Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:30 am**

Has David Boonin’s Toxic waste argument been raised here, where he argues that there is a case that if you harm and cause dependency to another moral entity you could in principle owe compensation to the harmed party through the use of your body or an organ.

Anyone interested in discussing it?

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:36 pm**

not read it, but your short summary sounds reasonable enough.

The problem of abortion is of course that people often have a hard time treating foetuses as "people", or what you call "moral entity". To me a foetus is a person, but to others it just doesn't live up to the definition.

But I think the first issue to this discussion (since there are too many other discussions on "definitions of moral entity") is that what if you don't know you are causing harm or dependency? And what is harm? And what is dependency?

1) do I owe compensation for an accident, or alternatively pseudo-accident (a case where I can be blamed but where there is a small likelihood that there could've been expected more of me/anybody else)?
2) is it harm if I take on more responsibility than I thought I could handle and thereby loose somehow? Like a financial-, social or political game?
3) if people are especially inclined to be dependant on another person but the person doesn't know and thinks it is only being reasonably kind/reasonably helpful, in other words, it comes like an accident to the person that the other person has dedicated itself to ones own life, who is to blame? If any? The person dependant could be called a "leecher", but in turn the person may have their special reasons for being like that, maybe authoritative and all-encompassing parents? Etc.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:15 am**

The Voice of Time wrote:not read it, but your short summary sounds reasonable enough.

The problem of abortion is of course that people often have a hard time treating foetuses as "people", or what you call "moral entity". To me a foetus is a person, but to others it just doesn't live up to the definition.

But I think the first issue to this discussion (since there are too many other discussions on "definitions of moral entity") is that what if you don't know you are causing harm or dependency? And what is harm? And what is dependency?

1) do I owe compensation for an accident, or alternatively pseudo-accident (a case where I can be blamed but where there is a small likelihood that there could've been expected more of me/anybody else)?
2) is it harm if I take on more responsibility than I thought I could handle and thereby loose somehow? Like a financial-, social or political game?
3) if people are especially inclined to be dependant on another person but the person doesn't know and thinks it is only being reasonably kind/reasonably helpful, in other words, it comes like an accident to the person that the other person has dedicated itself to ones own life, who is to blame? If any? The person dependant could be called a "leecher", but in turn the person may have their special reasons for being like that, maybe authoritative and all-encompassing parents? Etc.

The basic idea relates to a common moral precept that we are morally responsible and can owe compensation for harm or dependency caused to other moral beings with full moral value. & for the sake of the argument Boonin is prepared to say in this case we grant the foetus full moral worth.

The idea is that a tenant stores some toxic waste to make some extra money in the house he is renting, and as a result a non person infant get a disease which requires him to get a organ donation. To align it pregnancy the tenant is the only match and if he doesn’t give or is forced to give a kidney the kid dies. Since this compensation -while novel and unprecedented- is consistent in principle to being responsible and owing compensation to harmed parties, David Boonin thinks it’s not an unreasonable stance that society could punish the tenant by forcing him to give up a kidney.

As an aside he is prepared to argue this because later on he argues a foetus isn’t harmed so the argument is moot evn if he thinks it valid.

I would also say that included but not stated, is that you cannot use the excuse he didn't intend for it to happen because we don't use that in other criminal matters. Likewise that he cannot use, since there will be serious negative consequences to his health, that should excuse him from the crime for similar reasons. One wouldn't after all use the excuse i will suffer serious health consequences if I go to gaol to avoid that punishment.

One last point is that even if you think that bodily sovereignty reigns supreme and the kid has to die, one can still argue that the tenant should be punished in other ways for the harm done. Maybe manslaughter for he knew full well there was a chance that one of the other members of the home could get sick and need a kidney.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:01 pm**

Life is risk! The assigning of culpability can be extremely difficult in some cases.

Did the woman that sued McDonalds for getting scalded on their coffee, knowingly served hot, deserve any compensation.
Was MTV responsible for airing, or was the parents responsible for allowing their children to watch, Bevis and Butthead, that was blamed for their child burning down their home with a lighter (fire, fire, fire)?
How about a car owner that buys a large heavy car for safety's sake and then has a collision with a small tin can of a car?
How about a doctor that's trying to save a life and makes a mistake? The patient trusted the doctor and knew the associated risks going into the cure, what does that say?

Largely I see that everyone is only accountable to themselves, and unfortunately, in the case of a fetus, the responsible lies with the woman carrying it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:02 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Largely I see that everyone is only accountable to themselves, and unfortunately, in the case of a fetus, the responsible lies with the woman carrying it.

that is provocative of you to say. So if I kick the stomach of the woman until see gets an unnatural abortion she should be blamed from not escaping me? You are absurd.

No, it is clear the responsibility laid with the man as the woman as far as I see did not have proper knowledge to foresee the situation, whereas the other person should've. Yes, he did commit a near-murder on the kid and should be held accountable for it. There are worse things than loosing a kidney, just means he should be lighter on the alcohol in the future and mayhap loose a couple of years sitting at the old people's home, but that's a small price to pay, and he could equally be sent to labour-camp working his ass out for it and maybe loose those same couple of years and mayhap kidney, and it wouldn't be held as equally bad though it certainly is. The man can afford it, and he owes it. But those are also the conditions: he can afford it, and he owes to do it. But it's not always when you owe somebody something that you have to pay them, and that's an important thing to notice, it depends on what you can afford.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:51 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Largely I see that everyone is only accountable to themselves, and unfortunately, in the case of a fetus, the responsible lies with the woman carrying it.
that is provocative of you to say. So if I kick the stomach of the woman until see gets an unnatural abortion she should be blamed from not escaping me? You are absurd.

You misunderstood! She pulled out her gun and shot you in the head, killing you instantly! I'm a pregnant woman, kick me in the stomach, I dare you.

Sure people should pay for their crimes, but isn't that already the case. I thought that we were talking about crime that is unknowingly perpetrated. I mean, some guy that recently visited Africa could unknowingly breath Ebola down the back of your neck on a bus, in that case, is he really accountable?

The eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth or kidney for a kidney thing is kinda strange, and I think that it all depends on whether there was intent to do harm or not. In the toxic waste, money maker scenario, the entrepreneur sounds more like an idiot than he does an intentional perpetrator of a death defying crime kinda guy. They say ignorance is no excuse, but I disagree. She didn't know he was keeping hazmat, and he obviously didn't know that keeping hazmat could harm himself and others in close proximity.

No, it is clear the responsibility laid with the man as the woman as far as I see did not have proper knowledge to foresee the situation, whereas the other person should've. Yes, he did commit a near-murder on the kid and should be held accountable for it. There are worse things than loosing a kidney, just means he should be lighter on the alcohol in the future and mayhap loose a couple of years sitting at the old people's home, but that's a small price to pay, and he could equally be sent to labour-camp working his ass out for it and maybe loose those same couple of years and mayhap kidney, and it wouldn't be held as equally bad though it certainly is. The man can afford it, and he owes it. But those are also the conditions: he can afford it, and he owes to do it. But it's not always when you owe somebody something that you have to pay them, and that's an important thing to notice, it depends on what you can afford.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:59 am**

So holding the man accountable even if it means using his body against his will is a reasonable stance to take?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:54 pm**

SJM1970 wrote:So holding the man accountable even if it means using his body against his will is a reasonable stance to take?

There are numerous already existing situations where people's body is used against their will, for instance where you're sent to do work for the public because you did some crime. Also, the man did, not use but act on, the kid in a passive act. To reduce other people's value in a situation where they will be afflicted but where they make part of the "background" does not mean that's how it should be, which is where the law takes action. If it were that way then I could aim anything beside you and even if you were hit by it I could just say "I didn't aim it at you!" and go free of it.

Of course it is a reasonable stance. There is nothing special in it than the language itself. We use other people all the time, as I mentioned, the point is whether the person can afford it at a reasonable level.

Is not touching too much alcohol for the rest of your life, or any other drug, is that really a big price to pay for another human being's life? Say no and I'll have no other thing to do but call you immoral. It's a really awful kind of greed. Not giving up a kidney in general is another thing, because we can't sacrifice vital parts of ourselves every time somebody is about to die etc. But this time the person is in a deep debt to the other as he has actually been the irresponsible person leading to that person's possible death.

The question is of course also whether the knowledge of toxicity is to be expected or whether the toxicity is a scarce knowledge. If the toxins were illegal then the person is further in debt for not heeding the law made there to ensure that such cases does not make place, is the toxins legal but the knowledge of them not reasonably expectable by the frameworks of working with such materials put up by society and education, then the weight of the debt drops, and the person can be expected less of, therefore also increasing his/hers reasonableness towards being part of an "accident", something for which are unaccountable for.

Posted: **Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:54 am**

The Voice of Time wrote:
SJM1970 wrote:So holding the man accountable even if it means using his body against his will is a reasonable stance to take?
There are numerous already existing situations where people's body is used against their will, for instance where you're sent to do work for the public because you did some crime. Also, the man did, not use but act on, the kid in a passive act. To reduce other people's value in a situation where they will be afflicted but where they make part of the "background" does not mean that's how it should be, which is where the law takes action. If it were that way then I could aim anything beside you and even if you were hit by it I could just say "I didn't aim it at you!" and go free of it.

Of course it is a reasonable stance. There is nothing special in it than the language itself. We use other people all the time, as I mentioned, the point is whether the person can afford it at a reasonable level.

Is not touching too much alcohol for the rest of your life, or any other drug, is that really a big price to pay for another human being's life? Say no and I'll have no other thing to do but call you immoral. It's a really awful kind of greed. Not giving up a kidney in general is another thing, because we can't sacrifice vital parts of ourselves every time somebody is about to die etc. But this time the person is in a deep debt to the other as he has actually been the irresponsible person leading to that person's possible death.

The question is of course also whether the knowledge of toxicity is to be expected or whether the toxicity is a scarce knowledge. If the toxins were illegal then the person is further in debt for not heeding the law made there to ensure that such cases does not make place, is the toxins legal but the knowledge of them not reasonably expectable by the frameworks of working with such materials put up by society and education, then the weight of the debt drops, and the person can be expected less of, therefore also increasing his/hers reasonableness towards being part of an "accident", something for which are unaccountable for.

So how do you think this impacts on abortion? Like my Twilight Zone Button thought experiment if you cause another being with full moral value to be existentially dependent on you as far as I see, if you are consistent with other already commonly used moral precepts you owe the use of your body. Now one could argue that the foetus isn't a person so doesn't have full moral rights, but then you run into the Post Birth Abortion problem.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:31 pm**

SJM1970 wrote:
So how do you think this impacts on abortion? Like my Twilight Zone Button thought experiment if you cause another being with full moral value to be existentially dependent on you as far as I see, if you are consistent with other already commonly used moral precepts you owe the use of your body. Now one could argue that the foetus isn't a person so doesn't have full moral rights, but then you run into the Post Birth Abortion problem.

It's such a weird scenario it's hard to say. You see, there are never any "logical rules" for which one can seek refuge in when it comes to ethics, the rules just "show" how the content, as actual as possible, unfolds in relation. It got a lot to do with emotion and any persons core-values for which are that persons core-values and won't change any time soon. Is a woman responsible to feed her newborn with milk? Yes and no. Yes because she should aid since she possess the means to give 'basic' aid, a reasonable amount of aid a person should have, at another thought however if a woman wants to be free of the child and really loath it, then perhaps a substitution is in place. Should a woman keep a child in her tummy because the child is dependant on her to live? If the woman has habits, like taking legal drugs or other substances but which are heavily damaging to the foetus, or she has priorly taken them and damaged her capabilities, and she loath the thought of bringing a person into life with dysfunction, then no, she does not. Is the woman healthy and she does not want to but she will do it properly if the law says no or some personal authority says no, then there are more prospects for it all ending well than she utterly being alienated from the burden she carries, she has the prospect to love the kid instead of loath it, the prospect of carrying instead of ignoring, the prospect of giving it health and strength instead of wasting it. Think of the prospects instead of the logical barriers: can something end well? Is it reasonable to believe it will end well? Go for it! But don't create a disastrous situation for no reason.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:05 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:...Is not touching too much alcohol for the rest of your life, or any other drug, is that really a big price to pay for another human being's life? Say no and I'll have no other thing to do but call you immoral. It's a really awful kind of greed...

This is total BS. As if doing any particular drug, in and of itself, is necessarily going to do harm to another, or that there are no other 'vehicles' that are a part of the current human civilization construct, that can't equally be seen as potential risks in the hands of 'some' individuals or groups. It's not the vehicle itself that effects another, it's the specific individual/group that wields it's potential that is responsible.

Automobiles can do it!
Power plants can do it!
Prescription drugs can do it!
Satellites can do it!
Aircraft can do it!
Virus and bacteria carrying can do it!
Damns can do it!
Pesticides and herbicides can do it!
Petrochemicals can do it!
Second hand smoke can do it!
The industrial revolution has done it!
Nuclear weapons surely have and can do it!

and the list goes on and on and on, of those things that can potentially harm one in the hands of another.

And we can argue what is and is not acceptable all day long, but what one decides is acceptable in the end, is that which they have a vested interest in, for their own selfish gain. PERIOD!!!!

Life is inherently dangerous in and of itself for us feeble fleshies! Stop telling people what they can't do that may, possibly get away from them, while you yourself sanctify those things that can get away from you and cause harm to others.

In the end I shall be there dying, while you look onward, or you may take no notice at all, and so I'll be damned if you'll tell me what I can do with my own body, as if you could possibly know the answer of why we are here, and the truths and secrets of the universe, and therefore speak for it! This life is for each of us to decide independently, and absolutely, the only thing we truly owe one another, is to LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE, so as to pursue our own meaning of our finite life!

And to you people that fear death to such a degree, that you try and cheat it at all costs, even at the expense of another, I say: "You fools, you'll not get out of here alive, no matter what you do! So suck it up, and be accountable for your own life, cowards!"

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:48 am**

The Voice of Time wrote:
SJM1970 wrote:
So how do you think this impacts on abortion? Like my Twilight Zone Button thought experiment if you cause another being with full moral value to be existentially dependent on you as far as I see, if you are consistent with other already commonly used moral precepts you owe the use of your body. Now one could argue that the foetus isn't a person so doesn't have full moral rights, but then you run into the Post Birth Abortion problem.
It's such a weird scenario it's hard to say. You see, there are never any "logical rules" for which one can seek refuge in when it comes to ethics, the rules just "show" how the content, as actual as possible, unfolds in relation. It got a lot to do with emotion and any persons core-values for which are that persons core-values and won't change any time soon. Is a woman responsible to feed her newborn with milk? Yes and no. Yes because she should aid since she possess the means to give 'basic' aid, a reasonable amount of aid a person should have, at another thought however if a woman wants to be free of the child and really loath it, then perhaps a substitution is in place. Should a woman keep a child in her tummy because the child is dependant on her to live? If the woman has habits, like taking legal drugs or other substances but which are heavily damaging to the foetus, or she has priorly taken them and damaged her capabilities, and she loath the thought of bringing a person into life with dysfunction, then no, she does not. Is the woman healthy and she does not want to but she will do it properly if the law says no or some personal authority says no, then there are more prospects for it all ending well than she utterly being alienated from the burden she carries, she has the prospect to love the kid instead of loath it, the prospect of carrying instead of ignoring, the prospect of giving it health and strength instead of wasting it. Think of the prospects instead of the logical barriers: can something end well? Is it reasonable to believe it will end well? Go for it! But don't create a disastrous situation for no reason.

"You see, there are never any "logical rules" for which one can seek refuge in when it comes to ethics, the rules just "show" how the content, as actual as possible, unfolds in relation."

Its not for no reason, its consistently following the rules you have already agreed to. It isn't a moral system if you can just pick and choose arbitrarily when and where you apply those rules.

Another interprtation of what you are saying is you can follow the logic only if it ends well, otherwise you can ignore it. Which is saying you can ignore negative results of a conclusion from moral premises you support. Rather than taking the stance well to be consistent and non arbitrary I need to change the premises so I don't also get negative consequences from the conclusion. (Nor BTW would i think you would automatically say things just ending well for a murderer means he gets away with infanticide)

The toxic waste analogy isn't in a moral vacuum but in the context of abortion justified mainly on bodily autonomy and lack of personhood. You might be a supporter of either bodily autonomy and lack of personhood and it suits you to see things ending well there but then say well it doesn't suit you in infanticide so we can ignore the rules you are using.

For instance one could look at the Post Birth Abortion paper and take exactly your stance to justify infanticide just because things end well for the parents.

Lastly maybe we can equate your ends well stance with some utilitarian account. That is perfectly consistent when combined with a personhood interests framing, that not only do we can we have infanticide but also that we use these unwanted humans as body banks if they are killed humanily.

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:32 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote:...Is not touching too much alcohol for the rest of your life, or any other drug, is that really a big price to pay for another human being's life? Say no and I'll have no other thing to do but call you immoral. It's a really awful kind of greed...
This is total BS.

I was talking about the lack of an additional liver, not about drug abuse. Two livers increases the chances you endure drug abuse and alchohol abuse, one liver decreases it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:42 pm**

SJM1970 wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote:
SJM1970 wrote:
So how do you think this impacts on abortion? Like my Twilight Zone Button thought experiment if you cause another being with full moral value to be existentially dependent on you as far as I see, if you are consistent with other already commonly used moral precepts you owe the use of your body. Now one could argue that the foetus isn't a person so doesn't have full moral rights, but then you run into the Post Birth Abortion problem.
It's such a weird scenario it's hard to say. You see, there are never any "logical rules" for which one can seek refuge in when it comes to ethics, the rules just "show" how the content, as actual as possible, unfolds in relation. It got a lot to do with emotion and any persons core-values for which are that persons core-values and won't change any time soon. Is a woman responsible to feed her newborn with milk? Yes and no. Yes because she should aid since she possess the means to give 'basic' aid, a reasonable amount of aid a person should have, at another thought however if a woman wants to be free of the child and really loath it, then perhaps a substitution is in place. Should a woman keep a child in her tummy because the child is dependant on her to live? If the woman has habits, like taking legal drugs or other substances but which are heavily damaging to the foetus, or she has priorly taken them and damaged her capabilities, and she loath the thought of bringing a person into life with dysfunction, then no, she does not. Is the woman healthy and she does not want to but she will do it properly if the law says no or some personal authority says no, then there are more prospects for it all ending well than she utterly being alienated from the burden she carries, she has the prospect to love the kid instead of loath it, the prospect of carrying instead of ignoring, the prospect of giving it health and strength instead of wasting it. Think of the prospects instead of the logical barriers: can something end well? Is it reasonable to believe it will end well? Go for it! But don't create a disastrous situation for no reason.
For instance one could look at the Post Birth Abortion paper and take exactly your stance to justify infanticide just because things end well for the parents.

Lastly maybe we can equate your ends well stance with some utilitarian account. That is perfectly consistent when combined with a personhood interests framing, that not only do we can we have infanticide but also that we use these unwanted humans as body banks if they are killed humanily.

No. Because "ending well" is here analyzable. My biggest argument is that it depraves people of morality, of their abilities to see value in other humans, when you perform abortions that aren't strictly necessary. I think a baby is both a person and a human, but they live in relation to our world and their entrance can be denied if it creates a disasterous situation for us. You can't argue if it ends well, only if it does not. It's based on the falsifiability principle, then in turn on the reasonableness idea, the last of which dominates our society and possibly will in the future whether we like it or not: humans will reason in accordance with their humanness, in accordance with their values, and those values that are the most dear to us we take care of, like the worth of a human being.

Stupid people will always abuse arbritarity, because of their lacking abbility to see clear that which is not simple. So take care that no stupid person gets in charge and we should be all-right.

Posted: **Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:51 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
The Voice of Time wrote:...Is not touching too much alcohol for the rest of your life, or any other drug, is that really a big price to pay for another human being's life? Say no and I'll have no other thing to do but call you immoral. It's a really awful kind of greed...
This is total BS.
I was talking about the lack of an additional liver, not about drug abuse. Two livers increases the chances you endure drug abuse and alchohol abuse, one liver decreases it.

Thank you for taking the time in correcting me! As up until then, I had respected you for your intellect and wisdom. And considered you an ally in fighting the good fight.

Carry on my friend!

Philosophy Now Forum

David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion

Re: David Boonin's Toxic Waste argument & Abortion