Violinist Argument

[Prophesy]

Originally Posted by Just Lurking

To address the question of abortion, assume that there is 1 unconscious patient in need of a kidney, and that the assistant can be chloroformed to harvest his kidney and still survive.

Then the question is which is the greater right: the right of the patient to live, or the right of assistant to control what happens to his body.

I never said that the kidney was one of the organs, just that the organs are vital.

-Prophecy

[Just Lurking]

Originally Posted by Prophesy

I never said that the kidney was one of the organs, just that the organs are vital.

-Prophecy

In your question, it is wrong to kill the one person to save the five.

In my question, it is wrong to take the assistant's kidney to save the one.

It appears that the only time it is ever moral to force someone against their will to use their body to save the life of another is to force a raped women to carry her pregnancy to term.

[Prophesy]

Originally Posted by Just Lurking

In your question, it is wrong to kill the one person to save the five.

In my question, it is wrong to take the assistant's kidney to save the one.

It appears that the only time it is ever moral to force someone against their will to use their body to save the life of another is to force a raped women to carry her pregnancy to term.

But in the first hypothetical situation, the choice seemed to be in favour of killing the one. In the second scenario, the opposite is true. The point that I am trying to make is that the violinist is one hypothetical situation, and the item that is chosen isn't necessarily the right one, it is influenced by the scenario. Same too with the violinist.

However the violinist presents a few problems of it own. Whereas being attached to the violinist would require being bedridden for all 9 months, it would be a great burden. However, the physical burdens of pregnancy do not immediately start once pregnancy starts (a woman can still get up a move for example).

-Prophecy

[Chris258]

Originally Posted by Corki

Here is where I see the application to the principle of double effect.

The priciple is applicable where, for example, a pregnant woman needs surgery to treat some condition such as uncontrolled bleeding or a tumor. The doctors know that the surgery has a high probablility of ending the life of the unborn child. Double effect applies because the intent it to treat the disease and the child's death is an unintended (but not completely unforseen) additional result.

For your violinist, in order to treat the condition of the innocent kidnapee, to free her from slavery, the connection can be morally severered. The death of the violinist is the unintened (but not completely unforseen) consequence and all other measures should be undertaken to save the violinists life too.

BTW, this person attached to the violinist is not being just "inconvenienced;" he/she is being enslaved. That is an intrinsic evil that moral men must act to correct. Abortion, even in cases of rape, does nothing to correct the original evil.

I see that you are trying to expound on the level of evil that is occurring to the victim of the kidnapping. However, I do not see how this changes the conclusion.

The Principle of Double Effect has as one of its crucial points that the good that is to be achieved must outweigh the evil that is an indirect result of your action.

Even if we use the poignant language of "slavery", which is indeed evil, I am not sure that the good of being released from this unwillful servitude still outweighs the evil of the man's death. In your example, the good that the doctor is aiming to achieve is the prevention of the mother's immanent death. This is a case analogous to an ectopic pregnancy with removal of the fallopian tube or whatever area contains the fetus.

But in the violinist argument, we do not have a situation of life vs. life, but temporary unwillful servitude vs. a life.

Which is the greater evil:

1. That a person be in put in bondage to the will of a group for nine months during which time there really is no danger of death or injury beyond perhaps financial.

2. That a man's life should come to an end.

If the second is the greater evil, then I don't see how the conclusion that it is impermissible to unhook the violinist changes, according to the Principle of Double Effect. If number one is the greater evil, then perhaps. But I still find it hard to swallow that being bound in unwillful servitude for nine months is a greater evil than a man's preventable death.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by Chris258

I see that you are trying to expound on the level of evil that is occurring to the victim of the kidnapping. However, I do not see how this changes the conclusion.

The Principle of Double Effect has as one of its crucial points that the good that is to be achieved must outweigh the evil that is an indirect result of your action.

Even if we use the poignant language of "slavery", which is indeed evil, I am not sure that the good of being released from this unwillful servitude still outweighs the evil of the man's death. In your example, the good that the doctor is aiming to achieve is the prevention of the mother's immanent death. This is a case analogous to an ectopic pregnancy with removal of the fallopian tube or whatever area contains the fetus.

But in the violinist argument, we do not have a situation of life vs. life, but temporary unwillful servitude vs. a life.

Which is the greater evil:

1. That a person be in put in bondage to the will of a group for nine months during which time there really is no danger of death or injury beyond perhaps financial.

2. That a man's life should come to an end.

If the second is the greater evil, then I don't see how the conclusion that it is impermissible to unhook the violinist changes, according to the Principle of Double Effect. If number one is the greater evil, then perhaps. But I still find it hard to swallow that being bound in unwillful servitude for nine months is a greater evil than a man's preventable death.

The principle of double effect does not require a determination of the greater evil The four tests to be met to apply the principle of double effect.

1) the act must be good itself or at least morally neutral - Yes, freeing the victim from involuntary servitude is good.

2) the agent must desire the good effect and not the evil one - Yes, unless someone was freeing the victim in order to "get back at" the violinist and cause his death (unlikely).

3) the first effect must be itself good - Yes, the victim regains freedom and is able to continue his/her life.

4) there must be a proportiately good reason for the first action - yes, freeing a kidnap victim is a proportionately grave reason

#4 is not the same as determining greater evil.

Under your reasoning, it would never be permissable to use deadly force to rescue a kidnap victim. I would reason that it is.

[Chris258]

Originally Posted by Corki

4) there must be a proportiately good reason for the first action - yes, freeing a kidnap victim is a proportionately grave reason

#4 is not the same as determining greater evil.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia (for some reason I cannot find the Doctrine of Double Effect in the online Catholic Encyclopedia):

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:
...
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021)...

4. That there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.
...
First, it is a misinterpretation to claim that the principle of double effect shows that agents may permissibly bring about harmful effects provided that they are merely foreseen side effects of promoting a good end. Applications of double effect always presuppose that some kind of proportionality condition has been satisfied. Traditional formulations of double effect require that the value of promoting the good end outweigh the disvalue of the harmful side effect.

Again, I do not see how the good of being freed from involuntary and temporary servitude outweighs the evil of the death of an innocent who was just as much forced into this situation as the victim.

Under your reasoning, it would never be permissable to use deadly force to rescue a kidnap victim. I would reason that it is.

The person under threat of deadly force in that situation would be the kidnapper, and the violinist in this case is not the kidnapper, but the society of musicians. Citing your example only asserts that police would be permitted to place the musicians under threat of deadly force to rescue the person, all the while putting forth reasonable effort not to kill any of the musicians.

For the sole purpose of investigating this facet of the problem, you could easily re-word the thought experiment in a different way. Two people have been kidnapped and placed in separate rooms. Your kidnapper directs your attention to a timer which is counting down, and they inform you that the doors to both rooms will open once it ends, leaving you both to go free. However, you have the option of pressing a button that opens your door before the timer is finished, but that will also initiate the release of a deadly neurotoxin into the other kidnapped person's room. However, only you have the option of leaving before the timer is finished. You calculate the timer to currently be at just under nine months; your kidnapper has also assured you that you will have proper nourishment during that time. [For giggles we can pretend it's the Joker from Dark Knight ]

Again, I do not see how the good of your immediate freedom outweighs the evil effect of the other innocent's death, such that it is permissible for you to leave before the timer is finished.

While this moves away from the Doctrine of Double Effect, a simpler way of saying it is that the violinist's right to life outweighs your right to be freed from involuntary servitude at this moment instead of nine months from now.

[TarkanAttila]

Originally Posted by Marc Anthony

How would you refute this famous pro-choice argument from a secular perspective?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so.

I have a problem with the bolded part. Pro-lifers do NOT impregnate women through rape (well, not usually). It's not like WE made her pregnant. It is the result of an unfortunate event (and a sin on the part of the perpetrator).

On the other hand, if you want to compare a foetus to a famous violinist - or any other human being outside the womb - all fine by me.