ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken

I am very much opposed to ChatGPT and AI use in educational contexts, but I do wonder if it could help with people who tend to think that expert opinions are a result of some kind of conspiracy or indoctrination or whatever, not a result of actually understanding the issues and arguments. Perhaps people who won't listen to experts will listen to ChatGPT?

ChatGPT explains why common anti-abortion arguments and soundbites are mistaken

Anti-abortion advocates often are willfully resistant to learning about abortion and ethics: they often reject distinctions that are widely known among people who have studied the issues, and enthusiastically accept demonstrably bad arguments. 

Yet, when this is pointed out and explained, they don't accept this and revise their views, believe it or not!

With that in mind, I asked ChatGPT some questions on matters where these types of errors are common. ChatGPT agrees that common responses from anti-abortion advocates are mistaken! 

How might anti-abortion advocates respond to ChatGPT? Will they see it as being duped by a liberal (or is it conservative?) conspiracy in giving these types of responses? Or will they recognize that ChatGPT has a more "fair and balanced" understanding than they do, and rethink their views? 

We might see! Click below for questions and ChatGPT's responses:

1. ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a "human being," or else they are irrational?
2. Chat GPT: Must everyone agree that a human embryo is a person, or else they are irrational?
3. ChatGPT: Must everyone agree that an embryo or beginning fetus is a "baby" or a "child" or else they are irrational?
4. ChatGPT: Mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after conception. So human mammal's bodies start at conception or soon after. Does that suggest that abortion is wrong?
5. ChatGPT: If someone consents to having sex, knowing that pregnancy is a possible outcome, does that mean that they consent to that pregnancy?
6. Chat GPT: Is an embryo comparable to a sleeping person, in that since it's wrong to kill a sleeping person, is it also wrong to kill an embryo?

What are other questions that should be asked of ChatGPT?

Note: if someone responds, "Whatabout pro-choice people's misunderstandings???" yes, that indeed is a problem too, but this response is likely an attempt to deflect from the more pressing issue, which is misinformed people promoting unjust laws prohibiting and criminalizing early abortions: laws that criminalize morally permissible behaviors are unjust. 

A ranking of intellectual virtues and vices

 A ranking of intellectual virtues and vices: first the "raw data" and then ChatGPT's analysis of it.

Prompt:

For a teaching-related project, I wonder if people would be willing to state what they think the most important intellectual (or epistemic) virtues are, and the most important intellectual (or epistemic) vices are.

3 to 5 ideas of each might be ideal, in the comments.

If you could try to do this without first looking at others' responses, that would be great.

I am trying to get some kind of ranking of importance.

I will share the rankings afterwards.

See below the fold.

Everyday Ethical Arguments: Beginning Discussions on Moral Issues

A call for materials for Everyday Ethical Arguments: Beginning Discussions on Moral Issues

https://ethicalarguments.blogspot.com

Students' opinions on debated ethical issues are often supported by reasons which professional philosophers find not just simple, but simplistic. For abortion, some students will feel that the issue is completely settled by the claim that people have a right to control their bodies. For animal ethics, some will assert confidently that it's OK to eat animals because doing so is "natural." For gun policy, students will try to resolve the debate by saying that we all have a right to defend ourselves against harm. 

Let's call these types of arguments "everyday arguments"—the arguments that people give before they study the issues. Everyday arguments tend to beg the question or depend on unstated premises that, once revealed, can easily seen to be false or implausible. Even when everyday arguments contain the seed of a good argument, they often need to be refined and supplemented.

Everyday arguments pose a serious pedagogical problem: the canonical works in philosophy rarely address them, precisely because they are so often flawed. This makes it difficult for students to meaningfully engage with, for example, Judith Thomson on abortion, Tom Regan on animal rights, or Jeff McMahon on gun control. To students who see these issues as simple and settled by the reasons they have already brought to the discussion, these texts will seem, at best, unnecessarily complicated and, at worst, to miss the point. 

The tendency of professional philosophy to ignore everyday arguments also conveys that philosophy doesn't care about their reasons or experiences. It alienates people from philosophy at a time where we need more than ever to show the relevance of our discipline. 

Philosophy teachers should address everyday arguments so that students are in a better position to appreciate and engage in more advanced discussions of the issues, meeting the students where they are. To do this, though, we need materials. So . . .

See below the fold.

Are Embryos “Babies” and “Children”?

Are Embryos “Babies” and “Children”? 

On the Bioethics Today blog.

Anti-abortion advocates frequently insist that abortion is “killing babies” and “murdering children.” “Heartbeat” bills, or abortion bans, often use this language. Alabama’s Supreme Court even ruled that frozen embryos are children.

While philosophers have much discussed how “persons” and “human beings” are best defined, there is little comparable discussion about defining “babies” and “children.”

Here I argue that embryos and beginning fetuses are not “babies” or “children”: at least, nobody must agree that they are.

See below the fold.

When does human life begin? Well, when does human life end? On euthanasia and abortion.

For the Society of Christian Bioethics conference. Unfortunately, I cannot make the event, so I made a video. 

When does human life begin? Well, when does human life end? On euthanasia and abortion.

See below the fold.

Tim Stretton with "Free Thinking Ministries"

One thing led to another and I recently created two pieces of "content" concerning a Tim Stretton, who is an "apologist" with "Free Thinking Ministries." 

One was on a page of arguments against abortion that he referred me to; another was a video claiming that atheists can't explain why terrorism (!) is wrong and other claims.

The arguments against abortion were very poor and the claims in the video were baseless. 

This is all bad because this person -- like many "apologists" -- presents as an authority on these matters, yet doesn't know what he's talking about. Uninformed people are often duped by all this, and that all contributes to a culture of smug, self-righteous ignorance. That's all bad, for many reasons, and that's an understatement!

(I "tagged" Stretton on this initial content or shared it with him: being a "drive-by critic" -- observing, or at least claiming, that people have bad arguments, but not notifying them of that, is irresponsible. I didn't get any response from him though.) 

Video here and abortion arguments comments below the fold, and at the link.

@nathan.nobis Replying to @nathan.nobis #apologetics #philosophy #ignorance #manipulation #ethics ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

Confirmation bias, in-group bias, tribalism, & groupthink.

What's it called when people form their views on controversial issues, but only consider perspectives from their own in-group or "tribe" and so they don't get an accurate picture of alternative, rival views, including the views of experts who disagree with them? What are the themes of this type of problem?

ChatGPT said:

The phenomenon you're describing is often referred to as confirmation bias or in-group bias. This occurs when individuals only seek out or give weight to information that aligns with their existing beliefs, often disregarding or dismissing opposing viewpoints. When this happens within a group, it can also be called tribalism or groupthink.

Themes of This Problem:

1. Echo Chambers: Environments where people only hear opinions that reinforce their own, leading to a distorted understanding of issues.

2. Polarization: Increased division between groups, where individuals become more extreme in their views due to a lack of exposure to diverse perspectives.

3. Misinformation: The spread of false or misleading information, often amplified by in-group dynamics, as members may prioritize loyalty to the group over factual accuracy.

4. Intellectual Isolation: A refusal to engage with opposing ideas can lead to stagnation in critical thinking and a lack of nuanced understanding.

5. Trust in Authority: Preference for information from familiar sources or leaders within one's group, sometimes at the expense of expert opinions.

6. Emotional Reasoning: Decisions and beliefs influenced more by emotions and identity than by factual evidence, which can reinforce in-group cohesion but hinder constructive dialogue.

Addressing these themes often requires fostering open-mindedness, encouraging critical thinking, and promoting respectful dialogue across different viewpoints.

Teaching Philosophy in Prison

 August 27, 2024

So my summer Introduction to Philosophy class at a Georgia state prison, sponsored by Common Good Atlanta and Morehouse College’s Higher Education in Prisons Program, came to a close last night. I wrote a personal post about it at the beginning [below] but wanted to do a concluding post.

Simply put, it was an amazing experience for me. For years I have been hearing about how rewarding teaching in prison is and now I can testify that this is true!

As students, these 35 or so guys were just fantastic: they were interested, motivated, thoughtful, engaging, had great questions, and had great answers and observations to share. They sometimes shared relevant "personal" perspectives and experiences and were understood and supported by their fellow students. They were grateful and happy to be in this class, and they were grateful that I was there.

In short, they were IDEAL students, and I found that so inspiring and encouraging. They don't have phones to be distracted by; they don't have ChatGPT, so they are really *present* in ways that many students, many people, aren't anymore. Being in this type of "old school" pre-smartphone community was, ironically, very liberating.

I also greatly appreciated getting to know some people who have had lives that are, in some important ways, quite different from mine (and probably yours). But I was most struck by how similar we all are: these men (this is a minimum to medium-security prison) I think are pretty much just like everyone else BUT they were unlucky &/or they went a little too far in some ways, but in ways that are common for most people: like maybe their temper got the best of them and they did something that many people *almost* do, but don't.

So I am sure it's common for people to think that people in prison are just "totally different" from us, and my experience was that, no, in the ways that matter, *we are the same*. I found them all to be incredibly kind, thoughtful, and caring people, and I will really miss seeing them.

Finally, I will mention that some of the men actually expressed gratitude for being in prison: some basically said that being there had made them, and was making them, better people: they were learning positive lessons that they don't think they would have learned anywhere else: some even said that going to prison made their life more meaningful. They looked forward to having a better life when they got out.

And while they are in prison, many of them seem to have genuine joy in their life: they seem really happy in their circumstances. I feel like I usually can't really handle that much in life, and seeing how these men conduct themselves, with such positive attitudes and such hope, in these circumstances was a real inspiration.

So I hope to do this again soon. And thanks to the coordinator of this program, for her guidance and companionship and support with this.

I wanted to give them something to remember the class by, so I made them mini-posters, which they liked.

 

 

June 3, 2024:

So I want to share a quick report that I had my first class in prison tonight, and it was an excellent experience.

There were 40 students, instead of the expected 25, and it was said that this is the most popular class they've ever had! (They clapped about that!).

The guys were really focused and had all sorts of great answers and responses to my various questions and prompts, and they had lots of great questions too. They were thoughtful, serious, enthusiastic, and fun discussion partners. They were fully present in body and mind and were grateful to be there: many of them directly told me that.

Before class I went around and met everyone individually, shaking their hands and telling them I was glad to be there, and glad they were there.

It was a wonderful experience—really what a learning environment should be like—and I look forward to next week's meeting!

 

The 50/50 Solution: The Surprisingly Simple Choice that Makes Moms, Dads, and Kids Happier and Healthier after a Split

The other day I wrote up a Amazon review of a newish book "The 50/50 Solution: The Surprisingly Simple Choice that Makes Moms, Dads, and Kids Happier and Healthier after a Split" by Emma Johnson. Reposting here in case this would be useful for anyone.

50/50 custody, rights, and responsibilities is usually most fair and best for all In cases of divorce or a split-up with kid(s) involved, what's the most fair outcome, for the kids and both parents, in terms of who the kid spends time with and who is both responsible for the child and has the right (and privilege) to be an influence on the child's development? The answer is clearly 50-50: the child should spend roughly half their time with one parent, half their time with the other parent, and both parents should be equally responsible for the child's upbringing, including financially. This is what's fair, this is what's equal: the child loses out the least on both parents—or gets to experience the most amount of good time with one parent, consistent with the other parent having the same—and each parent is equally responsible for the child. Also, with equal child-free time they might especially focus on their career(s), their relationships, hobbies or whatever: no parent is uniquely burdened with childcare responsibilities so that they cannot pursue other parts of their lives. This is the ideal that Emma Johnson successfully argues for in this book: it is FAR superior, for children, and parents, that the typical and traditional "mom has the kids almost all the time and dad 'visits' with them every other weekend and maybe one night a week." This too often results in dad being just a financial provider (and often drifting away, if he gets the sense that he's no longer valued for anything beyond $) and the mom (still) financially dependent on him and unable to cultivate her own financial independence, because she's with the kids all the time. Johnson reviews lots of psychological research showing that 50-50 custody options tend to work best for kids' development. "Oh, but that would be so hard on them, going back and forth between houses!!" some say. "Oh yeah? But how hard would it be on them to pretty much lose a parent? And how hard would it be on that parent, if they get the sense that they're no longer part of their kids' lives?" Again, fair and equal is best. This topic often degenerates into "girls versus boys / men versus women" stereotypes that Johnson admirably and wisely rejects and urges us to overcome. She sees both sides of the issues and sympathetically understands why and how men and women, or mothers and fathers, often respond to these issues in the not ideal—indeed, often just plain selfish—ways they do, and urges everyone to do better and be fair—both for the kids and for themselves. She encourages women to become financially independent (she's the author of a webpage "Wealthy Single Mommy"—the name says what that's about) and she encourages fathers to become more active, engaged parents (although she does recognize that *sometimes* mothers act in ways that make that hard for fathers: again, she's fair and honest—she's *that* type of feminist, and expresses disappointments with "feminists" who don't seem to be as concerned about real fairness and equality as they should be!). This topic often also degenerates into many "What about?" responses: whatabout parents with drug problems? Whatabout parents who have been violent? Whatabout parents who haven't been involved in their kids lives much yet???" She response with care, compassion, and hard-nosed good sense, often urging people to think about how we'd respond to these "what abouts?" in the context of a married couple and, often, taking that response to these cases. And, of course, these are comparatively rare cases: typically there are no issues like these that should preclude a 50-50 arrangement so people are often just trying to deflect by bringing them up. So why isn't there more fairness, more equality in divorce with children cases? Well, times are a-changing, and things are moving in that direction, thanks to the research and advocacy efforts that Johnson documents and contributes toward. But, like many things, the problems are due to inertia— the legal system is set up to favor one parent having the child or children nearly all the time—and the money that's bound up in that system: there often are strong financial incentives for at least parent to resist 50-50 parenting and equal responsibilities. This is very unfortunate and I hope that this book helps individuals seek fairness and equality in these hard situations and helps people changing society make these changes, sooner, since we will all benefit, kids and parents alike. #divorce #sharedparenting #parenting #custody #childcustody #family #families

Review here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2L7FCL3C6UO2N/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=172825454X

and

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6678078765

"Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism" Nathan Nobis | Philosophy Audiobook

 

Text here: