[lbo-talk] Catholicism, was Re: blacks about as morally conservative as Republicans

[andie nachgeborenen]

Well, then you think there is another level at which the argument does not work. It doesn't even get off the ground for you because you don't have what philosophers call the "intuition" that she thinks you would. (I do, actually, although I would not explain it in terms of negative rights.) 

That is a risk of any starting point you pick. I say, utilitarianism is wrong because it could justify slavery if that maximized social welfare. The hard-boiled utilitarian says, Yes, and your point is? The HBU does not share my intuition that chattel slavery is morally wicked, period. Nothing I can do can make her do that, although I can try to get her to understand why I feel that way, and hope that maybe if she sees my point of view she may come to share it. It happens, sometimes. Likewise with JJT's intuition that you do not owe that sort of life support to a grown person even if he will die without it.

I was just trying explain what JJT was _trying_ to do. I most emphatically did not endorse her argument. I also said I thought we should not use this argument except as a rhetorical move, turned around, to make right wingers who oopose both abortion and welfare rights uncomfortable.

--- On Sat, 12/13/08, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:


> From: Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Catholicism, was Re: blacks about as morally conservative as Republicans
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 12:55 PM
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:38:58 -0800 (PST)
> andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>  
> > She is saying, even if were to grant, hypothetically,
> for the sake of arguing, that you, Mr. Anti-Abortionist, are
> correct that fetuses have a right to life equivalent to a
> grown violinist, even if we were to go along with you in
> saying that the difference in cognitive development are
> morally irrelevant -- we don't in fact grant these
> things and assert their truth with you, but even if we did,
> there would still be a right to abortion 
> 
> But that's just where I part company with her. The
> implication is 
> that you *would* have the right to kill the violinist. That
> seems 
> repugnant -- though admittedly, there have been violinists
> I've wanted to kill. 
> 
> --
> 
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk