Secular ethics and abortion

[Prodigal_Son]

Regarding infanticide and abortion, a major reason why these “immoral” acts are being committed is simply due to the finitude of resources on Earth because the decision to undergo infanticide/abortion is undoubtedly influenced by the inability to provide resources for the baby/fetus’ development in the future. In these cases, if there is any moral culpability in committing abortion/infanticide, it would be mitigated since the person choosing the act has little control over their environment, and, in most cases, cannot reverse a situation of their scarcity of resources through an act of their volition. In other words, the act of abortion/infanticide is not committed “freely” but merely a decision made under the duress of suboptimal circumstances.

I’m not talking about whether individual people who choose abortion are guilty; doubtless, some of them have mitigating circumstances or do not understand the gravity of their actions. I am talking about whether abortion is wrong – or, if you like, whether a person of good character would ever be morally justified in having an abortion.

A father or mother who came upon hard times and decided to “do away with” Junior, their two-year-old, would be doing something gravely evil. I don’t care how bad their circumstances are; it would still be evil, and whoever caused it (whether the parents or the society that educated the parents) ought to be called to account.

OK, suppose, for a moment, that 10 people lived on a desert island, and they ran out of food. Would it be justifiable for them to take Billy and, against his will, murder and eat him? NO! Thus, your limited resources defense falls apart, unless you focus your argument on the claim that fetuses are not persons.

(Oh, and few people who actually have abortions are as bad off as all that, anyway. Some are, but many are lying to themselves about “not having a choice”).

It is indeed meaningless to condemn abortion/infanticide while simultaneously ignoring one its major causes: the scarcity of resources that results in an inability to raise a potential child.

I agree. Anyone who cares about the evil of abortion without caring about the evil of poverty is seriously messed up.

Of course, the most scarce resource of all, these days, is a moral education that makes one capable of self-sacrifice. If that’s what you mean by limited resources, then Americans are poor indeed.

 

[Betterave]

So most people choose poverty? That doesn’t seem consistent at all with reality.

Of course they don’t. I never suggested they do. Please re-read what I wrote. It’s a very simple point: it does not follow from the fact that people do not prefer something (i.e., poverty) that it is harmful.

Regarding infanticide and abortion, a major reason why these “immoral” acts are being committed is simply due to the finitude of resources on Earth because the decision to undergo infanticide/abortion is undoubtedly influenced by the inability to provide resources for the baby/fetus’ development in the future.

That’s complete nonsense! Do you know where babies come from? They’re not weeds that must be destroyed because they just pop up in women’s uteruses and interfere with our feeding ourselves! My goodness!

In these cases, if there is any moral culpability in committing abortion/infanticide, it would be mitigated since the person choosing the act has little control over their environment, and, in most cases, cannot reverse a situation of their scarcity of resources through an act of their volition. In other words, the act of abortion/infanticide is not committed “freely” but merely a decision made under the duress of suboptimal circumstances. It is indeed meaningless to condemn abortion/infanticide while simultaneously ignoring one its major causes: the scarcity of resources that results in an inability to raise a potential child. Perhaps one can be against abortion/infanticide when these issues are presented in a vacuum, but the stark reality of an environment of scarcity would make the issue undesirably challenging. While abortion/infanticide can be considered abhorrent, the scarcity that encourages abortion/infanticide should be considered abhorrent too, since even if one escapes an abortion/infanticide , one would still be brought up an environment with these undesirable conditions.

If that’s right, then if there is any moral culpability in committing genocide , that too is mitigated. After all, the Germans needed their Lebensraum, didn’t they? (NO, they obviously didn’t.) Scarcity of resources is NOT a major cause of abortion: pray tell *where *did you get such an idea?

 

[Black_Rose]

OK, suppose, for a moment, that 10 people lived on a desert island, and they ran out of food. Would it be justifiable for them to take Billy and, against his will, murder and eat him? NO! Thus, your limited resources defense falls apart, unless you focus your argument on the claim that fetuses are not persons.

Well, if Billy is weak, and the other people are strong and also want to live longer, then consuming Billy would be a possible option, regardless whether Billy has any rights or preferences that should be respected by his fellow inhabitants of the island. One does not need to justify the murdering of Billy in such a case; it merely is just a “natural” act in the Hobbesian state of nature. (So much for “natural law” then.) When I was an ardent secularist, I fervently rejected a “natural law” the only thing “natural” is the repugnant state of nature. Of course, one could argue that in a naturalistic worldview, that everything is indeed “natural”, even advanced technology such as computers. But, one can impose a rather arbitrary definition of what is not “natural”: that will be define as anything that is the consequence or product of a high degree of “intelligence”, a rather recent evolutionary innovation in the primate lineage. General intelligence allows one to comprehend and understand their environment, allowing one to respond to novel circumstances and manipulate their environment in a salutary way. General intelligence, along with the ability to socialize, can allow a group to overcome the state of nature and obtain civilization that offers protection from the insecurity and scarcity of the state of nature. It endows both individuals and collectives, the ability to change their environment to evade the condition and formulate and comprehend morality.

So in an environment of scarcity, Billy would inevitably get eaten. There is nothing in “natural law” that prohibits the murder of Billy; it goes shows that morality just breaks down in an environment of scarcity when it becomes powerless to control the tendencies of self-interested people acting for their own survival.

There are at least two necessary requirements for “morality”: general intelligence and a lack of scarcity. Perhaps a third element would be necessary, the ability to punish defectors of the moral system, as a negative incentive for obedience.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, if Billy is weak, and the other people are strong and also want to live longer, then consuming Billy would be a possible option, regardless whether Billy has any rights or preferences that should be respected by his fellow inhabitants of the island. One does not need to justify the murdering of Billy in such a case; it merely is just a “natural” act in the Hobbesian state of nature. (So much for “natural law” then.) When I was an ardent secularist, I fervently rejected a “natural law” the only thing “natural” is the repugnant state of nature. Of course, one could argue that in a naturalistic worldview, that everything is indeed “natural”, even advanced technology such as computers. But, one can impose a rather arbitrary definition of what is not “natural”: that will be define as anything that is the consequence or product of a high degree of “intelligence”, a rather recent evolutionary innovation in the primate lineage. General intelligence allows one to comprehend and understand their environment, allowing one to respond to novel circumstances and manipulate their environment in a salutary way. General intelligence, along with the ability to socialize, can allow a group to overcome the state of nature and obtain civilization that offers protection from the insecurity and scarcity of the state of nature. It endows both individuals and collectives, the ability to change their environment to evade the condition and formulate and comprehend morality.

So in an environment of scarcity, Billy would inevitably get eaten. There is nothing in “natural law” that prohibits the murder of Billy; it goes shows that morality just breaks down in an environment of scarcity when it becomes powerless to control the tendencies of self-interested people acting for their own survival.

There are at least two necessary requirements for “morality”: general intelligence and a lack of scarcity. Perhaps a third element would be necessary, the ability to punish defectors of the moral system, as a negative incentive for obedience.

This makes it clear to me that you are talking about human law, not morality. Intelligence, lack of scarcity, negative incentives – these are requirements for effective (human) laws. But morality applies when there is scarcity.

You said “consuming Billy would be a possible option, regardless whether Billy has any rights”. But, in a Hobbesian state, of course, Billy would have no rights until given them by the monarch. In Hobbes, morality reduces to human law.

So what kind of rights were *you *talking about Billy having? Human rights, I presume – and this is the realm of pure morality.

How do we know what morality says? I answer (with Pascal): through our moral sense. Some people are very attuned to this sense, and the rest of us can generally tell who those people are. We ought to listen to them, for they are wiser than we are. And luckily, we have the guidance of the Church, the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit.

And frankly, if you want advice on what’s really right and wrong, talk to poor kids from the city. They don’t think abortion is OK – at least not until they get brainwashed. They think that fathers ought to step up, and they think that mothers ought to have the courage of their libidos. It’s the well-off in this country that justify abortion, and the poor who know very well what wrong they are committing when they walk into that clinic!

 

[Betterave]

Well, if Billy is weak, and the other people are strong and also want to live longer, then consuming Billy would be a possible option, regardless whether Billy has any rights or preferences that should be respected by his fellow inhabitants of the island. One does not need to justify the murdering of Billy in such a case; it merely is just a “natural” act in the Hobbesian state of nature. (So much for “natural law” then.) When I was an ardent secularist, I fervently rejected a “natural law” the only thing “natural” is the repugnant state of nature. Of course, one could argue that in a naturalistic worldview, that everything is indeed “natural”, even advanced technology such as computers. But, one can impose a rather arbitrary definition of what is not “natural”: that will be define as anything that is the consequence or product of a high degree of “intelligence”, a rather recent evolutionary innovation in the primate lineage. General intelligence allows one to comprehend and understand their environment, allowing one to respond to novel circumstances and manipulate their environment in a salutary way. General intelligence, along with the ability to socialize, can allow a group to overcome the state of nature and obtain civilization that offers protection from the insecurity and scarcity of the state of nature. It endows both individuals and collectives, the ability to change their environment to evade the condition and formulate and comprehend morality.

So in an environment of scarcity, Billy would inevitably get eaten. There is nothing in “natural law” that prohibits the murder of Billy; it goes shows that morality just breaks down in an environment of scarcity when it becomes powerless to control the tendencies of self-interested people acting for their own survival.

There are at least two necessary requirements for “morality”: general intelligence and a lack of scarcity. Perhaps a third element would be necessary, the ability to punish defectors of the moral system, as a negative incentive for obedience.

With due respect, blackrose, I must suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

From the Stanford Enc. of Phil., “The Definition of Morality”: “for those such as Hobbes, (Leviathan and De Cive) who hold that morality is a code of conduct that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents, it has a fairly definite content.” The Hobbesian state of nature, then, lacks morality altogether, and this is entirely due to the fact that it doesn’t contain any real humans (i.e., it is a purely fictional device). Your claim that there could be no morality in the presence of scarcity is the most ridiculous obviously false bit of nonsense I’ve heard in a long time. There are real moral people in this world who face serious scarcity, even starving to death, and they do not start eating the dead, still less killing the weak in order to eat them. I’m sure you must know this.

 

[Black_Rose]

With due respect, blackrose, I must suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

From the Stanford Enc. of Phil., “The Definition of Morality”: “for those such as Hobbes, (Leviathan and De Cive) who hold that morality is a code of conduct that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents, it has a fairly definite content.” The Hobbesian state of nature, then, lacks morality altogether, and this is entirely due to the fact that it doesn’t contain any real humans (i.e., it is a purely fictional device). Your claim that there could be no morality in the presence of scarcity is the most ridiculous obviously false bit of nonsense I’ve heard in a long time. There are real moral people in this world who face serious scarcity, even starving to death, and they do not start eating the dead, still less killing the weak in order to eat them. I’m sure you must know this.

At the VHS Village, Homer chooses some videos to help Marge out.

Homer: Now Marge, “Dear Abby” says seeing films about air travel can
calm your fears. Ooh! Here are some upbeat titles: “Hero”,
“Fearless”…“Alive!”
[at home, Marge watches them]
Man 1: No thanks to the plane, many of us are still…
Everyone: Alive!
Man 2: [through full mouth] We certainly are. [chews]
Man 3: Pass me another hunk of copilot.

snpp.com/episodes/2F08.html

I thought you knew that people do practice cannibalism in dire situations of scarcity, such as the Uruguaian crash in the Andes in 1972 and the Donner Party, since it was their only means of survival. Of course, their is probably some “hard-wired” mechanism, evoking feelings of disgust, that prevents us from eating the flesh of members of our species, so this only happens under of duress with reluctance.

 

[Betterave]

snpp.com/episodes/2F08.html

I thought you knew that people do practice cannibalism in dire situations of scarcity, such as the Uruguaian crash in the Andes in 1972 and the Donner Party, since it was their only means of survival. Of course, their is probably some “hard-wired” mechanism, evoking feelings of disgust, that prevents us from eating the flesh of members of our species, so this only happens under of duress with reluctance.

Of course I knew that. As I said (and thought you knew):

There are real moral people in this world who face serious scarcity, even starving to death, and they do not start eating the dead, still less killing the weak in order to eat them. I’m sure you must know this.

I did not say anything to suggest that there were no cases like the one you mention.

 

[Black_Rose]

Of course I knew that. As I said (and thought you knew):

There are real moral people in this world who face serious scarcity, even starving to death, and they do not start eating the dead, still less killing the weak in order to eat them. I’m sure you must know this.

I did not say anything to suggest that there were no cases like the one you mention.

But it is indeed observable that morality does seem to dissipate under the pressure of scarcity. It is far easier for people to adhere to morality under an environment without any scarcity, so it would be best to foster an environment that minimizes scarcity.

People normally regard abortion as a “tough choice” but many potential mothers make the decision because they realize that they are unable to fulfill their parental obligations due to their financial insecurity and do not want to raise a child under suboptimal conditions.

 

[Betterave]

But it is indeed observable that morality does seem to dissipate under the pressure of scarcity. It is far easier for people to adhere to morality under an environment without any scarcity, so it would be best to foster an environment that minimizes scarcity.

What you claim to be “indeed observable” is indeed observable where and how???

People normally regard abortion as a “tough choice” but many potential mothers make the decision because they realize that they are unable to fulfill their parental obligations due to their financial insecurity and do not want to raise a child under suboptimal conditions.

No, they do not ‘realize’ any such thing. Why do you say such things? They realize that they don’t want to be inconvenienced with a child and that killing it seems like the easiest way out.

 

[Black_Rose]

What you claim to be “indeed observable” is indeed observable where and how???

You implied that cannibalism is immoral, right? Didn’t the two aforementioned cases invoke cannibalism during dire circumstances?

No, they do not ‘realize’ any such thing. Why do you say such things? They realize that they don’t want to be inconvenienced with a child and that killing it seems like the easiest way out.

But why should the “interests” of the fetus outweigh the interests of the mother? I could understand your position, perhaps, if the mother or the state is capable of providing resources for the future child, protecting it from poverty, a very undesirable outcome, and to be able to provide it freedom from want. But what if the burden is too large for the parents or if the state is not able to fund the child? There has to be some concern for the child’s welfare *after *it is born.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You implied that cannibalism is immoral, right? Didn’t the two aforementioned cases invoke cannibalism during dire circumstances?

The fact that someone in fact did something doesn’t make it moral.

But why should the “interests” of the fetus outweigh the interests of the mother?

But now you’re not even pretending to look out for the welfare of the child!

But what if the burden is too large for the parents or if the state is not able to fund the child? There has to be some concern for the child’s welfare *after *it is born.

Agreed. I propose that all the funds currently spent on Planned Parenthood and similar programs be spent on feeding and educating hungry children. There would be plenty for all, I imagine.

 

[colmcille1]

The fact that someone in fact did something doesn’t make it moral.

But now you’re not even pretending to look out for the welfare of the child!

Agreed. I propose that all the funds currently spent on Planned Parenthood and similar programs be spent on feeding and educating hungry children. There would be plenty for all, I imagine.

Well said, sir! Those pro-choice/pro-abortion/pro-whatever-you’re-having-yourself people will always fall back on the economic argument when all other “defences” have been exhausted.
This is an attempt to salve their collective conscience.
The pre-born child has a voice in us. We must never stop using that voice.
Have they even no idea of the physical and psychological damage wrought to women through abortion? Would this reason alone not appeal to their “pro-choice” mindset?
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Betterave]

You implied that cannibalism is immoral, right? Didn’t the two aforementioned cases -]invoke/-] evoke cannibalism during dire circumstances?

Yes, but so what? You think this illustrates your general point? It clearly doesn’t. It is ridiculous to suggest that the very rare practise of cannibalism to ward of starvation is in any way parallel to (and justifying of!) the 50 million annual abortions in the world.

But why should the “interests” of the fetus outweigh the interests of the mother? I could understand your position, perhaps, if the mother or the state is capable of providing resources for the future child, protecting it from poverty, a very undesirable outcome, and to be able to provide it freedom from want. But what if the burden is too large for the parents or if the state is not able to fund the child? There has to be some concern for the child’s welfare *after *it is born.

I’ll second Prodigal’s comments and ask you a question: why does there have to be some concern for the child’s welfare after it is born, if there is no concern for its welfare before it is born?

 

[Black_Rose]

Yes, but so what? You think this illustrates your general point? It clearly doesn’t. It is ridiculous to suggest that the very rare practise of cannibalism to ward of starvation is in any way parallel to (and justifying of!) the 50 million annual abortions in the world.

I meant to use the word “resort” not “invoke”. But the point is that many would circumvent “morality”, at least for their own personal survival, and do whatever is expedient to survive, such as consuming human flesh. In the case of the Donner Party, two Indian guides were actually shot to death with the intention of consuming their flesh shortly after (although they were near death and about to starve). The point is that the pressure of undesirable situations would force some people to make “immoral” choice; in this world, some of this pressure leads to pregnant women choosing abortion.

 

[colmcille1]

I meant to use the word “resort” not “invoke”. But the point is that many would circumvent “morality”, at least for their own personal survival, and do whatever is expedient to survive, such as consuming human flesh. In the case of the Donner Party, two Indian guides were actually shot to death with the intention of consuming their flesh shortly after (although they were near death and about to starve). The point is that the pressure of undesirable situations would force some people to make “immoral” choice; in this world, some of this pressure leads to pregnant women choosing abortion.

Our human species has survived war, famine, pestilence so often throughout history that one could say we have an in-built resistance at this stage; for you to suggest that a universal rule governing abortion can be ascertained via a geographically specific factor of hunger or war is clasping at straws.
The “personal survival” does not come any more personal than new life in the womb.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Betterave]

The point is that the pressure of undesirable situations would force some people to make “immoral” choice; in this world, some of this pressure leads to pregnant women choosing abortion.

Colmcille is right. In general you need to notice that, yes, the choice to abort is situational. Yes, women are strongly influenced by circumstances. But here’s the important point: the strongest factor encouraging a woman to abort is abortion being legally recognized as legitimate. It is definitely NOT poverty. Do you understand this?

p.s.: Why do you write ‘“immoral”’; murder is immoral, not merely “immoral,” and this is true even in cases where moral culpability is reduced because of circumstances.

 

[Black_Rose]

I’ll second Prodigal’s comments and ask you a question: why does there have to be some concern for the child’s welfare after it is born, if there is no concern for its welfare before it is born?

Do you think that a secular system of ethics, such as utilitarianism, necessarily precludes concern for the welfare of the already born because it has no concern over the welfare of the unborn? Is having concern for the unborn necessary for having concern for the born?

Returning to the syllogism:

1. we have human rights because we are human beings
2. a fetus is a human being
3. a fetus has human rights. the most important among those the right to life.

The syllogism is ***valid ***, assuming that the premises are true. But the conclusion does not follow is one of the two premises is “false”. (I did not want to use the words “true” or “false” when describing the first premise of the syllogism, since it is normative premise, not a statement of brute fact that can be empirically verified.) Returning to the designated thread topic of “secular ethics and abortion”, I would like to ask whether the first premise can be justified using secular reason alone.

Pope John Paul II argued for the veracity of the first premise using explicitly religious arguments, asserting that “human rights” are immutable, inviolable, and inherent because they are granted from God himself, presumably to all members of the species Homo sapiens, using a definition of “personhood” where the only criterion is to be a human:

In effect, the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defense and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no state, can change – let alone eliminate – them because such rights find their source in God himself.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/christifideleslaici.html

But this would not obviously not convince one who does not believe in the existence of a personal God.

I share the OP’s admiration for Singer’s arguments, although not perhaps for Singer himself. Singer is a stunt-man and a charlatan, but he accomplishes these ends by following logic, for the most part – not by, a la Dawkins, making assertion after assertion.

Here is the key thing to understand:

1. Any consistent and plausible argument for the permissibility of abortion will resemble Peter Singer’s argument.
2. Peter Singer’s argument permits infanticide.
3. Any consistent and plausible argument for the permissibility of abortion will permit infanticide.

The second premise is mostly correct: that utilitarianism, with no concretely defined boundaries demarcating entities meriting moral consideration from those that do not because it relies on qualitative capacities such as the ability to suffer and awareness of one’s environment, although this may be circumvented by using neurological markers to determine the presence of these capacities objectively, may also permit infanticide since a fetus in the womb does not significantly differ in these capacities from a baby that is a week old.

While I personally agree with the first premise, there is reason that some will doubt it since one could also offer the violinist argument, defending abortion from a perspective that emphasizes human bodily liberty such as the violinist argument.

But Singer’s arguments are invalid, not because of an internally flawed logical, but because of one of its conclusions, the moral acceptable of infanticide within the utilitarian framework, does not conform with almost universal disagreement, in Western culture, towards the practice.

 

[Betterave]

Do you think that a secular system of ethics, such as utilitarianism, necessarily precludes concern for the welfare of the already born because it has no concern over the welfare of the unborn? Is having concern for the unborn necessary for having concern for the born?

To your first question: I don’t think it’s interesting or pertinent to ask about what various flawed constructions of ethical systems might have to say about a given question. Do you? If so, why?

To your second: your asking about such a matter of fact seems to be irrelevant to the normative ethical question.

My question for you remains: why does there have to be some concern for the child’s welfare after it is born, if there is no concern for its welfare before it is born?

Is your answer simply: “because utilitarianism says so” - or, more accurately, “because certain utilitarians say so”? Or do you have something more substantive? When you refer to J.J.Thomson’s violinist argument, do you do this because you actually think it’s a sound argument? If not, why refer to it? Are you asking for a refutation of it? (Are you ultimately interested in the truth here - or what?)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The second premise is mostly correct: that utilitarianism, with no concretely defined boundaries demarcating entities meriting moral consideration from those that do not because it relies on qualitative capacities such as the ability to suffer and awareness of one’s environment, although this may be circumvented by using neurological markers to determine the presence of these capacities objectively, may also permit infanticide since a fetus in the womb does not significantly differ in these capacities from a baby that is a week old.

FYI, Singer doesn’t cite “awareness of one’s environment” as a criterion; instead, he uses something more like self-consciousness – which is associated (as you say) with the capacity to suffer. Thus, the child must be able to anticipate future pleasures and pains. This ability does not occur in children under six months old, I assure you.

While I personally agree with the first premise, there is reason that some will doubt it since one could also offer the violinist argument, defending abortion from a perspective that emphasizes human bodily liberty such as the violinist argument.

Human bodily liberty is not stressed by Thompson’s argument, only by Thompson’s *spin *on her argument. Thompson’s argument would work just as well (read: badly) if it argued that women should be able to kill their already birthed infants.

But Singer’s arguments are invalid, not because of an internally flawed logical, but because of one of its conclusions, the moral acceptable of infanticide within the utilitarian framework, does not conform with almost universal disagreement, in Western culture, towards the practice.

Since when did universal disagreement matter to a utilitarian? All that the universal abhorrence of infanticide tells us is that we ought to kill our babies quietly, with the utmost discretion. Wouldn’t want cause anyone undue pain by our abominations.

 

[Betterave]

Human bodily liberty is not stressed by Thompson’s argument, only by Thompson’s *spin *on her argument. Thompson’s argument would work just as well (read: badly) if it argued that women should be able to kill their already birthed infants.

Or how about a criminal should be able to kill the police officer who tries to arrest him, or the prison guard who tries to prevent his escape? Maybe the criminal felt like he had good reasons for committing his crimes, and regardless, why should he passively submit to corporal confinement just because others deem that he has a responsibility to do so?