1) It's not a scientific argument at any point of the discussion because it requires a value judgment. Science is a system by which abstract ideas are applied to discover truth about reality, and such a system cannot be used to determine hierarchical values. No matter what stage of development you choose as a cutoff point for abortion, you're making a value judgment about when a gestating baby is considered to have humanity and all of its intrinsic rights. You can point to whatever scientific evidence you want that suggests particular points of development, but within that scope, you are explicitly defining criteria for "humanity", and at that point, you must answer the following question: *why* did you choose *that* criteria? The subsequent question is: are there any circumstances post-birth where such criteria can be used to define a person as non-human and thereby justify their killing? If so, are you willing to accept those circumstances?
2) Self-ownership, also called individual sovereignty, is itself a value that is implicit within your argument. It raises the following question: why does individual sovereignty have value and why is it worth protecting? A good starting point is John Locke, particularly his Second Treatise, but it goes well beyond that. Aquinas is the next worthwhile read after Locke. I'll leave it to you to look into the specifics, but ultimately the value of individual sovereignty stems from the belief that human life is of intrinsic value (and if you really want to get specific, it's of divine value because this stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, hence Locke and Aquinas). If you believe individual sovereignty is an intrinsic right and therefore of value and must be protected, then you believe that human life is of intrinsic value and must be protected, and that all of our rights are naturally a product of our humanity. That means "life" is higher up in the hierarchy than "liberty."
———
With those two points established, we're right back to the beginning of the argument: at what point do we want to define a gestating baby as having humanity and all of its intrinsic rights? That is not a simple or easy question to answer and is why the discussion continues to this day.
"Abortion: A Philosophical AND Scientific Approach"
If you’re referencing that shibboleth of the supposed “Is-Ought” Dichotomy, well, that’s no dichotomy, at all. Using Aristotle’s Law of Identity and the conditional imperative, what X IS determines what it SHOULD or must do in context Y to achieve Z.
Science itself is unpinned by people utilizing value systems: is A worth pursuing: why SHOULD I adhere to critical thinking principles and the scientific method; SHOULD I pursue course R rather than avenue S for this query; why SHOULD I be honest and truthful in analyzing my results and presenting them; and on and on and on.
WHY is science worth pursuing AT ALL? While the actual things we do in scientific research should be objective and not tainted by, for example, politics or our emotions, the very EXISTENCE of science is grounded in the fact that we find it of VALUE.
The PHILOSOPHY of science deals with many of these very issues.
So, you’re wrong. While what volition and rights and morality and personhood etc. ARE and how they OPERATE arise from metaphysics and epistemology and ethics and politics—all subdivisions of philosophy—the next step is to use SCIENCE, as I said, to determine WHAT and HOW and WHEN things happen in fetal development that lead to the cortical structures that make volition possible and that differentiate humans from all other animals.
And, yes, we DO use these facts post-birth when we decide that someone is brain dead and, thus, we are not committing murder when we unplug someone, and he then dies.
2. I’ll ignore your condescending tone—nah, I won’t—in “leav[ing] to” me to “look into” these issues. Good grief.
Wrong again: there ARE no intrinsic values. Values always suppose one who values, an entity that acts to gain and keep those things it values for a particular purpose/context.
Everything I wrote is true.
Just because YOU don’t know the answers to these questions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
A couple of points to consider:
1) It's not a scientific argument at any point of the discussion because it requires a value judgment. Science is a system by which abstract ideas are applied to discover truth about reality, and such a system cannot be used to determine hierarchical values. No matter what stage of development you choose as a cutoff point for abortion, you're making a value judgment about when a gestating baby is considered to have humanity and all of its intrinsic rights. You can point to whatever scientific evidence you want that suggests particular points of development, but within that scope, you are explicitly defining criteria for "humanity", and at that point, you must answer the following question: *why* did you choose *that* criteria? The subsequent question is: are there any circumstances post-birth where such criteria can be used to define a person as non-human and thereby justify their killing? If so, are you willing to accept those circumstances?
2) Self-ownership, also called individual sovereignty, is itself a value that is implicit within your argument. It raises the following question: why does individual sovereignty have value and why is it worth protecting? A good starting point is John Locke, particularly his Second Treatise, but it goes well beyond that. Aquinas is the next worthwhile read after Locke. I'll leave it to you to look into the specifics, but ultimately the value of individual sovereignty stems from the belief that human life is of intrinsic value (and if you really want to get specific, it's of divine value because this stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, hence Locke and Aquinas). If you believe individual sovereignty is an intrinsic right and therefore of value and must be protected, then you believe that human life is of intrinsic value and must be protected, and that all of our rights are naturally a product of our humanity. That means "life" is higher up in the hierarchy than "liberty."
———
With those two points established, we're right back to the beginning of the argument: at what point do we want to define a gestating baby as having humanity and all of its intrinsic rights? That is not a simple or easy question to answer and is why the discussion continues to this day.
1. My article is called:
"Abortion: A Philosophical AND Scientific Approach"
If you’re referencing that shibboleth of the supposed “Is-Ought” Dichotomy, well, that’s no dichotomy, at all. Using Aristotle’s Law of Identity and the conditional imperative, what X IS determines what it SHOULD or must do in context Y to achieve Z.
Science itself is unpinned by people utilizing value systems: is A worth pursuing: why SHOULD I adhere to critical thinking principles and the scientific method; SHOULD I pursue course R rather than avenue S for this query; why SHOULD I be honest and truthful in analyzing my results and presenting them; and on and on and on.
WHY is science worth pursuing AT ALL? While the actual things we do in scientific research should be objective and not tainted by, for example, politics or our emotions, the very EXISTENCE of science is grounded in the fact that we find it of VALUE.
The PHILOSOPHY of science deals with many of these very issues.
So, you’re wrong. While what volition and rights and morality and personhood etc. ARE and how they OPERATE arise from metaphysics and epistemology and ethics and politics—all subdivisions of philosophy—the next step is to use SCIENCE, as I said, to determine WHAT and HOW and WHEN things happen in fetal development that lead to the cortical structures that make volition possible and that differentiate humans from all other animals.
And, yes, we DO use these facts post-birth when we decide that someone is brain dead and, thus, we are not committing murder when we unplug someone, and he then dies.
2. I’ll ignore your condescending tone—nah, I won’t—in “leav[ing] to” me to “look into” these issues. Good grief.
Wrong again: there ARE no intrinsic values. Values always suppose one who values, an entity that acts to gain and keep those things it values for a particular purpose/context.
Everything I wrote is true.
Just because YOU don’t know the answers to these questions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
Your “ideas” reek of all three.
> claims I'm being condescending
> proceeds to be condescending
Aight, good luck then, dude. You'll need it.
You get what you give…and deserve.