Distinctions in Killing

Philosopher Alexander Pruss briefly discusses a question for proponents of abortion.

If you hold that abortion is not immoral because a foetus has no future-directed desires (e.g. no desire to live), would it then follow that it is not immoral to kill an adult who has no future-directed desires?

That's my simplified, summary - but here is Pruss's proposition...

According to some defenders of abortion, what makes it wrong to kill an adult but not wrong to kill a fetus is that the adult has future-directed desires while the fetus does not. But now imagine an innocent adult who has only one future-directed desire: to die. Nonetheless, it is uncontroversially wrong to kill this adult without her consent (it's wrong to kill her with her consent, but that's controversial). Thus, it is wrong to kill this adult without her consent. Why? Well, on the theory in question, it's wrong because she has future-directed desires, or, more precisely, a desire. But the desire is a desire not to be alive. It is absurd that the presence of that desire is what makes it wrong to kill her.

So what makes it wrong to kill her? I see two answers: The first is that she is being deprived of future life. And that future life is valuable even if she does not recognize it as such. The second is that the killing is a destruction of a human body.

It is important to realise that Pruss is not here comparing abortion with euthanasia, but rather with the non-consensual killing of an adult who has absolutely no desire to continue living - something generally accepted to be an immoral action.

Quid Est Libertas?

What is freedom? Earlier today, Rick and I were discussing this question.  As it became clear, we have different understandings of what it means to be free, or to be more specific, what it means to be truly free to make a choice.  First I'll explain what I believe freedom of choice means, following this with my understanding of Rick's position.  Then a brief example to clear things up a bit, because it may be a bit confusing.

;)

Andy.  Freedom can be most simply expressed as a person's inherent free will.  It is the ability to choose between right and wrong, or between life and death.  Noone can ultimately take away our freedom. Of course, we speak of such things as the Anti-Smacking Law, or the late Electoral Finance Act as taking away our freedom, however it would be more correct to say that such unjust laws give our freedom new parameters.  In Mel Gibson's timeless epic, Braveheart, William Wallace famously says "they'll never take our freedom".  Towards the end of the movie when Wallace is on the rack being tortured to death, he is given the chance to ask for mercy.  Instead he lets forth the haunting but rallying cry, "FREEDOM!!!" before the executioner's axe swings down.  To William Wallace - at least in this film, freedom was the ability to choose between right and wrong, duty or compromise - whatever the circumstances or consequences might be.

Rick.  Freedom is the ability to be able to make a choice without threat of adverse consequences.  I'm not sure if it would matter whether or not the choice was either logically sound or morally good.  Also, I'm not sure whether the adverse consequences would necessarily have to be initiated by another person or group of people.  Otherwise you could say that because walking off a 20-storey building would bring about adverse consequences, your freedom was therefore impeded.  As you can see, I am not arguing for this position very well, firstly because I don't believe it, and secondly because I don't yet fully understand it.  Rick will no doubt clear up any confusion in his response on his own blog.

Example.  "The soliders" bust into your place and tell you that they're there to enforce a new law.  The new law states that no citizen may hold a religious belief, and further, must officially declare their refutation of any previously held religious convictions - on pain of death.  I think Rick would say that in this situation, you don't have any freedom.  On the other hand, I think that you absolutely do have freedom - even if your choice results in your death.

It may be that we're actually talking about different things but using the same word - I'm not sure.  What do you think?

These Are Not Words

The title of this post is a simple form of a self-refuting statement, also commonly refered to as an oxymoron.  Madeline over at mandmandmandm.blogspot.com has made a list of five philosophical refutations that employ self-reference.  It is really worthwhile to get these under your belt, for when someone tries one of these frequently used statements on you.

---

1. There is no such thing as truth.

Example (1.) asserts a truth, so if it is true that there is no such thing as truth then (1.) is false. Conversely, if it is false that there is no such thing as truth then (1.) is false.

The negation of (1.) that there is such thing as truth is not just true but is necessarily true. Example (1.) is self-refuting and its negation is self-verifying.

Conclusion: There is such thing as truth. Anyone who says there is not is wrong.

2. It is wrong to judge.

Example (2.) asserts a judgment; as such, it refers to itself, so if it is true that it is wrong to judge then (2.) is false, the asserter purports to make a correct moral judgement. Conversely, if it is false that it is wrong to judge then (2.) is false.

The negation of (2.) that it is right to judge is not just true but is necessarily true. Example (2.) is self-refuting and its negation is self-verifying.

Conclusion: It is right to judge. Anyone who says it is not is judging you.

Now we have the basics, let’s try something trickier.

3. All religions are true.

Christianity is a religion. If (3.) is true, then Christianity is true. Christianity teaches that it is the only true religion, therefore, all religions except Christianity are false. According to (3.),Christianity is the only true religion.

Turning now to some slightly more useful examples

4. Nothing is true unless science proves it.

Really, including example (4.) itself?

5. Nothing can be known.

Example (5.) itself cannot be known, as such it is not known whether anything is knowable or not.

---

Click here for Madeline's original post.

Related posts: Truth, Deterioration of Soceity Accelerating