An interesting point of view, arguing against the legitimacy off infanticide, even without appeal to a higher moral instance (God, etc).
Point taken (on ethics being more about feelings than about rationality, even if it can lead easily to ethical relativism). Yet, I can’t help but think that, rationally, the Melbourne philosophers mentioned in the text seem to make a logical conclusion when they say:
‘it wasn’t any MORE wrong to kill newborn babies than to kill foetuses in the womb, and that sometimes, it might actually be the right thing to do. Logically, they argued, what’s the difference?’
And apologies in advance for the controversial subject…
Two Melbourne philosophy professors recently caused an uproar when they said that it wasn’t any MORE wrong to kill newborn babies than to kill foetuses in the womb, and that sometimes, it might actually be the right thing to do. Logically, they argued, what’s the difference?
Ok I know some people think it’s wrong to kill babies OR foetuses (and some of these people think it’s alright to kill adults if they break the wrong law, live in the wrong country or perform the wrong medical procedures).
I’m not weighing in on this. Really. It’s a minefield. See below.
But professional ethicists usually miss the point. Ethics isn’t about rationality. Ethics is about how we feel. We have evolved to feel bad about things that don’t help us survive, and good about things that do. We don’t like killing babies, because as…
View original post 279 more words