PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019

Abortion
   Abortion is a moral problems people are hard to determine is it morally right or wrong. The chapter about abortion introduce two writer and explain their own argument about abortion.

   Devine suggests that abortion is wrong because the act of abortion will kill a incent person. The article states that “The infant is member of the human species. The infant will, in due course, think, talk, love and have sense of justice.” If we don’t take abortion, after nine months of pregnancy, a woman will reproduce a human being. The act of abortion will kill infant thus kill a human being.

   However, Warren who support we should have the right to abortion states that infant cannot be consider as a human being. She suggests that a human being should have at least one of five factors which are “Consciousness, and in particular the capacity to feel pain; reasoning; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.” Since infant don’t have any of those factors, infant should not be considered as human. Thus, people should have right to abortion without any concerns.

   I am more favor Warren’s idea that infant is cannot be consider as human because infant don’t have any “signals” of human being. Some people may argues that based on Warren’s definition of human, people who in coma, lose their consciousness also don’t fulfill any of five requisite and still be consider as human. Personally, I think people who lose their consciousness still be consider as human because they already proved they have ability to think, act, communicate before. Based on their history of life, we should still consider they are human, though they loss five prerequisite to be consider as human briefly. However, infant never proved they have any of five prerequisites, thus they cannot be consider as human.

Baitianyu Johnny.Bai

“Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that shall not do with his life for his own benefit what be choose to do with it” - said Mill. I agree with Mill.  Isn’t paternalism just a way to force people. Given it a acceptable philosophy name? How do you determine wether it is beneficial to that individual ? Human are too persist in self benefit. Most people, to be precise. As it says on Google, examples of paternalism in everyday life are laws which require seat belts, wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle, and banning certain drugs. but what I think it is a way to restrict others, it should be belong to some other idea, but not as a individual idea of philosophy. letting other doing things is against individual's negative right. A negative paternalistic explanation of slavery is one that claims that slave holders held slaves because they believed it was in the slaves best interest or an explanation that claims that slaves viewed their masters in a manner similar to the way children see their guardians. which is against human right. How do you define if a person has the ability or not that they need others to take care of them, and to determine for them. Everyone is born free and equal. Society has made them different, and society has conduct paternalism for the moral and utilitarian purpose. I believe human don't even has the real right, right only exist when people are together, there should not be any positive right, only negative rights make sense under a society. Therefore I agree with Mill that Paternalism shall not hold.

   Chris Wang yipeng make a common about Paternalism and I would like to make some commons about it. Chris strongly agree about the idea which Mill hold on about paternalism and he believe that paternalism is a way to force people, a restriction, and against people’s right. However, I don’t agree with him. The ideal he mentions is similar to Nietzsche’s will to power idea that people have other intension underneath their “moral actions.” He mentions that “Human are too persist in self benefit” and any act that government established seems to help people stand for a moral action is just use for restrict people’s free will. The reason I don’t agree with him is because his ideal basically deny people have moral intentions. Based on Kant’s duty theory, people will find our which actions are moral because they are rational beings and don’t what to break the reason. Thus, when people doing moral actions, people must have moral intension. But Chris states that we make our actions based on our own desire and use philosophy reason for excuse. His idea denies people have moral intension and even deny we have rational think. What are differences between human and animals if our actions is followed by our desire but not reason? If we don’t support Paternalism, isn’t we deny the existence of moral, thus any immoral actions we did is not wrong?

Baitianyu Johnny.Bai