[Peace-discuss] Fw: CCHCC Annual Dinner & Adbook -- AWARE

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

> Substitute any form of institutionalized killing for abortion...do you
>still want to follow that reasoning?  I think you are beginning your
>argument from the wrong principle.

And if I did such a substitution and I still wanted to follow that
reasoning, what would it prove except that we assume and believe in
different principles.  As for you thinking that I am beginning my argument
from the wrong principle,  that of course is a matter of opinion that can
only be taken as an article of faith  by either of us. 

In actuality, I think that I did substitute the controlling of the size of
the population and avoiding an environmental disaster that could be harmful
to the survival of future human beings and other species as a secular basis
for arguing in favor of any form of institutionalized killing, including
abortion and asked if this qualified as a good enough secular argument to be
considered a good philosophical argument.  I did it to make a point in
response to Ron's posted comments.

I guess I am at a loss as to what posting your message is responding to;
because I fail to relate your response to my comments that are quoted below
which were made in the context of Ron Szoke's post and not as independent
context free remarks as your reply seems to suggest.

> I think the link that Carl posted
>(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml)
>gives a very concise rebuttal to the claim that this is a matter of
>religion rather than philosophy. 

While it does give a concise rebuttal as you suggest, it does only that and
one does not have to agree with the rebuttal any more than one would have to
agree with a very concise rebuttal of the rebuttal.  That is all they are is
reasoned rebuttals and not proofs.

>>The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the
>>loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences
>>for the ethics of abortion.

If we take this at face value, then it applies to all killing of anything
for any reason and is not restricted to the human species, to animals, to
killing for food or clothing, etc. To be sure the reasoning does not have to
be religious in content and could be secular in content; it does not have to
be religious in nature and could be philosophical in nature.  It does not
have to necessarily be one or the other in either the substance of the
reasoning or the nature of the reasoning. Since what is defined as religious
versus philosophical is a matter of how one defines the terms, I could and
have argued that for me something is religious if one believes in it
unquestioningly and takes it as an article of faith that cannot be called
into question and cannot be regarded as problematic as contrasted to
something being philosophical if one assumes its truth and/or existence as
merely a working premise or principle upon which one bases one's argument
and as such is open to question and  being treated as problematic or
contingent in nature as opposed to absolute.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Fettig [mailto:john.fettig at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:43 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: Ron Szoke; C. G. Estabrook; Morton K. Brussel;
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: CCHCC Annual Dinner & Adbook -- AWARE

Substitute any form of institutionalized killing for abortion...do you
still want to follow that reasoning?  I think you are beginning your
argument from the wrong principle.

I think the link that Carl posted
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml)
gives a very concise rebuttal to the claim that this is a matter of
religion rather than philosophy.  To quote:

>The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the
>loss to the victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences
>for the ethics of abortion.

>The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences,
>projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures
>of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children.

>Since the reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to
>kill human beings after the time of birth is a reason that also applies
> to foetuses, it follows that abortion is prima facie morally wrong.
>     Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral, The Journal of Philosophy, 86:4

John

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>
wrote:
> Obviously, the answer turns on ones criteria for a "good" versus
"adequate"
> versus "satisfactory" versus "bad" philosophical argument. I suppose one
> could argue that overpopulation can result in an environmental disaster
that
> would have negative consequences for future human beings and other species
> of animals along with the possibilities of their survival.  Their
interests
> should and must be represented and protected just as that of currently
> existing human beings and certainly to the same extent as the unborn.
Would
> that be good enough to qualify?