So, by your logic, you are saying a brain dead child is not a human being. Is that right? — Fire Ologist

I prefer person, rather than human being, which is vague. A brain-dead child is not a person anymore. It's a hunk of meat being kept alive by machines. Remember the Terry Schiavo case? Same thing. She wasn't a person. Her husband had the right to take her off life support.

And how about a dog or a chimp, do they have minds?

And how about a dog or a chimp, do they have minds? — Fire Ologist

Most likely. Minds are a necessary but not sufficient condition for having moral value. Bugs might have some kind of primitive minds, but probably not. We kill them with impunity. Same with lizards, snakes, fish, etc. They probably have minds, but we casually kill them too. As a species becomes more sophisticated (aka it's intelligence increases), we give it more moral consideration. For example, I'll eat squid but not octopus.

These definitions are circular.

Ok, if it’s not a human being then what is it?

So, by your logic, you are saying a brain dead child is not a human being. Is that right?

This is the second time I’ve heard the suggestion that a brain-dead human is “meat”. They think a brain-dead child is food.

This is a joke...right? We derive conclusions and answers to questions. Yes, literally every study has fundamental questions it is trying to answer. Propositions are just truth-apt statements that we formulate to try and answer those questions.

Bugs might have some kind of primitive minds, but probably not. — RogueAI

Does a human being have a mind when it is sleeping? Even a primitive one?
How about when it is knocked unconscious? It is not “brain dead” but it cannot be roused. Is there a “mind” there.

Are unconscious states, such as sleeping and unconsciousness, are these states and time periods during which no “person” is present?

How is a person present in a body that cannot wake up? Due to drinking alcohol and passing out?

Do you really want to require certain behavior of a human being, such as “minding”, be present before you see essential qualities present upon which we can legislate pregnancy? We are going to tell pregnant women when they can and can’t kill fetuses. You are saying “mind” makes the difference?

So, “neo-”Aristotelianism is not itself one specific view: it is just any view that is a modified version, a sublation, of Aristotelianism—it’s a “modded up” version of the original. Thusly, it is hard to talk about “neo-Aristotelianism” other than getting into someone’s specific (modded) view.

In Aristotelianism, the ultimate goal for each human is human flourishing; and society is supposed to be structured in a way to uphold, incentivize, etc. that as best as possible. In that view, abortion seems straightforwardly immoral; because (directly intentionally) killing an innocent human being quite literally is the opposite of contributing to flourishing or allowing them to flourish.

Giving people basic human rights seems to be the best way to respect a human’s rational nature.

Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish.

By “flourishing”, what we really mean is eudaimonia (viz., to be a eudaimon) and this is just to say that one is living well by fulfilling their Telos. To allow people to live well (in this sense), we have to respect them as persons: we cannot kill them simply because we don’t believe we can take care of them. Not only is it simply not true in the western, developed world (as there are plenty of pro-life institutions which will provide for the child) but also, even if it were true, you cannot violate someone’s rights: rights are inherently deontological.

My answer is really simple, as I agree that one has to evaluate the moral theory through some standard beyond it: goodness. Goodness is not within the ethical theory proper (i.e., normative and applied ethical theories which comprise it proper), and is the presupposition for the evaluation of such.

EDIT: No, metaethics is not a part of the ethical theory; that's why it is called meta-ethics.

Morality is about behavior, and not directly about what is good. On the contrary, what is good is what is used to determine right and wrong behavior.

I would also like point out that your reasoning leads to an infinite regress: for we could ask the same for the standard that is outside of the theory which is being applied, and would have to perform the same steps.

Personally I am a foundationalist, so for me there is a place the buck stops; because it has to.

No one who supports abortion will give a definition of a human being that includes a new born baby, yet everybody seems to think new born babies are precious, cute baby human beings; put it back in the uterus and we need to look for minds and higher consciousness, or value before they will say what it is.

I actually don’t mind calling us only meat in this discussion. This conversation about moving physical bodies around and what the nature of those bodies are. We are defining objects and motions like “pregnant woman” and “fetus” and “abortion tools that terminate the life and/or remove the fetus”, etc. It’s all meat, from the moment of conception. That’s all we need to define a whole human life. That’s all we can objectively measure. They want to add “mind” to the meat or “consciousness of pain” or other abilities and functions. But these are not essential to answer the question of what a new zygote is. Just because a zygote, like a new born baby, might one day be self-aware and have a mind, those remain possibilities, not actualities in the meat at those stages. The actuality in the meat is at least the unique DNA, along with the fact that it is unique DNA making it a whole organism as opposed to a human kidney or appendix.

It’s really quite simple. An organism has a beginning middle and end both in time and in space. The beginning in time is the moment of conception. A unique organism begins to take up space upon its conception. All the things that this human zygote may or may not become or do won’t change what it is.

My one objection is that meat is flesh-as-food, flesh that we eat. I think we're in trouble when we start viewing other members of our species as food. But otherwise I fully agree.

Just to add, note that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism, is rarely mentioned in these discussions from an abortionist standpoint. It's all about the relative status of the victim in comparison to the killer or the moral permissibility of a bystander to intervene. The act itself, whether it's the deprivation of the means to survive or the evisceration of the organism with a vacuum, lays hidden behind its vocal defense. The question whether it is it right or wrong to kill this organism remains largely untouched.

I am against abortions for religious reasons.

A lot of people seem to think consciousness is important to deciding whether abortions should be allowed. I guess my question is: are you proposing we have a "consciousness test" for fetuses? And will this test be 100% accurate, or will it sometimes mistake whether a fetus is conscious?

If the consciousness test is not 100% reliable, that would be a reason against allowing abortions. One could only still support abortions if one were willing to sacrifice an innocent person, a morally repugnant decision.

I think this reasoning defeats any condition stipulated that purportedly would have rendered abortions permissible.

note that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism, is rarely mentioned in these discussions from an abortionist standpoint — NOS4A2

:100:

You take a new born baby and cut its head off and you are Hitler. You take a 6 month old human fetus and cut its head off and no one can say what just happened.

"Generally speaking, people seek abortion because they’re not prepared to be caregivers. They reason that they, and a child, are not in a position to flourish."
-– praxis

By “flourishing”, what we really mean is eudaimonia (viz., to be a eudaimon) and this is just to say that one is living well by fulfilling their Telos. To allow people to live well (in this sense), we have to respect them as persons: we cannot kill them simply because we don’t believe we can take care of them. Not only is it simply not true in the western, developed world (as there are plenty of pro-life institutions which will provide for the child) but also, even if it were true, you cannot violate someone’s rights: rights are inherently deontological. — Bob Ross

So you believe that the state knows better than individuals whether or not they're in a position to flourish (achieve eudaimonia if you prefer) with a child?

I supose the thread is lon enough to forgive your not having read the back story.

Science can tell us how things are. So it can tell us what we can do. And whatever we ought do might best be some subset of what we can do. So science can tell us what we can do but not what we ought do.

My target here are those who think that abortion is impermissible from conception. Within a few hours of conception the conceptus forms a ball of cells that will eventually become the placenta and foetus. That fluid-filled ball is a blastocyst. A cysts is a fluid-filled ball of cells. The conceptus is quite literally a cysts at this stage. I choose this becasue it exhibits the maximum difference between a conceptus and Mrs Smith.

Now Mrs Smith participates in life in innumerable ways that a mere cyst cannot. If you cannot see that Mrs Smith has greater worth than the cyst, then that is about you, not about Mrs Smith or the cyst.

And it is irrelevant whether we are to count he cyst as a human being or not. A ball of cells is not of the same worth as Mrs Smith.

I mentioned that there are those who "becasue they cannot deal with ideas of gradation, needing a definitive point such as conception from which to apply their expositions". This seems to be what you are up to.

My answer is really simple, as I agree that one has to evaluate the moral theory through some standard beyond it: goodness. Goodness is not within the ethical theory proper (i.e., normative and applied ethical theories which comprise it proper), and is the presupposition for the evaluation of such. — Bob Ross

You claim Moore is "a load of nonsense" then adopt the core of his thinking. Fine.

Morality is about behaviour, and not directly about what is good. — Bob Ross

An odd thing to say. Moral theory is about goodness, and about behaviour, but not directly about what is good? I can't make much sense of that.

On the contrary, what is good is what is used to determine right and wrong behavior. — Bob Ross

Ok, I'll go along with that. What is not good is counting a cyst as having the same worth as Mrs Smith.

I would also like point out that your reasoning leads to an infinite regress: for we could ask the same for the standard that is outside of the theory which is being applied, and would have to perform the same steps. — Bob Ross

This is unclear. It sounds as if you think we must test the theory and the observation together, but that would be a misunderstanding. That the worth of the cyst is less then the worth of Mrs Smith is what is sometimes called a "basic" claim. It is foundational, in that it is, as you say, "where the buck stops".

What you are doing is to attempt to engage ethical and other theories in order to undermine this basic truth.

I would say that once we're sure (or reasonably sure) something has a mind, we should assume it continues to be a minded thing until we're sure it's mind is gone (i.e., brain death). This maps on to our intuitions that we lose consciousness when we sleep or pass out, we don't lose our minds/become mindless. This would give the fetus some moral consideration when brain waves become detectable.

You take a 6 month old human fetus and cut its head off and no one can say what just happened. — Fire Ologist

A foetus was killed.

A foetus was killed. — Banno

So a human foetus is not a human being?

I’m waiting for the qualities of an organism that make it a human being.

Wait all you want. What counts as a human being is a decision, not an observation. If your beliefs lead you to count a cyst as of equal worth to Mrs Smith, then your beliefs are heinous.

What counts as a human being is a decision — Banno

Based on what physical or metaphysical evidence can we make a decision about “what counts as a human being?”

For our purposes here, use whatever you like. That a cyst is not of the same value as Mrs Smith remains true. If you need to call on mere definitions to give your moral theory some backbone, then it's a shit poor theory.

That a cyst is not of the same value as Mrs Smith remains true. — Banno

Every hopeful expectant parent would disagree with you. To them, because it's the cyst that will grow into their son or daughter, it's far more valuable than any random Mrs Smith who they probably don't even know.

You can't say a thing has value unless you also say for whom it has value, so your statement ''a cyst is not of the same value as Mrs Smith" has no truth-value.

Good.

Now turn that into a general rule. Who is it we allow to decides the value of the cyst?

An odd thing to say. Moral theory is about goodness, and about behaviour, but not directly about what is good? I can't make much sense of that.

Traditionally, morality is about right and wrong behavior; and, subsequently, about goodness and badness. My point is that goodness and badness are not evaluated themselves in the theory: the theory is about what an agent should or should not be doing in light of what is good and bad. This is a substantial claim to avoid the issues you originally brought up.

What is not good is counting a cyst as having the same worth as Mrs Smith.

Again, why? What do you think goodness is? How are you relating it, normatively, to behavior?

You claim Moore is "a load of nonsense" then adopt the core of his thinking. Fine.
…
That the worth of the cyst is less then the worth of Mrs Smith is what is sometimes called a "basic" claim. It is foundational, in that it is, as you say, "where the buck stops"

That is partially fair: the part of Moore’s thinking where he claims we have to use intuitions, insofar as they are self-evident facts, I think is correct. The part that is a load of nonsense (to me) about his theory is that he thinks we can literally intuit the right thing to do based off of a pure intuition of what goodness itself is; which not just totally obscure but also a cop-out.

This is the same risk you are essentially taking, because you are evaluating your moral theory, whatever it may be, based off of your core moral intuitions; whereas I don’t think there are any such self-evident moral facts, and that doing so ends up causing people to ad hoc justify their own intuitions instead of doing ethics.

EDIT: for Moore, the concept of 'goodness' is this totally mysterious goo-goo-gah-gah.

Firstly, again, a mother should not be asking herself if she should abort because she doesn't think she can flourish with a baby in her life: that's not the point I was making.

Secondly, the state is in charge of providing, pragmatically, an adequate basis for human flourishing; but there are limitations, and I would say that the individual should be endowed with a certain level of responsibility to figure out how to flourish themselves. I don't think societies that try to give the government full control to legislate morality end up doing to hot: that's why, pragmatically, in terms of applied ethics, I would lean towards giving the individually as much power to make decisions about themselves; instead of entrusting that to the government. However, the laws which are put in place by the state are there to help with incentivizing the human good and barring immoral acts that are severe enough (e.g., marriage, rights, murder, rape, etc.).

This is similar to an argument made for supporting slavery in America. It's not about humanity, it's about whose autonomy ought to prevail. Bad precedent to set

Nope, people (regardless of "precedent") can and have successfully navigated competing interests and have overwhelmingly concluded that slave owner and slave interests are equal (as adult humans). Similarly, the majority of folks have concluded that an adult human mother's interests outweigh those of a human fetus'. Simple, really.

↪Herg Good.

Now turn that into a general rule. Who is it we allow to decides the value of the cyst? — Banno

When a sentient being is awake, there are two answers to this: the being itself, and everyone else. When the being is unconscious, there is only one: everyone else. A cyst isn't yet conscious, so at this stage the answer has to be: everyone else. But everyone else should bear in mind, when dealing with a being (or cyst) that is not currently conscious but may at some stage become conscious, that if they kill that being (or cyst), they are preventing the occurrence of a life which may be, on balance, pleasant. I would argue that this is wrong, on the grounds that if the being were allowed to develop, it would value its own life positively, and we ought to take that into account when deciding whether to kill the being (or cyst).

I suggest that a being's moral standing is proportional to the maximum potential remaining lifetime net pleasure of that being. That is why, if a child and an old person are trapped in a burning building and we can only rescue one of them, we think we should rescue the child: it has a greater potential for future net pleasure. If we apply this logic to the cyst, it seems that the cyst must have moral standing that is even greater than that of the child, because its potential for net future pleasure, being for a longer period, is greater. I infer that if we kill a cyst, we are failing to respect its moral standing, which we should not do.

More convolute theorising.

To them, because it's the cyst that will grow into their son or daughter, it's far more valuable than any random Mrs Smith who they probably don't even know. — Herg

So they get to make the decision. No one here is suggesting that we make abortion compulsory.

A cyst isn't yet conscious, so at this stage the answer has to be: everyone else. — Herg

Why? The person most directly effected is the one carrying the cyst. If someone values that cyst above the needs of the mother, let them take it and bear it.

Bit hard, that. So let the one carrying the cyst decide.

use whatever you like — Banno

Really? That is as specific as it gets? No other starting point than “whatever”?

That a cyst is not of the same value as Mrs Smith remains true. I — Banno

True. And Mrs Smith is not of the same value as a newborn baby. And a blind and deaf four year old is of different value, etc etc.

Of course.

mere definitions — Banno

I’ll take a “mere” definition.

You keep relying on Mrs. Smith to make your point. What is a “Mrs Smith”?

If you need to call on mere definitions to give your moral theory some backbone, then it's a shit poor theory. — Banno

If you don’t give any thought to the definitions, you don’t even have any “bone” in some other “shit poor theory.”

I get it.

But do you?

I haven’t really been talking about the moral question at all. Rather engage on something more concrete, more scientific, something we can abstract objects from and with logic discuss them here...

You have to moralize about something, or else there is nothing to say. “Mere definitions.”

“Mrs Smith is of greater value”. So what? What is a “Mrs Smith” then if you think you can move on to the morality surrounding the moments before and after birth for something like a “Mrs Smith” (“whatever” that is..)

Get my question?

Every definition of “human being” I come up with either starts with conception, or it is some point well after the day I was born. So in the context of abortion, there is no logical reason to grant special protection to newborn lumps of flesh.

We can play moralist politician and preacher about the subject, or we can just say what it is.

Fuck value! Kill ‘em all! (That’s a Metallica album - don’t kill anyone.)

Value WHAT!!?