3 ms·
> from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth. Except there is. You want the same protections applied to you,
by LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth.
Except there is. You want the same protections applied to you, even if you're unconscious or otherwise unable to protest. Pretty much the only broadly supportable position is that killing a viable person is murder and no more or less supportable than them killing you.
- rayiner 4y agoHow does that factor into the utilitarian calculus? Who cares about you? If a stroke reduces you to the same level of mental functioning as a newborn, why shouldn’t society be able to eliminate you as a burden on them?
- skissane 4y agoThe Australian philosopher Peter Singer is a preference utilitarian, and has argued that infanticide should be legal, on preference utilitarian grounds. He argues we have to treat the preferences of all beings equally, but newborns have no concept of what it means to continue to live, so can’t possibly have a preference/wish/desire to go on living. Hence, the only moral obstacle to killing them is the wishes of their parents, therefore (painless) infanticide should be legal with parental consent. Personally I find his view to be utterly morally abhorrent, but I have to credit him with the courage and consistency of taking utilitarianism to its logical conclusion.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago> Who cares about you? Me. That's why I want to find a simple set of rules that we can both agree to, where you care about me in trade for similar concern and protection. > If a stroke reduces you to the same level of mental functioning as a newborn Right, I don't consider that viable without some sort of prognosis of recovery but if we go too far down the line of 'burden to society' it starts to include people who drive too slowly in the passing lane and gets more subjective.