I'm in the midst of grading papers and final exams. A number of essays I've read over the last few days have had to do with abortion. A surprising number of my students advanced something like the following argument:
(1) A fetus is a living thing.
(2) It is wrong to kill a living thing.
(3) If one has an abortion, then one has killed a living thing.
(4) Therefore, it's wrong to have an abortion.
In class, we discussed a number of reasons for thinking that this kind of argument is unsound. I thought we had reached a consensus that this challenge to abortion is unsound. Alas...
I think (2) is obviously false Bacteria, mice, oregano, and the fungus that causes athlete's foot are all alive, but it's easy to come up with reasons why it can be moral to kill such things. Further, there are some cases of killing human beings that are deemed morally permissible (e.g., in self-defense). My point is that one cannot simply rely on the premise that a thing is alive to conclude that it's wrong to kill it. We do not afford all living things a right to life. But if this is such an obvious flaw in the argument, why is it that so many people put it forward as if it's a stellar piece of reasoning? Why do fairly smart people advance it? Why do some of my students rely on it in their exams/papers even after we've discussed various objections to it? I'm befuddled.
I think that there are some fascinating arguments against abortion and I admire some of the philosophers that have spent countless hours developing them. It's a shame that the above kind of argument passes as powerful/convincing in many circles.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Comic Relief
Many of you Bradfordians have probably already seen this. I've been reading a bit about mixed emotions and feeling conflicted. This is a good example of finding something hilarious and depressing at the same time. (Favorite line: "Olean NY greedily sucked literally tens of dollars away each week.")
Friday, April 20, 2012
West and Smiley on Colbert
This is an interesting interview on a new book having to do with wealth distribution.
Note the line of argument Colbert pursues having to do with class warfare.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tavis Smiley & Cornel West | ||||
| ||||
Note the line of argument Colbert pursues having to do with class warfare.
Philosophers get death threats for considering arguments for infanticide
The latest issue of Philosophers Magazine has a disturbing article in it. Here it is:
THE PHILOSOPHERS Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have been subject to racist abuse and death threats, following the electronic publication of a paper about abortion and newborns in the online version of The Journal of Medical Ethics. Their paper, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” discusses arguments in favour of infanticide. In the abstract, they say, “By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
The editor of the journal, Julian Savulescu, defended publication of the article. In a blog post, he said, “The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.” Savulescu concluded: “what is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
THE PHILOSOPHERS Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have been subject to racist abuse and death threats, following the electronic publication of a paper about abortion and newborns in the online version of The Journal of Medical Ethics. Their paper, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” discusses arguments in favour of infanticide. In the abstract, they say, “By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
The editor of the journal, Julian Savulescu, defended publication of the article. In a blog post, he said, “The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.” Savulescu concluded: “what is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
Philosophical puzzles in ten minutes
The Northern Institute of Philosophy has a great series of discussions of philosophical puzzles. Each "episode" is fewer than ten minutes and involves a clear presentation of the puzzle and a discussion of some of the more popular attempts at solving it.
Those of you in my Metaphysics and Epistemology course should check out the one on skepticism (toward the bottom of the page). Below each episode are a few links to research related to the topic. A friend of mine from graduate school, Dylan Dodd, has some of his work linked under the skepticism episode. He's a careful philosopher and you might enjoy reading some of his work.
Those of you in my Metaphysics and Epistemology course should check out the one on skepticism (toward the bottom of the page). Below each episode are a few links to research related to the topic. A friend of mine from graduate school, Dylan Dodd, has some of his work linked under the skepticism episode. He's a careful philosopher and you might enjoy reading some of his work.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
God and Neuroscience
This is from the blog Think: Just Do It! It's fascinating issue...
"Research shows that people can be made to have a "religious experience"--or "God experience"--by stimulating their brain using transcranial magnetic stimulation.
One might think that this research goes against arguments for the existence of God that appeal to religious experience. In other words, one could argue as follows:
"Research shows that people can be made to have a "religious experience"--or "God experience"--by stimulating their brain using transcranial magnetic stimulation.
One might think that this research goes against arguments for the existence of God that appeal to religious experience. In other words, one could argue as follows:
- Religious experience counts as strong evidence for the existence of God only if the sensed-presence experience cannot be produced on demand.
- The sensed-presence experience can be produced on demand.
- Therefore, religious experience is not strong evidence for the existence of God.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
New Book Chapter
Michael Stuckart (an anthropoligist at Pitt-Bradford) and I wrote a chapter for this new book. Our chapter is on happiness, what Aristotle had to say about living the "good life," and how sailing is an activity that exemplifies many of the things that make one truly happy. If you're interested in philosophy and/or sailing, you might find this a fascinating summer read.
Identity and Songs
I've been wondering about what makes a song the song that it is. That is, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a particular song. Here's a clip from Ray Charles in 1968. He's performing a song called "Going Down Slow" (it's a pretty famous Blues standard).
And here's a clip from Eric Clapton singing "Going Down Slow." Notice that the titles of the songs are the same. The lyrics are very similar (though not identical) and there's clearly quite a bit in common between the two performances. But, at the same time, they're extremely different.
We might wonder whether Ray and Eric are playing the same song.
A natural answer is that they are playing different versions of the same song. They have their own interpretations of it, but it's just one song--"Going Down Slow." But this suggests that a number of things can be different between two performances and yet the two can be performances of the same song. For example, the chord progression between them can be different, the lyrics can be different, the tempo can be different, the instrumentation can be different, etc. Of course, they can't be too different--because then they wouldn't be performances of the same song. But where does one draw the line? In other words, what makes something a version of "Going Down Slow" as opposed to some other song? Interestingly, I've heard instrumental versions of "Going Down Slow," where there are no lyrics since no one is singing. It still seems right to say that the song performed was "Going Down Slow." So what do you think about these issues? What makes a song the song that it is?
And here's a clip from Eric Clapton singing "Going Down Slow." Notice that the titles of the songs are the same. The lyrics are very similar (though not identical) and there's clearly quite a bit in common between the two performances. But, at the same time, they're extremely different.
We might wonder whether Ray and Eric are playing the same song.
A natural answer is that they are playing different versions of the same song. They have their own interpretations of it, but it's just one song--"Going Down Slow." But this suggests that a number of things can be different between two performances and yet the two can be performances of the same song. For example, the chord progression between them can be different, the lyrics can be different, the tempo can be different, the instrumentation can be different, etc. Of course, they can't be too different--because then they wouldn't be performances of the same song. But where does one draw the line? In other words, what makes something a version of "Going Down Slow" as opposed to some other song? Interestingly, I've heard instrumental versions of "Going Down Slow," where there are no lyrics since no one is singing. It still seems right to say that the song performed was "Going Down Slow." So what do you think about these issues? What makes a song the song that it is?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Small Business Tax Cut Act
The House of Representatives will consider a new set of tax cuts to small businesses. Those opposed say that the bill will only make those with a great deal of money even richer. There's an editorial piece in today's NY Times here echoing these sentiments. The upshot of this article is:
"...a bill to let most business owners deduct up to 20 percent of their business income in 2012 — a $46 billion tax cut. Despite the Mom-and-Pop label, it is designed so that nearly half of the tax cut would go to people with annual income over $1 million, and more than four-fifths would go to those making over $200,000, according to the Tax Policy Center."
Of course, a common rejoinder is that such cuts will create jobs. But many experts have serious doubts about whether such a cut will actually create jobs (see, for example, this article and this report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). Of course, such criticisms are not definitive. What would be nice is if we had some evidence that such a cut would create jobs, but I wasn't able to find anything after a brief search. There are the intuitive sorts of arguments. Here in Bradford we have companies like American Refining Group and Zippo. They employ a large number of residents and greatly contribute to the local economy. But what would a tax cut to such corporations actually do for the economy? Would they hire more workers? Would they reinvest that money in the community? One might have the intuition that tax cuts encourage growth, but it's a difficult thing to predict and measure. And the evidence (at least what I could find) certainly doesn't show that the bill will do what its authors claim.
I wonder what readers of this blog think about the bill and about the strategy of our policy-makers to cut taxes to small businesses.
"...a bill to let most business owners deduct up to 20 percent of their business income in 2012 — a $46 billion tax cut. Despite the Mom-and-Pop label, it is designed so that nearly half of the tax cut would go to people with annual income over $1 million, and more than four-fifths would go to those making over $200,000, according to the Tax Policy Center."
Of course, a common rejoinder is that such cuts will create jobs. But many experts have serious doubts about whether such a cut will actually create jobs (see, for example, this article and this report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). Of course, such criticisms are not definitive. What would be nice is if we had some evidence that such a cut would create jobs, but I wasn't able to find anything after a brief search. There are the intuitive sorts of arguments. Here in Bradford we have companies like American Refining Group and Zippo. They employ a large number of residents and greatly contribute to the local economy. But what would a tax cut to such corporations actually do for the economy? Would they hire more workers? Would they reinvest that money in the community? One might have the intuition that tax cuts encourage growth, but it's a difficult thing to predict and measure. And the evidence (at least what I could find) certainly doesn't show that the bill will do what its authors claim.
I wonder what readers of this blog think about the bill and about the strategy of our policy-makers to cut taxes to small businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)