Q&A: Abortions, Animals, Rights
Abortions, Animals, Rights
Question
Hello and blessings. There are 4 questions that have come up for me recently, and I’d be happy to hear your answer:
1. I know your moral position on abortions, but not your legal position. In your opinion, should abortions or taking the “morning-after pill” be prohibited by law, to the point of going to prison for it? If so, have you thought about what the appropriate punishment would be at each stage of pregnancy (or should the punishment be the same whether the fetus is one day old or, say, 6 months old)? The question comes up because of developments in Argentina on this issue—the president wants to pass a law that would send women who have abortions to prison.
2. A similar question about animals: I know your position that it is immoral to eat and consume animal products, but in your opinion should this be legally prohibited? And here too, what would the appropriate punishment be? a0
3. A question that is a bit of a “matter of definition,” but interests me—when a terrorist takes a life, it makes sense to think he should be killed. In such a case, has his right to life disappeared, or has our moral obligation not to kill a person disappeared? Or both… And here too the legal question arises—suppose he didn’t die and was only arrested, should carrying out a death sentence be permitted (as in some states in the United States)?
4. What is the metaphysical status of rights? Do the rights to property, life, security, and other rights actually exist, or would you distinguish and say that there are basic rights that exist and from them other “rights” are derived (or perhaps there are no rights at all, only duties)? I am aware of Hart’s argument regarding the right to liberty, from which the other rights can be derived.
Thanks in advance!
Answer
1. Abortions certainly should. It is murder. As for pills, that is something else, because it intervenes before a person is formed. I don’t deal with punishments.
2. I don’t think so. Animals are not creatures with rights. Harming them for no reason is an offense, but harming them for the sake of use is another matter. What is needed is stricter regulation of the processes of raising them, and then there will be no problem with eating them.
3. Neither has disappeared. But the need to defend ourselves overrides them.
4. I didn’t understand the question.
Discussion on Answer
1. It is indeed the same thing.
2. I stated my opinion about regulation.
4. I see no reason to distinguish between these and those. I am a moral realist (see column 456).
1. The morning-after pill works on an embryo that has already been formed (a sperm cell has fertilized an egg cell). If so, should every woman who takes such a pill be sent to prison? And if not, what is the difference between that and an abortion in the second week, for example? It seems there is no difference.
2. I agree that they have no rights. But “for the sake of use” seems problematic to me. It seems that if someone were to abuse stray dogs for no reason and then kill and eat them, we would want to punish him. But when this is done by breeders and slaughterers, we do not punish them. Don’t you think there is room to judge such massive abuse of animals, even if it is for the sake of eating? (Not to mention circuses or the clothing industry.)
4. I’m talking about a realist conception of morality. Some argue that on an ontological-metaphysical examination there are certain duties (for example, do not murder), but regarding rights the discussion is more complex, and one can argue that there really are no rights, only duties. Or alternatively, that there are certain rights (for example, the right to liberty) but not really other rights (for example, the right to property). My question is whether you hold a realist position regarding rights, and if so, regarding which rights?