the question: Should we let him?

Posted in Aesthetics, Culture, Paper Topic | 12 Comments

Study: Romantic Comedies can Spoil Your Love Life

Posted on December 16, 2008 by shaunmiller

A university in Edinburgh has claimed that romantic comedies may give out the message of a perfect relationship, thus setting your expectations too high.  You can read the article here.  At the same time, this reminds me of other people saying that pornography is bad for relationships because the people see this as the “perfect” sexual encounter, thus setting the expectations too high as well.  Take it for what you will.

Posted in Experts, Pornography, Relationships, Sexuality | 8 Comments