5 ms·

"…[L]et me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violini

by Wistar 4y ago

"…[L]et me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, 'Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.' Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. 'Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.' I imagine you would regard this as outrageous…" Judith Jarvis Thomas: "A Defense of Abortion," 1971. https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.h...

ars 4y ago
What kind of a question is that? Obviously you have to agree to it! What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced? You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them. Is this seriously an abortion argument, or are you just trolling? Are you seriously telling me people are OK with killing someone just because it's not convenient? I always thought that the abortion argument was because they did not consider their unborn child a person. If you do consider that child a person then obviously you can't kill it.
- dsego 4y ago
  > What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced? Bodily autonomy and integrity is not merely an inconvenience. It's a major principle in human rights. Otherwise you could demand I give you my healthy kidney to save your life, and if I don't I'd be "killing you". > You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them. You're not killing the violinist, you merely withdraw life support you're not obligated to give it in any way, they die on their own.
  - ars 4y ago
    To use your example, you can't demand I give you a kidney, but once you have it (and assuming you immediately die without it), I can't take it back. Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder. Like I said: I'm not required to save you, but I also can't kill you.
    - dsego 4y ago
      > Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder. But it's not murder if I wake up in the middle of the procedure, walk away, and you die on the operating table.
      - ars 4y ago
        Changing the scenario midway does not help anyone. Unless you are implying you agree with me, and wish to discuss a new scenario. To me the lines are clear: You don't have to take action to save his life, but you also can not kill him by your actions. i.e. if everyone froze at this moment and did nothing - would he live, or die?
        dsego 4y ago
        I wasn't changing the scenario.
dane-pgp 4y ago
The moral question in this case isn't "Should you be able to unplug the violinist?" but "Should the violinist unplug themselves?". As an adult who is profiting from a crime committed against you, they are morally obligated to return you to your original state that existed before the crime was committed (even though it would return them to their original state, which was illness and near-term death). For a child in the womb, though, they do not have a pre-existing state (under the philosophical premise that conception is the starting point of a unique human), and most conceptions are not the result of crimes (although I can understand someone drawing a bright moral line between different pregnancies based on that factor).
- causi 4y ago
  It also only applies to a fetus created as the result of rape. A fetus created by consensual sex is like if you walked into the hospital, sat down in the room, and plugged the needle into your arm yourself.
  - slavak 4y ago
    That is patently absurd. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, especially if contraceptives were used and failed. At the risk of stretching the metaphor to its breaking point, this is you choosing to go out and get drunk while aware that members of an unethical music lovers' organization are skulking about looking for victims to graft sick violinists onto. Sure, they no longer need to actively drug you because you willingly did that yourself, but that doesn't imply your consent to what happens next.
    - causi 4y ago
      Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy It's as much consent to pregnancy as dropping a cinderblock on your foot is consent to a broken toe or eating ten cheeseburgers a day is consent to getting fat.
      - slavak 4y ago

by Wistar 4y ago

ars 4y ago

What kind of a question is that? Obviously you have to agree to it! What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced? You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them. Is this seriously an abortion argument, or are you just trolling? Are you seriously telling me people are OK with killing someone just because it's not convenient? I always thought that the abortion argument was because they did not consider their unborn child a person. If you do consider that child a person then obviously you can't kill it.

dsego 4y ago
> What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced? Bodily autonomy and integrity is not merely an inconvenience. It's a major principle in human rights. Otherwise you could demand I give you my healthy kidney to save your life, and if I don't I'd be "killing you". > You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them. You're not killing the violinist, you merely withdraw life support you're not obligated to give it in any way, they die on their own.
- ars 4y ago
  To use your example, you can't demand I give you a kidney, but once you have it (and assuming you immediately die without it), I can't take it back. Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder. Like I said: I'm not required to save you, but I also can't kill you.
  - dsego 4y ago
    > Body autonomy is great and all, but it doesn't excuse murder. But it's not murder if I wake up in the middle of the procedure, walk away, and you die on the operating table.
    - ars 4y ago
      Changing the scenario midway does not help anyone. Unless you are implying you agree with me, and wish to discuss a new scenario. To me the lines are clear: You don't have to take action to save his life, but you also can not kill him by your actions. i.e. if everyone froze at this moment and did nothing - would he live, or die?
      - dsego 4y ago
        I wasn't changing the scenario.

dane-pgp 4y ago

The moral question in this case isn't "Should you be able to unplug the violinist?" but "Should the violinist unplug themselves?". As an adult who is profiting from a crime committed against you, they are morally obligated to return you to your original state that existed before the crime was committed (even though it would return them to their original state, which was illness and near-term death). For a child in the womb, though, they do not have a pre-existing state (under the philosophical premise that conception is the starting point of a unique human), and most conceptions are not the result of crimes (although I can understand someone drawing a bright moral line between different pregnancies based on that factor).

causi 4y ago
It also only applies to a fetus created as the result of rape. A fetus created by consensual sex is like if you walked into the hospital, sat down in the room, and plugged the needle into your arm yourself.
- slavak 4y ago
  That is patently absurd. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy, especially if contraceptives were used and failed. At the risk of stretching the metaphor to its breaking point, this is you choosing to go out and get drunk while aware that members of an unethical music lovers' organization are skulking about looking for victims to graft sick violinists onto. Sure, they no longer need to actively drug you because you willingly did that yourself, but that doesn't imply your consent to what happens next.
  - causi 4y ago
    Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy It's as much consent to pregnancy as dropping a cinderblock on your foot is consent to a broken toe or eating ten cheeseburgers a day is consent to getting fat.
    - slavak 4y ago