[Bups-dis] Second Response to Merlina

[Merlina Merlina]

> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:31:15 +0100> From: pia06jw at sheffield.ac.uk> To: bups-dis at bups.org> Subject: [Bups-dis] Second Response to Merlina> > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS at bups.org> -> > Thanks for the second response; it gave a lot of food for thought. Hopefully, I> can tidy some things up.> > It is certainly the case that goading is problematic. Whether it is more> onerous to pressure someone into having a child or procuring an abortion I have> no idea, but I don’t think that it really affects the rightness or wrongness of> abortion. If euthanasia was legal, you could be goaded into it, but that> doesn’t make euthanasia wrong in principle: To use a more banal example, you> could be goaded into signing up for a credit card you don’t need and can’t> afford, but that’s not a damning indictment of the credit industry itself.> > Another problem you raise is the problem of choice, and whether people are> capable of making informed choices. In the strict, idealistic, sense of> ‘informed choice’, I would say no, because to have that ability to make> untainted choices implies a kind of metaphysical freedom we don’t possess. > This doesn’t deliver a killer blow for abortionists though, because free choice> is something we have to assume in order to move in any direction – any choice> would be a bad choice because no choice would be a free choice – and, provided> we ascertain that the agent is being used as a ‘puppet’, we can call her choice> a free one.> > The next point I’d like to look at is claims on the inside and the outside of> our bodies. I don’t think there’s really any relevant difference between the> two, and I’ll try to explain why. Imagine our violinist once more, but imagine> that instead of providing him with the use of your kidneys, you have been> forced to run on a treadmill which powers his life-support machine: Do you> have the right to step off the machine? If they demand you run on it for a> week non-stop then you can certainly step-off, but what about if they only need> you for five minutes? Our intuition would be that the treadmill-claim is> greater than the kidney-claim, precisely because of this inside/outside> distinction, but there doesn’t seem to be any relevant difference between using> someone’s kidneys and using their leg muscles. > > I do think that sex (protected or unprotected) doesn’t really amount to tacit> consent for sex, and this was the purpose of my – as you rightly pointed out,> rather weak – mugger analogy. Instead of using this analogy, I’m going to run> with your colourfully insightful tiger-mauling analogy: We may call the man> who gets mauled by a tiger foolish, but this isn’t really sufficient to place a> strong burden on him. Assuming the man survived the attack, would we say that> a doctor could legitimately refuse him treatment on the basis that he is> blameworthy for his injuries? We surely wouldn’t say that this man should bear> the burden of his injuries, no matter how careless he was. We may call people> who get accidentally pregnant ‘foolish’ for doing so, but we wouldn’t> necessarily want them to bear the brunt of this costly mistake. > > Anyway, I hope the above is worth considering. I’d be very interested hearing> your thoughts on it.> > Johnny> > _______________________________________________> > -> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtmlThanks very much.
 
I think we have here with goading the problem between the legal and ethical side again.  Ethically, we only need be concerned that it is sometimes right, and possibly when that is, and why.  Legally, one has to be concerned with all sorts of things such as undue pressure, and also when we can allow it practically etc.  I think that people are reluctant to legalise euthanasia because they feel that the degree of wrong done if someone was forced into it, or even merely because people feel that it is proper, is greater than that if someone who might have wished it isn't able to die so.  Though the problem with abortion is slightly different, there are several similarities.  But it is well attested that there is no degree of pressure or law that will stop women trying to take back this piece of control, and so I find it difficult to say it must always be wrong.  It seems to be what we are.  As to wrong, I do think it is bad, but I can allow (I think) for lesser of the two evils.  I uphold choice with checking in law because I think that is what gives the highest degree of right.  Morally, I would say that there has to be something very wrong, rape, underage and incompetant, mentally or physically ill, or will be made so by bearing the child.  I don't uphold it simply because a woman doesn't feel like bearing a child this year, but wanted one next year.  But I think the lines are difficult and I would say that it is best if everyone draws their own precise ones.  It isn't as if anyone could be very certain what is right or wrong.  And there will always be error.
As to the credit card, no, it isn't, but it could be.
 
I think your next paragraph raises some very interesting points.  (I assume, by the way, that you meant, "not a puppet").  I have toyed with the idea that it is always better to assume a slightly greater degree of responisblity, moral and otherwise, than you actually have, because things work better when people do.  We gain more choice by supposing we have it or can have it, (of course, there is a limit to this).
My problem was more one of comparison that of metaphysics or even social pressure one way or another.  That is, I can assume that the forty year old, who has no close relations (including husband) and has already has three children, knows what she is saying when she says that she does not want to bear another one.  But a rather dim twelve year old will not.  Or suppose you have a teenager who has been a rigid virgin, and started to develop manic depression or some other problem, and in the onset has got herself pregnant.  That second is a particually knotty one.  Do others, family, friends, doctors, have a right to make the decision that would be best for her to the best of their ability, or even do what they believe she would have wanted?  It's also hard to know when healthy influence wanes and pressure begins.  We aren't only indiviuals.
 
I disagree with your entertaining extention of the violinist analogy, partly because that wasn't what I was trying to say.  I meant that you could have a claim on the outside of someone, but not on the inside.  It doesn't mean that you can't make a wrongful claim on the outside.  The claims we spoke of before came into what I think of as the social contract duties (I think morality is pluralist), that is, the things it is we all need to do for each other.  There may be other valid ones.  But what you are describing there is slave labour, not the right of anyone to have assitance summoned by anyone else who finds them injured.  Slave labour is a violation of the possession of the body by its nature, because to have it requires denying that people possess themselves at all.  I admit the inside/outside distiction is not very exact, but actual line drawing is hard.  That is, I think it is rare in morality for there to be an exact line, not that we are having trouble finding it.
My intution doesn't agree with yours on this.  You need do no injury to the body to run a treadmill for five minutes, wrong though I agree it is, but to link someone to someone else's kidney's you do.  And bearing a child may result in injury, but it doesn't have to.  
I'd be particually interested to see a reply to this defence.
 
There might be a point, I think, where one would be entitled to refuse paid for treatment for the tiger mauling.  If the man, a genuinely competant adult, has, in spite of warning and regualtion etc. snuck off into the jungle in clothes in which he will inevitably be attacked (dressed like a wounded deer, if you will excuse the flipancy) there must come a point when the state is no longer bound to pay for his treatment.  However, in general I agree with you.
In your view, does sex constitue a moral choice?  If it does do you think it affects abortion legally and/or morally.  I think it is a moral choice, but I say (more or less what you said) that one can't necerily insist that people bear the burden of the mistake.  I think there is also a bit of a problem in that all these analogies, the tiger, the violinist, are injury or artificial medicine, while childbearing is a natural process.  But between the mess one gets into trying to judge any indiviual case due to lack of knowledge, and mercy (a cultural value that I will assess one day) I don't think it is worth trying to be moralist in the political sense.
 
Thanks again for the reply,
 
Merlina
_________________________________________________________________
Make a mini you on Windows Live Messenger!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571437/direct/01/