tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post9118652204759856882..comments2024-03-23T04:22:18.693-07:00Comments on Pro-Life Philosophy: In Defense of the Womb Teleology ArgumentClinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-44585048875595812622016-05-04T08:06:00.650-07:002016-05-04T08:06:00.650-07:00I'm not sure where else Steph would have writt...I'm not sure where else Steph would have written about it, besides what I linked to in the article. I haven't had a chance yet to read her new book, so I'm not sure if she talks about it there.<br /><br />I would say that yes, part of the reason it is wrong to get addicted to narcotics and alcohol is because of its negative effects on the body. Additionally, as we are rational agents, intentionally putting ourselves in an altered state by getting drunk or high would be seen as immoral.<br /><br />I think according to this argument, it could be seen that we do not have an obligation to donate an organ to someone who needs it, since my organs are meant to work for the good of *my* body, but I'm not sure if this argument would necessitate someone come to that conclusion. Also, even if the argument did lead to that conclusion, donating an organ might be obligated for other reasons (e.g. if my own child is in a car accident and sustains damage to her kidneys, such that she needs a transplant, as long as it's a transplant that wouldn't result in my death, I should think I have an obligation to go through with the transplant to save my child's life).Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-7820009639398406932016-04-25T19:17:27.620-07:002016-04-25T19:17:27.620-07:00Would this argument have any bearing on whether an...Would this argument have any bearing on whether an injurer could have an obligation to donate his organ?Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-28905201261792276262016-04-25T19:09:31.673-07:002016-04-25T19:09:31.673-07:00Hello Clinton,
Thanks for the response.
I would ...Hello Clinton,<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />I would be interested in finding some of her other articles about it, so I'll have to look for those; if you could direct me to them, that would be appreciated. I have found that she has written two books and I found some videos of her speaking, so I'll listen to those and see what I find.<br /><br />Is that, for example, why it is wrong to become habitually drunk or addicted to narcotics, these things, why they may be in some sense pleasurable, go contrary to true well-being and oppose the purpose of the body?<br /><br />Take care,<br />Sean<br /><br />Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-52334083562522200832016-04-24T19:20:04.236-07:002016-04-24T19:20:04.236-07:00Hi, Sean:
I'm not sure which article would be...Hi, Sean:<br /><br />I'm not sure which article would be the original. Steph actually just wrote a book. I have a copy of it but haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if she gives a defense of it in that book. But she's written about it in various articles and presented the argument in formal debates.<br /><br />It doesn't commit the naturalistic fallacy because regarding essentialism, moral facts are woven into the fabric of reality. Human beings are rational agents and so have moral responsibility to treat themselves and their bodies in the way that facilities its flourishing and avoid things that frustrates the natural ends of their body and its parts. The naturalistic fallacy goes back, I believe, to David Hume, and Hume, as an atheist, rejected the concept of teleology in nature. So to Hume, it would be fallacious because he didn't see any moral obligation to facilitate the proper flourishing of things in nature. So it really depends on which metaphysical view you come at the issue from.<br /><br />That's, at least, how I would answer the question. I haven't yet heard Steph talk about Natural Law, or reply to objections to this argument.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-75003878488419140822016-04-24T18:21:14.377-07:002016-04-24T18:21:14.377-07:00I was able to find the original article (I assume ...I was able to find the original article (I assume it is anyway), here (http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/11/why-the-preborn-have-the-right-to-use-their-mothers-bodies/). Is there anyone else who has written on this topic. <br /><br />And why exactly is it not the naturalistic fallacy? Something about it makes me conclude it is not, but I don't think I could defend it. Any help you give is appreciated, thanks.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3163957708245233467.post-19152373326048617752016-04-24T14:37:02.788-07:002016-04-24T14:37:02.788-07:00Interesting argument, thanks for sharing it.Interesting argument, thanks for sharing it.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.com