I agree it is a pretty nebulous concept, and like all such concepts, lends itself to idiosyncratic interpretations.figliar0 wrote: ↑November 30th, 2021, 3:55 pmI 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?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."
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.
Thomson's Violinist
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
Autonomy can have many meanings, in a medical context it means specifically making one's own medical decisions (like having an abortion).GE Morton wrote: ↑November 30th, 2021, 2:30 pmWhether 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.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).
"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.
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)?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Thomson's Violinist
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.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.
.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
As I said, the medical context is irrelevant. Murder is murder, whether committed in a hospital or a back alley.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.
Not when a "medical" decision will result in the death of the child. Courts often override parental decisions in such cases.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.
Yes indeed, because the violinist violated your rights and autonomy when he kidnapped you attached himself. The fetus or 2-year old did not.Bottom line: in the OP, can you morally unplug the violinist (who, btw is a moral agent)?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
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.
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.The "Puff" singer does indeed know the tune -- but he isn't "capable of understanding and formulating... principles and rules" of composition.
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).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.
Huh? You're not confounding statutory laws with such moral notions as fairness and justice, are you?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.
You're claiming that the moral basis for forbidding murder is that the victims have relatives or other relationships? So do kittens and puppies.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.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.
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.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.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Thomson's Violinist
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.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
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.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
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.
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?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.
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.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 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:Instead, you make things up to support some sort of notion you have about "moral agents".
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... agents/v-1
- 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
As Howard Stern says, if it were men who got pregnant, there would be no debate. Abortions would be available on every corner.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Thomson's Violinist
The debate is not about abortion, but about the soundness of one the arguments for it (J.J. Thomson's).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.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Thomson's Violinist
- 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
Soundness isn't an issue, because we're dealing with something--ethics--where utterances aren't true or false.GE Morton wrote: ↑December 1st, 2021, 8:04 pmThe debate is not about abortion, but about the soundness of one the arguments for it (J.J. Thomson's).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.
- 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
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.
- 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
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Thomson's Violinist
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.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.
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".
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023