Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

SJM1970 wrote:
Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

chaz wyman wrote:
The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

artisticsolution wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:
Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

Yes, but the moral value could be considered when looking at how much harm can come to the people who's lives would be affect by the babies death vs. an adults death.

Most people share the thought that a baby's death is "worse" somehow, as it has never had a chance to live. However, even though tragic, I think more people would be "affected" personally... i.e.would "miss" or be deeply sorrowful if an adult they knew died vs. a baby... as an adult would be more involved in lives and there would be a sense of an absence...at least a little more than the thought, "what if" as such in a baby's case.

SJM1970 wrote: First most abortions aren't because the mothers life is at risk. But say it was and you looked at Boonin's toxic waste argument and there was a risk the tenant would die. Would the fact that the tenant would be missed more and the infant not at all or very much less, mean that we should allow the infant to just die based on a popularity content?

artisticsolution wrote:

SJM1970 wrote: First most abortions aren't because the mothers life is at risk. But say it was and you looked at Boonin's toxic waste argument and there was a risk the tenant would die. Would the fact that the tenant would be missed more and the infant not at all or very much less, mean that we should allow the infant to just die based on a popularity content?

Are you talking about an infant or a fetus? You keep switching around so I am not sure.

As for the popularity contest...I think it is the infant that would win and the fetus that would lose against the tentant. Not that I think that killing anyone is moral.

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Abortion is not related to this episode of the TZ.
Push a button and a person will not be born is not the same as a person who do not know will die.

The series is a reflection on things we do everyday such as support out troops in foreign countries; capital punishment; rationing of resources; greed.

Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

We are not talking about viability but actuality.

The case for or against abortion lies with the acquiescence of the the 'mother' to offer her body as a vessel for the person to become actualised.
Limits to temporal legal limits to abortion are otherwise based on whether or not the foetus might live outside the mother. Thus the button is not an abortion issue.
But more than that the foetus is always know the the mother and can never be a stranger (although she might feel it so). It is in any event up-close and personal.

The button is more like voting for the return of capital punishment.

SJM1970 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SJM1970 wrote:
Yes its not about abortion but i can play with to make it so. Also notice the guy at 9.30 asks what if a baby were to die if they push the button. It isn't a person after all. So why not? Many say abortion is ok because the foetus isn't a person, exactly the point the Post Birth Abortion paper makes. & as I argued viability doesn't give moral value by itself.

We are not talking about viability but actuality.

The case for or against abortion lies with the acquiescence of the the 'mother' to offer her body as a vessel for the person to become actualised.
Limits to temporal legal limits to abortion are otherwise based on whether or not the foetus might live outside the mother. Thus the button is not an abortion issue.
But more than that the foetus is always know the the mother and can never be a stranger (although she might feel it so). It is in any event up-close and personal.

The button is more like voting for the return of capital punishment.

"We are not talking about viability but actuality." No, as far as I see both are actual and regardless viability doesn't enter into the equation as morally relevant anyway. Moral value is supposed to be based on morally relevant capacities and living unattached isn't one of them.

Of course it is, if you want to maintain ant relevance to the button.

I don't think acquiescence comes into it as strongly as you think, society does force situations on individuals that severely impact on what you can do with your body and while we don't have a direct precedent; as pointed out in the Toxic waste analogy the underlying principle of compensation is still there. It’s just people aren’t used to dealing with or thinking about it in this way.

None of which objection relates to the button issue - which is supposed to be the point.

Next any moral systems wants consistent and relevant moral precepts and frankly viability and RvW are seen by many, -even including Pro-Choice philosophers- and legal experts as flawed.

So what?


Viability is bandaid philosophy.
Gibberish
So with due respect I'm still waiting for you to explain why something like a dog hasn't got full moral value and a baby does, neither are persons and both are capable of unattached existence.

Abortion is not related to babies, as babies are persons. Foetuses are not persons, as they are not separate from the mother and have not reached personhood.
But even babies cannot survive alone, so the relationship to the button is far from clear even here.


The beauty of the Button thought experiment is that it highlights the central themes and flaws in people’s stances in the abortion debate,

Not in the slightest. It bears no relevance and I am still waiting for you to say how you think it does.
The button sets a question: would you take financial advantage from the death of another. If you do so then who is to say that the next person will not end your life in the same way.
Fuck all to do with the abortion debate.



but crucially IMO highlights the question can you put another being with full moral value in your body and then expect to kill it just because you claim bodily autonomy?

That relates to no moral situation extant and nothing to do with the button.
Pregnancy does not 'put a being with any moral value in your body.' does sperm have moral value? Does a miscarried egg have moral value - no and no. It is a legal matter to assess at what point the process attracts the status of a moral question, and that is parallel with the notion of personhood - NONE OF WHICH is hinted at in button, let alone an analogy for it.


Do you think we can?

If you then say a foetus doesn't have full moral value then you have to explain why Post Birth Abortions aren't an option. Viability just doesn't do it.

Are you on drugs? "Post Birth Abortions" is a contradiction in terms.

The point of strangers is more to do with highlighting lack of social ties personally and societally. Can you kill someone just because no one cares about this individual? No. It also questions those accounts that think a mother assigns moral value to her offspring; if she can assign she can also withhold. Nor are family ties relevant by itself.

All of which goes to show how irrelevant button is to abortion.

I don't think capital punishment comes into it, rather the Button asks the question can a offender/kidnapper avoid negative consequences of their actions by killing the victim?

The reason this might be apposite is that none of us have to face pressing the button, but we are none the less asked to choose if a stranger dies because we think that we and the rest of society will be advantaged by the death. The question being a person not personally known. When crime and punishment is nearer to home attitudes change as they are more personal.

But a better analogy is the so-called War-on-Terror which has claimed innocent victims that are not known to us, in the name of our own benefit and security. The analogy with button would be; are you willing to die randomly for the sake of another's benefit - which was the implication of the last scene of the programme.

Lastly could you let me know how you answered my short version of Button Button?

see following

SJM1970 wrote:A abortion thought experiment based on the The Twilight Zone episode: Button, Button

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-N4fs2yolE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcbP-625 ... ure=relmfu



Orginal episode saw you push a button get $200000 and someone would die; I'd like to run through some variations on the above to see where our intuitions would take us. I've been thinking of a longer version but will try to cut it down to size & this is more about consistency than who is right or wrong. It is also a work in progress.

Plus if you cannot get into the spirit of a Twilight Zone thought experiment pls don't nit pick.

Draft 1

1. Say you push the button once a day and get $1000 but a person would die. Is that morally permissible? Y/N
2. You push the button you get the money with a random chance 1-100% chance some person will die? Y/N
3. Is even 1% fixed ever ok? Y/N

I think maybe most will say no even at 1%. If not at 1% it would seem even worse if say we fix at 15% which for the sake of argument will be picked as the chance a woman could get pregnant each time she has sex.

So 2. is now set at 15%


4. 2.+ What if it only occurred to a specific race, sex, sexual preference, nationality, IQ, income etc Y/N

5. 2.+ What if the person had no social ties/family? Y/N

6. 2.+ The person was created out of nothing with no memories or social ties or current desires to exist and would then live or die depending on the 15% chance? Y/N

7. 2.+ Instead of a human person, a non person human picked randomly from non viable foetus, baby, infant, adult with severe a Alzheimers would have a chance to die? Y/N

7a. 2+ The non human person picked randomly was from either 4. 5. or 6. ? Y/N

8. 2.+ Was restricted to a wanted non viable foetus & put in an artificial womb but you have to switch off the machine to get the money? Y/N

8a. 2.+ The foetus in the artificial womb was picked randomly from either 4. 5. or 6 with no social ties, but you have to switch off the machine to get the money? Y/N


Now instead of the 15% chance of dieing rather there is a 15% chance a random individual will be tranformed into a foetus(and upon birth revert to orginal form)- if not already - and end up in a artifcial womb inside the male button pusher or into a real womb if a woman. Birth by Caesarean if male. Males can have keyhole abortions.

The main factor we'd be interested in is whether one would push the button and then have an abortion or switch off the machine to get the money. Y/N

9. 2.+ A human person or non person, either created or established individual, will now -depending on the 15%- appear in a non attached artificial womb. Y/N

9a. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was randomly picked from either 4. 5. or 6. or 7? Y/N

9b. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established wanted non viable foetus ? Y/N

9c. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established unwanted non viable foetus ? Y/N


10. 2.+ A human non person, either created or established individual, will now -depending on the 15%- either appear in a real or artificial womb in the button pusher.


10a. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was randomly picked from either 4. 5. or 6. ? Y/N

10b. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established wanted non viable foetus ? Y/N

10c. 2.+ the indiviudal selected was restricted to a created or established unwanted non viable foetus ? Y/N



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCQDVkMY_o Theme Music

SJM1970 wrote: Can you kill someone just because no one cares about this individual? No.