Thomson's Violinist

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by GE Morton »

figliar0 wrote: November 30th, 2021, 3:55 pm
GE Morton wrote: November 30th, 2021, 2:30 pm Whether autonomy is "comparable in importance" to the inconveniences involved in raising a child is a subjective matter (the relative importance of any X vs. Y is a subjective matter). "Autonomy" is usually considered to consist in one's power to make decisions affecting one's own life for oneself, rather than be bound by others' decisions --- provided those decisions don't intrude on others' autonomy.

"Put most simply, to be autonomous is to govern oneself, to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply imposed externally upon one, but are part of what can somehow be considered one’s authentic self."
I just want to point to one thought I wrote before. Pregnancy is direct consequence of having sex, so If the sex was voluntary, I am not sure if pregnancy really intrude mother's autonomy. What is that act of violence that intrudes mother's autonomy? Who is the intruder? Or more specifically, who's acts resulted in this autonomy intrusion?

OT. What is autonomy at all? And authentic self? It isn't possible to avoid impact of external factors - everything was influenced by past events at all. The quote is not very specific (bold text). It looks like autonomy cannot be simply defined and is subjective.
I agree it is a pretty nebulous concept, and like all such concepts, lends itself to idiosyncratic interpretations.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: November 30th, 2021, 2:30 pm
LuckyR wrote: November 30th, 2021, 1:50 pm
The reason why you find my posting unconvincing and that you chose to use an inappropriate analogy (killing 2 year olds) is your underappreciation of the mother's right to autonomy, in this case in a medical context.

Autonomy is not comparable in importance to the fact that raising children "is too much trouble", rather it is the cornerstone of the practice of medicine (and we're discussing a medical decision). This is the reason the OP had to invent such a convoluted story to convey the actual situation of abortion since autonomy is so unlike other oversimplistic arguments (like the inconvenience of raising 2 year olds).
Whether autonomy is "comparable in importance" to the inconveniences involved in raising a child is a subjective matter (the relative importance of any X vs. Y is a subjective matter). "Autonomy" is usually considered to consist in one's power to make decisions affecting one's own life for oneself, rather than be bound by others' decisions --- provided those decisions don't intrude on others' autonomy.

"Put most simply, to be autonomous is to govern oneself, to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply imposed externally upon one, but are part of what can somehow be considered one’s authentic self."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/

The mother forced to either raise the 2-year old, or endure the rigmarole of placing it for adoption, may well consider that forcing a violation of her autonomy. But the desire for autonomy does not relieve one from moral constraints, any more than any other desire. Moreover, with that argument you're hoist with your own petard --- if the mother aborts (assuming, per hypothesis, that the fetus is a moral agent), or murders her 2-year old, she thereby violates that moral agent's autonomy.

Nor, BTW, does the "medical context" have any bearing on the morality of the act.
Autonomy can have many meanings, in a medical context it means specifically making one's own medical decisions (like having an abortion).

Murdering a 2 year old is not a medical procedure so comments pertaining to their autonomy are yet again meaningless attempts at analogy that don't fit the topic. As to a fetus's in utero "autonomy", it is a well established precedent that parents have the legal and moral authority to make their children's medical decisions.

Bottom line: in the OP, can you morally unplug the violinist (who, btw is a moral agent)?
"As usual... it depends."
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: November 30th, 2021, 12:38 pm
Er, "speaking properly" means "speaking in conformance with the rules of grammar," does it not? If the child speaks in conformance with those rules, then he knows those rules. Does he not? Being able to articulate those rules is different knowledge than knowing them. That child may also know the notes and lyrics to "Puff the Magic Dragon" and be able to sing it properly, though he could not read or write down the musical score for it. That is different knowledge.
.
Which came first? Speaking properly, or articulating the rules of grammar? The rules of grammar are descriptive, not prescriptive-- just like the law of gravity. The "Puff" singer does indeed know the tune -- but he isn't "capable of understanding and formulating... principles and rules" of composition.
Well, no, the monkeys do not "intuit the notion of equal pay for equal work." There is no relation to the amount or quality of any "work" performed, which they are unable to measure or evaluate. They simply resent that another monkey received a bigger or better treat than they did.

As for the "fair" question, any wage the employer agrees to pay and the employee agrees to accept is fair, regardless of what any other employee is paid.
Neither you nor I know exactly how rhesus monkeys think. I'll continue to believe (as did the experimenters) that the experiment demonstrated they have a notion of fair play. They were willing -- even eager -- to do the task for a cucumber, until they leaned that others were being payed more than they were. As for equal pay for women, if the "rules" determine morality, then your position -- being against the rules in very modern society -- is an immoral one. You are caught in a contradiction.
Oh, it is relevant for the victim. Human babies are moral subjects, not moral agents, and it is not, in most cases, immoral to kill moral subjects (though some animal rights champions would disagree). But human babies are an exception, because they will become moral agents in due course.
Wrong again. Babies are humans, and members of society. They have mothers and fathers and aunts and brothers and a whole nexus of relationships within society. That (among other reasons) is why it's immoral to kill them.

By the way, the perfect man (Jesus, is that you?) would need no moral rules. He would never have any desire to do anything wicked. I suppose it is possible to argue that such a creature (if he could exist) is amoral. But the Christian ethos has developed this notion, so it must be familiar to us. The idea is that morality consists not of following ules, but of striving for the perfection that doesn't need them. If we can reach such enlightenment, we would no more need moral rules to behave morally than the apple would need the law of gravity to fall from the tree.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by GE Morton »

LuckyR wrote: December 1st, 2021, 4:13 am
Autonomy can have many meanings, in a medical context it means specifically making one's own medical decisions (like having an abortion).

Murdering a 2 year old is not a medical procedure so comments pertaining to their autonomy are yet again meaningless attempts at analogy that don't fit the topic.
As I said, the medical context is irrelevant. Murder is murder, whether committed in a hospital or a back alley.
As to a fetus's in utero "autonomy", it is a well established precedent that parents have the legal and moral authority to make their children's medical decisions.
Not when a "medical" decision will result in the death of the child. Courts often override parental decisions in such cases.
Bottom line: in the OP, can you morally unplug the violinist (who, btw is a moral agent)?
Yes indeed, because the violinist violated your rights and autonomy when he kidnapped you attached himself. The fetus or 2-year old did not.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: December 1st, 2021, 11:01 am
Which came first? Speaking properly, or articulating the rules of grammar? The rules of grammar are descriptive, not prescriptive-- just like the law of gravity.
You persist with that inapt analogy. The rules of grammar are both descriptive and prescriptive --- they prescribe how one ought to construct a sentence that will be meaningful to other speakers of your language. They are instructions for performing certain actions (speaking). Natural laws are not prescriptive, not directives for human action.
The "Puff" singer does indeed know the tune -- but he isn't "capable of understanding and formulating... principles and rules" of composition.
He may not. But if not, he will not be capable of composing music, just as a child incapable of understanding the rules of grammar would not be capable of constructing a coherent sentence, though he could perhaps repeat one he'd heard, as with the singer.
Neither you nor I know exactly how rhesus monkeys think. I'll continue to believe (as did the experimenters) that the experiment demonstrated they have a notion of fair play. They were willing -- even eager -- to do the task for a cucumber, until they learned that others were being payed more than they were.
All that they observe is that other monkeys are receiving nicer treats than theirs. The simplest explanation for their behavior is envy. You're imputing complex moral concepts to animals for which there is no evidence they are capable of forming. (I acknowledge, however, that what role innate dispositions and evolutionary pressures have or had in shaping contemporary moral theory and practice is a large, interesting, and controversial question).
As for equal pay for women, if the "rules" determine morality, then your position -- being against the rules in very modern society -- is an immoral one. You are caught in a contradiction.
Huh? You're not confounding statutory laws with such moral notions as fairness and justice, are you?
Oh, it is relevant for the victim. Human babies are moral subjects, not moral agents, and it is not, in most cases, immoral to kill moral subjects (though some animal rights champions would disagree). But human babies are an exception, because they will become moral agents in due course.
Wrong again. Babies are humans, and members of society. They have mothers and fathers and aunts and brothers and a whole nexus of relationships within society. That (among other reasons) is why it's immoral to kill them.
You're claiming that the moral basis for forbidding murder is that the victims have relatives or other relationships? So do kittens and puppies.
By the way, the perfect man (Jesus, is that you?) would need no moral rules. He would never have any desire to do anything wicked. I suppose it is possible to argue that such a creature (if he could exist) is amoral. But the Christian ethos has developed this notion, so it must be familiar to us. The idea is that morality consists not of following ules, but of striving for the perfection that doesn't need them. If we can reach such enlightenment, we would no more need moral rules to behave morally than the apple would need the law of gravity to fall from the tree.
We need rules because there are no "perfect men" (however that may be defined). We will have a very hard time reaching that "enlightenment" or "perfection" when we have no idea, and certainly no consensus, as to in what that consists.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Ecurb »

You're ranting, GE. MY analogy is not perfect, but it is apt. If human speech preceded the rules of grammar (as I think is correct) then the rules of grammar are not necessary for speech. That' obvious.

The moral basis for contemning murdering babies is the fact that they are members of society, and laws are enacted to protect members of society. I explained this simply and clearly, but you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding to make some sort of misguided argument. You also fail to understand the rhesus monkey experiment (watch it on YOuTube and you might change your mind). What's worse, though, is that you think it appropriate to lecture me about what rhesus monkeys' are capable of. You know nothing about rhesus monkeys (I'll bet) and how they think. Instead, you make things up to support some sort of notion you have about "moral agents". Perhaps you should try fitting your arguments to the facts, instead of fitting the facts to your arguments.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: December 1st, 2021, 11:35 am
LuckyR wrote: December 1st, 2021, 4:13 am
Bottom line: in the OP, can you morally unplug the violinist (who, btw is a moral agent)?
Yes indeed, because the violinist violated your rights and autonomy when he kidnapped you attached himself. The fetus or 2-year old did not.
Well, actually the violinist didn't kidnap you, a group of music enthusiasts did. The violinist himself is blameless, an innocent unborn child, as it were.

You have correctly concluded, though that the fact that the violinist is a moral agent is immaterial to the moral evaluation and that the violinist potentially violates your autonomy. Kudos to you.
"As usual... it depends."
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: December 1st, 2021, 2:41 pm You're ranting, GE. MY analogy is not perfect, but it is apt. If human speech preceded the rules of grammar (as I think is correct) then the rules of grammar are not necessary for speech. That' obvious.
Human speech did not precede the rules of grammar. They evolved simultaneously with it. Those rules are what differentiate speech from noises; they define what speech is. Many animals make noises that have meaning to others of their species, but they are not speech.
The moral basis for contemning murdering babies is the fact that they are members of society, and laws are enacted to protect members of society.
Oh, surely not. Membership in a society has nothing whatever to do with it. Are you suggesting a baby who is not a member of a society --- who lives with its parents in some remote, isolated location and has no interactions with any other humans --- may be morally murdered?
I explained this simply and clearly, but you are (intentionally?) misunderstanding to make some sort of misguided argument. You also fail to understand the rhesus monkey experiment (watch it on YOuTube and you might change your mind). What's worse, though, is that you think it appropriate to lecture me about what rhesus monkeys' are capable of.
Whoa, there. It is you who are claiming to know how rhesus monkeys think. YOU are the one declaring that you know the motives for their behavior, which you anthropomorphically assume are those found among humans. And that assumption goes way beyond the evidence.
Instead, you make things up to support some sort of notion you have about "moral agents".
You seem to have some quarrel with that term and concept. The term is all but universally understood and accepted in the literature, though the specific criteria vary somewhat among philosophers. The purpose of the term is to distinguish creatures (or other things) can have moral obligations, and to whom or what they can have them, from things or creatures which can't, and to which they don't. Perhaps this will help:

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... agents/v-1
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Terrapin Station »

It's ridiculous that we have to even bother debating about abortion.

As Howard Stern says, if it were men who got pregnant, there would be no debate. Abortions would be available on every corner.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by GE Morton »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 1st, 2021, 5:04 pm It's ridiculous that we have to even bother debating about abortion.

As Howard Stern says, if it were men who got pregnant, there would be no debate. Abortions would be available on every corner.
The debate is not about abortion, but about the soundness of one the arguments for it (J.J. Thomson's).
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Belindi »

It is unusual for humans to dislike mankind, but it is not uncommon to dislike or be deaf to violin music. A few people would rather that the famous violinist perished.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Terrapin Station »

GE Morton wrote: December 1st, 2021, 8:04 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 1st, 2021, 5:04 pm It's ridiculous that we have to even bother debating about abortion.

As Howard Stern says, if it were men who got pregnant, there would be no debate. Abortions would be available on every corner.
The debate is not about abortion, but about the soundness of one the arguments for it (J.J. Thomson's).
Soundness isn't an issue, because we're dealing with something--ethics--where utterances aren't true or false.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Terrapin Station »

What one can talk about is whether the analogy presented in the argument capture's the way one thinks about abortion, the concerns that one has, etc., but the ethical aspects of any ethical argument or analogy can't be true or false, so they can't be sound or even valid.

But as I commented earlier, what I find ridiculous is that we live in a society that is still debating, still legislatively fighting, etc. over whether we should allow women to have abortions. Again, if men were the sex/gender that became pregnant (and sexes/genders otherwise had the same statuses they do not), there would be no debate about it. You'd easily be able to get abortions everywhere. No one would care about arguments about it. It would be like arguing over the ethics of whether one should have their wisdom teeth removed. No one does that.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Terrapin Station »

Oops re an important typo. That should have read, "and sexes/genders otherwise had the same statuses they do NOW"
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Thomson's Violinist

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: December 1st, 2021, 3:49 pm


Whoa, there. It is you who are claiming to know how rhesus monkeys think. YOU are the one declaring that you know the motives for their behavior, which you anthropomorphically assume are those found among humans. And that assumption goes way beyond the evidence.
It is not I who am making a claim about monkeys understanding the concept of "fairness". It's the experiementers, who designed the experiment specifically to test whether monkeys (in the video I found, they were capuchin monkeys, not rhesus) and other animals have a concept of "fairness:. I assume the scientists working with the monkeys have a better understanding of them than you or I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&t=26s

As far as whether rules of grammar must exist for intelligible speech to exist -- even if that is the case (which I doubt), the rules are not "formulated", as you suggest is necessary for entry into the exalted category of "moral agent". Arguing with you is like arguing with a Fundamentalist, GE. You are so invested in your system of principles, that you cannot accept any evidence that will shake its credibility. If monkeys cannot be moral agents -- we must define moral agency in such a way as to exclude them. Or we must insist that evidence suggesting moral agency on the part of non-humans is simply "anthropomorphizing" them. Anyone who has ever owned an intelligent dog knows that non-human animals can feel "moral obligations". At least they ACT like they can. They act guilty when they've done something wrong. They understand rules and follow them. They act altruistically (even wild canines do this).

As for your silly claim about "society" being irrelevant to murder, I clearly meant laws are designed to protect OUR society. Ant hills can make their own laws, and (perhaps) design their own moral precepts.

By the way, the only people who think that paying some people more than others for the same work is "fair" are GE MOrton, two Neo-Nazis in Idaho, and three Yahoo Moonshiners flying Confederate flags from their pick-up truck. Any five-year-old child could inform GE that if he got paid ten cents for making his bed every day, while his brother got paid $1 for doing the same, that would be "unfair".
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021