Contemporary Moral Problems M-F12:00-1:00SAV 264 Instructor: Benjamin Hole Email: bvhole@uw.edu Office Hours: everyday after class

Agenda Admin notes Clicker Quiz Judith Jarvis Thomson: “A Defense of Abortion”

Week Required Reading Assignment Course Mechanics, Theory Primer, and Philosophical Argumentation 6/23-6/27 Benjamin Hole, Phil 102 Syllabus Lewis Vaughn, “How to Read an Argument” Mark Timmons, “Moral Theory Primer” WA1, due 6/27   Philosophical Writing and Ethical Theory 6/30-7/3 (Holiday, 7/4) Mark B. Woodhouse, “How to Write Philosophy” James Rachels, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” Jeremy Bentham, “The Principle of Utility” Robert Nozick, “The Experience Machine” None Ethical Theory 7/7-7/11 J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Chapters 1-2 Immanuel Kant (posted on website), “The Moral Law” WA2, due 7/8 Introduction to Sexual Ethics 7/14-7/18 Thomas Mappes, “A Liberal View of Sexual Morality and the concept of Using Another Person” The Catholic Church, “Vatican Declaration on Some Questions in Sexual Ethics” John Corvino, “A Defense of Homosexuality” Introduction to International Ethics 7/21-7/25 Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics” WA3, due 7/22 Introduction to Social and Political Ethics: Censorship and Pornography 7/28-8/1 Ronald Dworkin, “Liberty and Pornography” Judith M. Hill, “Pornography and Degradation” Catharine MacKinnon, “Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech” Abortion 8/4-8/8 Pope John Paul II, “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion” Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” Don Marquis, “Why Abortion Is Immoral” WA4, due 8/5 Conference for Final Papers 8/11-8/15 Catch-up / review. Conference for Final Papers: presentations and discussion Abortion  8/18-8/22 Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion” Rosalind Hursthouse, “Virtue Ethics and Abortion” WA5, due 8/19 Final Paper, due 8/21

Assignment five Critical arguments (Thomson or Hursthouse) Self-assess final paper (fill out the rubric) Self-assess learning in this course Review for the final examination

According to Thomson, most opposition to abortion relies on: merely religious arguments. the premise that the fetus is a person. the premise that killing is always wrong, regardless of whether the fetus is a person. an appeal to emotion. an ad hominem. all of the above. none of the above.

What attitude does Thomson take toward the claim that a fetus is a person (with the right to life) from the moment of conception? she believes it is true, and uses it as an assumption. she believes it is true, but asks what would follow if it were false. she believes it is false, and ignores it. she believes it is false, but asks what would follow if it were true. none of the above.

The case of the violinist is meant to show that: abortion is always morally permissible. it is not the case that all persons have a right to life. the right to life does not entail the right not to be killed. everyone has a positive right to the bare minimum needed to keep them alive. none of the above.

“A Defense of Abortion” Judith Jarvis Thomson “A Defense of Abortion”

Pope John Paul II “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion” A fetus is a person with the right to life. It is morally wrong to kill a person with the right to life. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. (Abortion is immoral.)

The Right to Life A fetus is a person with the right to life. It is morally wrong to kill a person with the right to life. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. (Abortion is immoral.) Rather, Thomson takes issue with the second premise.

The Right to Life If the right to life is merely a “negative” right, then it is not always wrong to kill a person with the right to life. The right to life is merely a “negative” right. Therefore, it is not always wrong to kill a person with the right to life. Thomson’s engagement with the Pope’s argument

The Right to Life Either a fetus is a person with the right to life or not. If a fetus is a person, then abortion is not impermissible. If a fetus is not a person, then abortion is not impermissible. Either way, abortion is not impermissible. Thomson’s Main Argument

The Right to Life Premise Two: If a fetus is a person, then abortion is not impermissible. When is it morally permissible to violate the right to life? Thomson’s Main Argument

The Violinist “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system is plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own … To unplug you would be to kill the him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months.”

Killing vs. Letting Die Say the violinist is putting too much strain on your kidneys … “If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder, you do not do what is impermissible, if you reach around to your back and unplug yourself from the violinist to save your life.”

“If anything in the world is true, it is that you do not commit murder” Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Judith Jarvis Thomson: “A Defense of Abortion” Thought Experiments Violinist Expanding Child People Seeds Thomson’s View “even if we assume the fetus is a person with the right to life, abortion is not morally impermissible, at least in many cases”

Positive vs. Negative Rights “‘everyone has a right to life, so the unborn person has right to life.’” “In Thomson’s view, the right to life (the one we ascribe to persons) is not a positive right to receive whatever minimum aid is needed to preserve life – such as the use of someone’s kidneys or Henry Fonda’s cool hand” (B/B, 390). The right to life is merely a negative right.

Positive vs. Negative Rights SINGER THOMSON You are morally required to jump in the pond to save the drowning child. You would be a Good Samaritan if you jumped in the pond to save the drowning child (… or did not unhook the violinist). The right to life is merely a negative right.

The right to life is merely negative. Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Thomson’s Conclusion “Nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, or of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.” Thus, even if we assume the fetus is a person with the right to life, abortion is not morally impermissible, at least in many cases.

The Right to Life Either a fetus is a person with the right to life or not. If a fetus is a person, then abortion is not impermissible. If a fetus is not a person, then abortion is not impermissible. Either way, abortion is not impermissible. Thomson’s Main Argument