"Famous violinist" thought experiment

[Eddi]

Here it is - Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Famous Violinist" thought experiment:

What do people think of it?

Basically it comes down to: Are the two situations (pregnancy and the scenario in the video) analogous?

I believe they are

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I do see a similarity. I can add another aspect. Suppose you even agree, initially, to provide blood. You still have the right to rescind your permission *at any time*.

 

[columbus]

I don't think so.

Did the violinist get put in his position, desperately needing your exact blood, because you put him there?
If so, you owe him the blood. You created the need by Choosing whatever you did. If you didn't want to be responsible for the violinists problem, then you shouldn't have Chosen to do it. But you already have.

So, now, you're extremely responsible for taking care of his basic needs. Even if that isn't convenient and you would have Chosen differently if you knew what the outcome would be.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Among the most dishonest and annoyingly immoral things that pro-feticide people claim is that pregnancy is unpreventable.

Like zygotes are free floating parasites looking for a host to infect, instead of the quite well known outcome of certain types of sex. They're not.

That's why the violinists b.s. is just that, b.s. The guy hooked up to the blood transfusion machine Chose to put the violinist in the position of desperate need. It wasn't random, like an illness. Nor did the violinist Choose it. The guy hooked up to the machine made the Choice.

Tom

 

[Curious George]

Let us also note there is a difference in believing someone ought to save the violinist and believing someone should legally be required to save the violinist.

 

[Curious George]

Among the most dishonest and annoyingly immoral things that pro-feticide people claim is that pregnancy is unpreventable.

Like zygotes are free floating parasites looking for a host to infect, instead of the quite well known outcome of certain types of sex. They're not.

That's why the violinists b.s. is just that, b.s. The guy hooked up to the blood transfusion machine Chose to put the violinist in the position of desperate need. It wasn't random, like an illness. Nor did the violinist Choose it. The guy hooked up to the machine made the Choice.

Tom

Yes and the violinist is, or at least at one time was, a functioning human capable of choice and desire. A fetus--not so much. But something need not be perfectly the same to be analogous.

 

[BSM1]

No brainer. You have the right to self determination first and foremost. Besides, the violinist had trouble covering the Ebm7 in the third position.

 

[columbus]

Yes and the violinist is, or at least at one time was, a functioning human capable of choice and desire. A fetus--not so much. But something need not be perfectly the same to be analogous.

Did "the guy" cause the violinist to be in such desperate straights?
Because if not, then the analogy is quite unrelated. It's a bogus appeal to emotion, approps of nothing.
Tom

 

[columbus]

No brainer. You have the right to self determination first and foremost.

True.
But having exerted that right to self determination competent adults then have the responsibility for the outcome of their choices.

Tom

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think so.

Did the violinist get put in his position, desperately needing your exact blood, because you put him there?
If so, you owe him the blood. You created the need by Choosing whatever you did. If you didn't want to be responsible for the violinists problem, then you shouldn't have Chosen to do it. But you already have.

And I disagree that this means you can't rescind the decision to give your body over.

I disagree that you *owe* him the blood, even if you put him there in the first place.

So, now, you're extremely responsible for taking care of his basic needs. Even if that isn't convenient and you would have Chosen differently if you knew what the outcome would be.
Tom

And I disagree that you are responsible. It is *nice* if you continue to 'take care' of him, but it most certainly NOT a requirement. You may, at any point you choose, remove yourself from the blood transfer.

 

[BSM1]

True.
But having exerted that right to self determination competent adults then have the responsibility for the outcome of their choices.

Tom

We always do no matter what path we chose.

 

[columbus]

And I disagree that this means you can't rescind the decision to give your body over.

I disagree that you *owe* him the blood, even if you put him there in the first place.



And I disagree that you are responsible. It is *nice* if you continue to 'take care' of him, but it most certainly NOT a requirement. You may, at any point you choose, remove yourself from the blood transfer.

We clearly have different codes of ethics, especially concerning personal responsibility.

If a motorist hits a pedestrian and puts the pedestrian in serious harms way, I think it is morally required of the motorist to stay at the scene until the victim is on their way to hospital, and pay the expense of the event, whether it's convenient for them or not. They took the responsibility when they chose to put their car in gear.
Similarly, I think that parents who create a child have a responsibility to that child, even if it's inconvenient for them. They took that responsibility when they had fertile sex.
The basic concept is called "implied consent".

I realize that the modern world is full of people who believe in the culture of victimhood and entitlement. Your moral code is quite different from mine.

Tom

 

[Polymath257]

We clearly have different codes of ethics, especially concerning personal responsibility.

If a motorist hits a pedestrian and puts the pedestrian in serious harms way, I think it is morally required of the motorist to stay at the scene until the victim is on their way to hospital, and pay the expense of the event, whether it's convenient for them or not. They took the responsibility when they chose to put their car in gear.

It is certainly a *legal* requirement. Whether it is a moral requirement depends on too many factors to make a simple determination.

Similarly, I think that parents who create a child have a responsibility to that child, even if it's inconvenient for them. They took that responsibility when they had fertile sex.
The basic concept is called "implied consent".

And I disagree that having sex, especially when using birth control, is implied consent. In fact, the very use of birth control shows the consent is NOT given.

I realize that the modern world is full of people who believe in the culture of victimhood and entitlement. Your moral code is quite different from mine.

Tom

I don't think it is a matter of victimhood or entitlement. It is simply a matter of having ownership of your own body. NOBODY, no matter what the need, gets to require you to give your blood and body to nourish them for 9 months without your consent.

 

[BSM1]

We clearly have different codes of ethics, especially concerning personal responsibility.

If a motorist hits a pedestrian and puts the pedestrian in serious harms way, I think it is morally required of the motorist to stay at the scene until the victim is on their way to hospital, and pay the expense of the event, whether it's convenient for them or not. They took the responsibility when they chose to put their car in gear.
Similarly, I think that parents who create a child have a responsibility to that child, even if it's inconvenient for them. They took that responsibility when they had fertile sex.
The basic concept is called "implied consent".

I realize that the modern world is full of people who believe in the culture of victimhood and entitlement. Your moral code is quite different from mine.

Tom

Suppose the pedestrian chose to step out in front of the motorist from behind a truck in the middle of the block? Sure, the motorist has a legal responsibility to stop and give aid, but doesn't the pedestrian have a 'moral' responsibility in this case?

 

[columbus]

Suppose the pedestrian chose to step out in front of the motorist from behind a truck in the middle of the block? Sure, the motorist has a legal responsibility to stop and give aid, but doesn't the pedestrian have a 'moral' responsibility in this case?

Yeah, pregnancy is unique.

If a pedestrian helps create the incident that complicates the moral issues.
Ever know of a zygote who went looking for a couple having fertile sex?

I don't. Which makes your hypothetical look pretty lame.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, pregnancy is unique.

If a pedestrian helps create the incident that complicates the moral issues.
Ever know of a zygote who went looking for a couple having fertile sex?

Actually, the zygote is the fertilized egg. The unfertilized egg is called an ovum.

And, in this case, I don't see *any* moral agency in the zygote until there is at least the development of the frontal cortex. Certainly there is none in the first 4 months of pregnancy.

At that stage, there is only the *potential* to have a new human person. There is simply not the equipment there to actually *be* a new person.

And, to put it more directly, I don't think we should call a fetus a 'person' with a moral standing until there is *at least* the amount of brain activity that would put them over the line of 'not brain dead' if it applied to a person outside the womb.

And, even once we get to that stage, there is *still* the issue that the fetus is literally living inside of another person. And that person has the right to have that fetus removed (although once there is moral standing, they may not have the right to have it killed except if it is necessary for the removal).

 

[BSM1]

Yeah, pregnancy is unique.

If a pedestrian helps create the incident that complicates the moral issues.
Ever know of a zygote who went looking for a couple having fertile sex?

I don't. Which makes your hypothetical look pretty lame.
Tom

Some how I think I missed something and we're talking about two different things.

 

[Thief]

Here it is - Judith Jarvis Thompson's "Famous Violinist" thought experiment:

What do people think of it?

Basically it comes down to: Are the two situations (pregnancy and the scenario in the video) analogous?

I believe they are

I don't see a transfusion
there's a clamp on one line
and sharing a bag is not the same as transferring blood.....one to the other

 

[Thief]

but hey...for this thread....
the donor got assaulted......kidnapped.....and subjected

we can't be savior for the next guy
not under attack and theft

bad play of circumstances for argument