In this paper, Paul raises the interesting idea that having a child is epistemically transformative, and in certain cases, can be personally transformative. As a result, our lack of knowledge about what it is like to have a child prevents us from making the rational decision to have a child. In this paper, I will be focusing on the epistemically transformative qualities of having a child as opposed to the personally transformative qualities of having a child for two reasons. Firstly, while having a child is universally epistemically transformative (as Paul claims) it is not universally personally transformative. Secondly, the idea that having a child is personally transformative is based on testimony, something that Paul warns us is an unreliable source of information. The concept of childbirth being epistemically transformative raises a few questions: is childbirth unique in being epistemically transformative, and can we ever know the expected value of an epistemically transformative decision? I answer no to the former and yes to the latter, and will explain my answer as follows. Firstly, I will lay out Paul’s argument and add further reasons to support said arguments that I think she doesn’t really explore. Secondly, I argue that most people don’t make decisions based solely on phenomenal factors, and that even if they do make decisions based solely on phenomenal factors, such decisions can be rational. Lastly, I contend that Paul’s argument runs the risk of over-claiming, and that it does not matter if our decisions, especially the decision to have a child, cannot be rational. Paul’s argument is that under the normative model of making decisions, the decision to have a child can never be rational. For Paul, the normative decis... ... middle of paper ... ...s like for the agent plays the central role, if not the only role” in this decision, as well as the claim that most people make their decision to procreate in this manner. However, I feel that very few people actually make their decision based solely on the phenomenal outcomes. I think this is a reductive claim that discounts the multiple reasons which inform the decision to have children. Paul herself dismisses the idea that individuals might decide “[to have a child] solely on the chance that [they] will end up in a class of individuals who maximized their overall utility”. This is as she finds the claim that anyone might base their decision off a single factor – in this case, the chance to maximize utility – unrealistic. In the same way, the idea that anyone would base their decisions solely on what they think it would be like to have a child seems unrealistic.
In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
Melanson, Glen. “How the Contractualist Account of Preconception Negligence Undermines Prenatal Reproductive Autonomy.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38.4 (Aug. 2013): 420-425. Health Reference Center Academic. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.
Life decisions are at times hard to make, but we have to choose to define the path which we want our lives to follow. As we have seen in the paper, Michael’s situation where he had to seek more information from her guardian Anne and her maternal mother before making his decision is a good example of rational decision-making procedure. It gives us a lesson that we should take our time to think about the decisions we make in life. In my case, it’s a good example of a decision well
Imagine…the birth of a human being into the world. 9 months of endless anticipation leading to someone’s first chance at seeing the world for the first time. While some enjoy the result of a pregnancy, leading to a new human being entering life, some are not so fond, or just can’t be in such a situation. Abortion is the supposed “cure” to this problem and is, for the most part, done safely. However, one of the factors stopping someone from committing an abortion is the consideration of moral status on the child.
First, I will address Thomson’s decision to assume that a fetus is a person from the time of conception. I think she makes a wise choice in labeling a fetus as a person throughout pregnancy because this decision eliminates one controversy surrounding the morality of abortion. Were Thomson not to concede the issue regarding personhood, skeptics could focus on their issue with that single point and this disagreement could invalidate the rest of Thomson’s argument. Choosing to label all fetuses as people, with a right to life, prevents the opposition from dismantling Thomson’s argument from the very beginning. Once it is agreed upon that the fetus in Thomson’s scenario is a human at all stages of development, all those who read her essay have a common starting point, helping to prevent pre-determined bias.
In conclusion, Thomson has used a very interesting and comprehensive way to present different situations involving abortion. The ‘violinist experiment’ focuses on whether abortion is morally impermissible as a whole while other thought experiments provide stimulating scenarios from other point of views.
Frank Jackson, a philosophy professor at the Australian National University, contends against physicalism in his article "What Mary Didn't Know" (1986). He intended to disprove physicalism, the view that all knowledge is physical by proving that some knowledge is only obtainable through conscious experience.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
Though these two works come from very different eras, the truths in them remain virtually unchanged. Neither Hemingway nor Folds and Jessee offer any solutions nor make any judgments. They simply present some of the realities of unplanned pregnancies with the hope that someone somewhere will be spared the agony of this decision. It is never, nor should it be, an easy decision to make. It is, however, a decision everyone should make every attempt to avoid having to make.
Marquis believes abortion to be extremely immoral. However he mentions that there are exceptions in rare but certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable. We can infer that these instances would include situations that would put the mother or child at serious risk by keeping the fetus. He is frustrated that this idea has received minimal support recently. As a result he wants to influence change in society in hopes of receiving the support and publicity this topic deserves. Marquis’ primary argument stems from the idea of killing in general. He explains it is immoral to kill an adult because it prematurely deprives the human of something they may have valued at the time they were killed, as well as something they may had valued in the future. Although the victim may not realize it at the time of their death, they certainly had a valuable future ahead of them to experience which has been cut short. We are the only ones who can decide what is valuable to them; in this case we value some things more than others, and this concept differs from person to person. For example, in the present I value the life I am given and the opportunity I have to earn my degree at Villanova University while also valuing my future as well knowing that I have a chance to be successful in the future. Although I have not succeeded yet, I still value that opportunity I have and the life I’m capable of achieving through earning a degree. Therefore, he connects this same theory to the life of a fetus. By killing the fetus the result is the same, we are depriving it of its futur...
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
They address L.A. Paul’s argument concerning Sally (who would like a child, but decides not to have a child because not having one would maximize her utility) and Anne (who would not like a child, but decides to have a child because she knows it will maximize her utility). Paul argues that using this method of decision-making appears counterintuitive, but that “to be rational, we have to ignore our phenomenal preferences” (Paul 167). Unlike the authors of “Expecting the Unexpected,” I agree with Paul that making an epistemically transformative decision based on maximizing utility seems bizarre. To consider the testimony of other parents as being more important than subjective preferences, at least in the case of child-rearing, seems troubling for both parents (the threat of life-long regret) and the child in Anne’s case (what if Anne does not fully love her child because she regrets ignoring her subjective preferences?). Also, placing too much importance on testimony seems risky, as the are so many conflicting testimonies regarding
Mary Anne Warren was a philosophy professor and distinguished by her beliefs on the topic of abortion. Warren’s thoughts on the morality of abortion were formed based on who is included in the ‘moral community’. Her thoughts on who should be included in the moral community are based on ‘personhood’.
They say life is like a box of chocolate, and while we never know what we are going to get, sometimes, what one gets just is not fair. Good fortune follows those who are good, obey the rules, and comply. But in this case study, It Isn’t Fair, we meet Mary who some would say that unfortunately has been handed the short end of the stick. Mary is described as a college graduate who has graduated top one percent of her class and was liked by all her professors. She was also involved in many extracurricular activities. Her strong commitments to her academic and employment career were very evident in everything she attempted and accomplished.
Abortion is an extremely controversial issue and one that is continually on the forefront of debates. Those who oppose the idea (Pro-lifers), thinks it is an act of woman playing “God” who live from who dies. Yet, whether an unborn baby constitutes a normal person is questionable; a pregnant woman, on the other hand, has the undeniable right to choose whether she wants to have a child or not. Therefore, the decision to have an abortion is the personal choice and responsibility of the woman, because prohibiting abortion impedes freedom of choice and endangers the physical and mental health of women.