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.

The question, “When does human life begin?” is often taken to be a key question in the discussion of the ethics of abortion, especially among general audiences. I observe that this question can be interpreted in a number of ways, due to “human” and “life” having multiple meanings—biological or scientific meanings and moral meanings—and that these different meanings yield different arguments against abortion that would be evaluated in different ways: some are definitely unsound, some are, at best, controversial and in need of defense.

I suggest, however, that engaging the question “When does human life end?” or when can it end, will help us better understand what “human life” is, in the morally relevant sense. So, thinking through a number of common ways that human life can end can help us understand what “life” is, in the morally significant sense, and when “life” begins.

This understanding supports thinking that early abortions, and so most abortions, are morally permissible and shouldn’t be banned or criminalized. This discussion supports thinking about abortion in the broader context of other bioethical issues—which sometimes doesn’t happen—and applying insights from these other issues to abortion. It also helps us see why, pace many anti-abortion activists, issues about “when life begins” are, or can be, religious issues, just as questions about “when life ends” are, or can be, religious issues. 

@nathan.nobis When does life begin? Well, when does life end? #abortion #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

Some related readings:

• On Marquis (see Thinking Critically About Abortion, section 5.1.5) and section 4 of "The Ethics of Abortion" at 1000-Word Philosophy. 
• "Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing."
  
• On Beckwith.
• On George and Tollefsen. 
• On Tollefsen. 
• "When does life begin? When if comes to abortion, it depends what you mean by 'life'" At Salon.

My views are similar to Swinburne's here: pp. 315–316 of "Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy":

 

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:

Introductory videos on abortion and ethics from YouTube now on TikTok

 A series of introductory videos on abortion from 2020 from YouTube is now on TikTok:

@nathan.nobis Defining "Abortion" Video 1 of 5. From a presentation 4 years ago about Thinking Critically About Abortion at www.AbortionArguments.com #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Question-begging arguments on abortion. Video 2 of 5. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #criticalthinking #fallacies #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Common, "everyday" ethical arguments about abortion. Video 3 of 5. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Some philosophical arguments against abortion. Video 4 of 5. Based on "Thinking Critically About Abortion" at www.AbortionArguments.com #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Philosophical arguments that abortion generally isn't wrong. An overview of Thinking Critically About Abortion at www.AbortionArguments.com Part 5 of 5. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #bioethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

Teaching Slam

Text to speech at 1000WordPhilosophy.com

1000WordPhilosophy.com now has text-to-speech (TTS) capabilities. 

Check it out!

Any thoughts about it? Let us know!

Teaching Vegetarian / Vegan Arguments

By good luck and timing, we were able to finish the vegan / vegetarian arguments in class today.

FYI, here's some of the materials used:

1. "Reasonable Humans and Animals," by me, written long ago, posted under a pseudo name.

https://www.nathannobis.com/2016/08/an-argument-for-veganism-from-2005-or.html

2. The abstract of the position paper of the Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets.

https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/THEACADEMY/859dd171-3982-43db-8535-56c4fdc42b51/UploadedImages/VN/Documents/Position-of-the-Academy-of-Nutrition-and-Dietetics-Vegetarian-Diets.pdf

3. "Our Friends at the Farm," an old video from Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur, which I set up as a "college students versus elementary students debate; and:

https://youtu.be/vo2-4RnTk8k

4. some frequent references to Elwood’s Organic Dog Meat and their page.

https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/

5. some short video overviews of the main arguments by Singer and Regan, by me.

https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7029021393006185734?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id6927684233759786502

https://www.tiktok.com/@nathan.nobis/video/7030472929603374341?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id6927684233759786502

Maybe this will be of interest to some out there!

#vegan #vegetarian #teaching #teachingphilosophy #ethics #teachingethics

Update: here (again) are the materials I use:

• Video: Youtube: Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" and "All Animals Are Equal" 

• TikTok video by Nathan Nobis on Peter Singer. 

• Video: Youtube: Tom Regan's Human Rights and Animal Rights 

• TikTok video by Tom Regan on animal rights. 

• Reading: “Speciesism” by Dan Lowe

• Video: “Their Future is in your hands” by Animal Aid

• Video: “My Friends at the Farm,” Farm Sanctuary

• Video: Farm to Fridge by Mercy for Animals (The Truth About Meat Production); (4-minute version)

• "Reasonable Humans and Animals" by John Simmons

• TikTok video by Nathan Nobis on an argument for veganism.

• Abstract of the Position of The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets (updated link!)

On the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals and Vulnerable Human Beings

Many years ago I wrote this paper. It never went anywhere. Maybe I should try again. Thoughts? Link on the title here:

On the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals and Vulnerable Human Beings

Abstract: What do the reasons given for and against various moral views about many non-human animals imply or suggest for moral views about human beings in all their varieties, especially “vulnerable” human beings? And what do the reasons given for and against various moral views about the variety of human beings imply or suggest for our moral views about many animals? Some people are offended by some of these claims and arguments, but which are genuinely offensive? These and related questions are discussed and answered here.

1. Introduction 1

2. Moral Epistemologies for Animals 2

2.1. “Intuition” 2

2.2. Arguments from Non-Species-Specific Properties 3

2.2.1. The Argument for Animal Rights 4

2.2.2. The Argument against Animal Rights 5

2.3. Arguments from Animals’ Relations to Human Beings 6

2.3.1. Arguments from Human Beings “In General” 6

2.3.2. Arguments from All Human Beings 8

2.3.2.1. Is the Argument Offensive? 10

2.3.2.2. A Dangerous Argument? 10

2.3.2.3. An Unsound Argument? 14

3. Moral Epistemologies for Human Beings 18

3.1. “Intuition” 18

3.2. Arguments from Non-Species-Specific Principles 18

3.3. Rationality-Requiring Theories of Rights 18

3.4. Theories of Rights based on Relations to (Rational) Human Beings 18

3.5. From Animal Rights to Human Rights 19

3.6. Other Arguments 19

4. Conclusions: What Should We Think? What Should We Do? 19

4.1. Animal Advocates 20

4.2. Human-Rights Advocates 20

4.3. Foes of Human and Animal Rights 21

4.4. Advocacy 21

Shortcast Club

 I was on the Shortcast.club podcast again, this time with a writing tip ("Assume that your reader is about to die, so you tell them the most important stuff first, in case they don't make it!").

This is a neat podcast (meta-podcast? Podcast compiler?) with brief content from many contributors.

"This week on Shortcast Club - Volume 13

Best of Shortcast Club

Today's theme is G.S.D.: Get Stuff Done and moving forward with life. We'll hear from 7 creators who, in some way, touch on this theme, even tangentially. We'll here insights from Nathan Nobis, a philosopher, from Bill Harper, a marketing guru, Eden Gold, a guide for young adults, Silvia Pohrib, a life coach, Marcelle Iten, an author, Liz Jane, a young professional, and Joshua Terhune, a child therapist. First up, Nathan Nobis, a Philosophy professor at Morehouse College, in his shortcast, gives a writing tip: imagine your reader might die at any moment. . Nathan's Linktree and website. Next, an episode of Don’t Just Win. Dominate.™ with Bill Harper, a marketing and branding leader. He answers the question, does branding matter for B2B (business to business) companies? Bill's website. In this episode of Eden Gold's shortcast, "Life After High School, Your Ultimate Guide to Thriving in Adulthood!". she says, you are not lazy! Don't tell yourself that. Eden's website. Next is Silvia Pohrib with what it means to put someone on a pedestal. She talks very fast, so if your podcast player allows, you may want to play this one at a reduced speed. Silvia's Linktree. Marcelle Iten is an Author, Editor, and Writing Coach. In this episode from her shortcast, she shares a dilemma she is facing about a character in her book Marcelle Iten's Linktree. Let's hear from Liz Jane in her shortcast Working Girl Shortcast. Unfortunately, like many people recently, she has been laid off from her job. She shares a very personal, emotional update on how she's feeling. And a warning, there is one swear word in this next segment - jump forward 1 minute if you want to skip it. Liz Jane's Linktree. Finally, let's hear from Joshua Terhune, a child therapist, in this episode from his shortcast. With the conflict in Israel and Gaza, he has received many questions about how to talk to kids after they've been through a trauma. Joshua Terhune's linktree. I hope you enjoyed this taste of some of our favorite recent shortcasts. If you did, please subscribe, and consider writing a review on your podcast app. It helps surface our show to other potential listeners! We really appreciate your support as we grow our show. There are links for each of the creators you heard today in the show notes. We encourage you to find and follow them on Shortcast Club. They are all very binge-worthy!"

Picture day!

 

Ethical relativism

An in-class reading comprehension quiz on cultural relativism: 

1.     Cultural relativism is the view that different cultures have some different moral views. True or false? Explain your answer. 

 

2.     Cultural relativism is an ethical theory: it’s an explanation for what makes wrong actions wrong and what makes not-wrong actions not wrong. What’s cultural relativism’s explanation here of what makes wrong actions wrong and permissible actions permissible? 
 

3.     What argument pattern are the arguments against cultural relativism? 
 

4.     Are the arguments given for cultural relativism – that is, to think that it’s a true theory – sound or unsound? Why? 

Following All The Facts About Abortion—Scientific, Ethical, And Logical—Wherever They Lead

 New at the American Journal of Bioethics blog!

“Following All The Facts About Abortion—Scientific, Ethical, And Logical—Wherever They Lead,” a response to @CCamosy in @RNS (“Faith, science and the abortion debate”) and @americamag (“it’s the pro-lifers who have science on their side”) #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics

And here's a (funny?) video inspired by what's often said about these matters:

@nathan.nobis A conversation with a certain type of "pro-life" or anti-abortion advocate: does that sound familiar to you? If not, it should?! #abortion #prochoice #prolife #criticalthinking #logic #bioethics #philosophy #arguments #counterexamples ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis