Let's read Liz Harman's dissertation

[Anonymous No.15298579]

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/17645/54909207-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

[Anonymous No.15298602]

do you really want to become /lit/ famous don't you anon
are you scratching for those replies aren't you?

[Anonymous No.15298608]

>>15298579
>https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/17645/54909207-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

>josh cohen as advisor

Hilarious. He was my advisor when i did poli sci at Stanford. Good guy, pretty charismatic lecturer.

Listen bro, nothing will come of this, she’s simply smarter and more accomplished than you are.
Step back—do threads like these lead to living well?
Go read something that wont dissolve the moment you handle it.

[Anonymous No.15298669]

>>15298579
Why is her writing so bad?
>I explain moral status as follows: something has moral status just in case we have reasons not to cause harms to it simply in virtue of the badness of the harms for it.
What is this gobbledygook supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.15298701]

>>15298608
Cringe post, cringier reply.

[Anonymous No.15298711]

>>15298669
Might be biased because I hate this cunt, but that writing is fucking terrible.

[Anonymous No.15298716]

>>15298579
Hard to tell much about what her Jewess feet look like, based solely on her hands

[Anonymous No.15298717]

>>15298669
This reads like a strokepost

[Anonymous No.15298719]

>>15298669
>the reason I give anything 'moral status' is in case we don't want to harm it
I'd put we in quotes because she seems like a psychopath

[Anonymous No.15298728]

>>15298579
There's a bitch at Durham University who writes about fan fiction... that's the extent of analytic engagement with literature
The real question you should be asking yourself is how did any of these jokers take over the academy
Not that things are any better in the field of literary studies

[Anonymous No.15298765]

>>15298716
This. I'm guessing she's got penis toes but it it's tough to say, I give it 70/30 on longish phalanges

[Anonymous No.15298789]

>>15298711
>>15298717
>>15298719
It's actually this bad.
"Chapter One also goes on to endorse:
(ii) Something has moral status at t just in case it is not dead at t and there is a time at which it is conscious. This claim is endorsed for the following reasons: it seems wrong to say that future consciousness is sufficient for present moral status while denying that past consciousness is sufficient for present moral status, and yet it seems that dead bodies (though they were conscious in the past) cannot have moral status."

Are we to conclude to this that the desecration of corpses is legitimate?

Later on,

"Something has moral status just in case:
(a) it matters morally in itself
(b) it counts morally
(c) its interests count morally
(d) its interests provide reasons for and against actions"

What on Earth is anything of this supposed to mean? How is any of this supposed to be defined and measured? Why should anyone accept any of this as true?

And to top it all off, she refuses to explain or defend any of this.

"Chapter Five defends part of the methodology of the prior chapters.
Chapters One through Three have a primary goal of demonstrating that a
particular view of moral status can make sense of certain attractive combinations
of views, and defending that view in the face of some objections. The
methodology involved in meeting that primary goal is, I believe, uncontroversial.
But the methodology involved in meeting the secondary goal of those chapters,
and in reaching many of Chapter Four's conclusions, is more controversial. The
secondary goal of Chapters One through Three is to argue for my view of moral
status. Some important conclusions in Chapter Four are claims about what
explains the wrongness of actions in non-identity cases, and claims about what
reasons we have to benefit others. These conclusions are substantive moral
claims. They are argued for from other substantive moral claims. The arguments
I present neither rely on, nor at any point involve specific commitment to, any
particular general ethical theory or any particular meta-ethical view. The idea that
substantive moral conclusions can be reached before it is settled what the true
ethical theory is and what the true meta-ethical view is, is deeply controversial. In
Chapter Five, I consider a number of challenges to the claim that moral
conclusions can be justifiably reached in this way. I argue that each of these
challenges fails."

First quote is from 10-11, second is from 16, and the third is from 14.

[Anonymous No.15298796]

>>15298669
We call things good because the opposite is bad, not because things are inherently good? This reads like it was machine translated

[Anonymous No.15298804]

>>15298669
Enroll in a philosophy course if you want to understand philosophy papers, monographs and dissertations. It's not meant for uneducated plebs like yourself.

[Anonymous No.15298815]

>>15298796
Moron.

[Anonymous No.15298820]

opposite of bad isn't good, it's dab

[Anonymous No.15298825]

>>15298669
>>15298711
It's very carefully and rigorously written, dumbfuck. The fact that you aren't familiar with the terminology is only an indication of your own ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15298828]

>>15298669
>if I don't understand it it's bad writing

[Anonymous No.15298985]

>>15298804
>>15298825
>>15298828
Okay, so why don't you explain her argument such that "plebs" like ourselves can understand it? You did the same thing in the other thread, and it didn't work there either. Or are you gonna continue to pretend that this is anything other than a barely disguised attempt to provide ethical backing for her a priori political beliefs?

[Anonymous No.15298993]

>>15298825
No, it's terribly written. I understand the terminology but it's just horrible prose (and empty words).

[Anonymous No.15299019]

>>15298825
>It's very carefully and rigorously written, dumbfuck.
"The view of moral status that I develop in Chapters One and Two involves this
claim:
(ii) Something has moral status at t just in case it is not dead at t and there is a time at which it is conscious.
According to this claim, being conscious is the crucial property in virtue of which things have moral status. As I explained above, I develop my view in order to provide a view of moral status that can underlie certain attractive views, and I recommend my view on the basis of my claims that it can underlie these views. Thus my goal is not to argue for my view independently of its capacity to underlie these views. For this reason, I won't provide an independent argument for the significance of consciousness. Taking consciousness to have the kind of significance I claim it does, both enables us to have a view that underlies the attractive views and also settles some outstanding questions that would otherwise arise (see section three of chapter one)."
Yeah, it's a sign of rigor to dismiss all objections to the basic assumptions of your argument by admitting that you are attempting to provide a pseudo-ethical basis for your pet political beliefs. The fundamental question of why consciousness matters has definitely been dispelled by this masterfully argued paragraph.

[Anonymous No.15299054]

>>15298579
I want to see her boobs

[Anonymous No.15299068]

>>15298993
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15299078]

>>15298804
>>15298825
>>15298828
>it’s so clear
>doesn’t explain
You were in the last thread too. Yuck

[Anonymous No.15299082]

>>15298993
Go ahead and rewrite the sentence more concisely, without the 'empty words' and bad prose.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15299104]

>>15299019
>attractive views

why is anyone defending this low iq retard?

[Anonymous No.15299117]

>>15299078
I signposted to further reading in the last thread, there's no way you've read the view from nowhere since then.

[Anonymous No.15299128]

>>15298985
>>15299078
What are you not getting? She's saying that living things have moral status if and only if they are, were, or will be conscious at some point.

[Anonymous No.15299132]

>>15298717
It's just the way I write and talk and probably think. And yeah, its shit.

[Anonymous No.15299136]

>>15298804
>It's not meant for
fuck off, retard. you're what's wrong with academia, and why modern philosophy has done nothing but fucking wither and regress over the past century. knowledge of prior work should be nothing more than a shortcut to concepts. obfuscating your work under the guise of denying entry to your secret treehouse does nothing but create jaded brain-havers who find a bunch of pompous retards arguing over which fucking corpse was the smartest and their favorite once they finally gain entry.

the greatest irony is that you say ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING in the process of expressing your disdain for people less educated than you. it's fucking ridiculous and self-serving.

[Anonymous No.15299142]

>>15299128
Where did you get the word conscious from?
Lol you’re 100% the same larping faggot, fucking kys

[Anonymous No.15299143]

>>15299136
Holy fuck, get a load of this assblasted pleb.

[Anonymous No.15299146]

>>15299143
yeah i would have declined to try to mount a rational self-defense as well in your position. there's no way to do it elegantly or convincingly.

[not even that anon No.15299148]

>>15299143
Hey kys my retarded dawg

[Anonymous No.15299154]

>>15299142
Are you joking? Did you even read the first page of the dissertation? Did you even read >>15298789 ? Holy hell.

[Anonymous No.15299156]

>>15299068
t. idiot

>>15299082
Why would I? She's not saying anything of value anyway. Plus I never said I could do it better, I just implied someone of her stature should be able to poop out something better than that drivel. You really can't defend her shitty circular prose, whether you agree with her is a completely different matter.

[Anonymous No.15299157]

>>15298804

[Anonymous No.15299159]

>>15299128
huh?
>something has moral status (if and only if) we have reasons not to cause harms to it (because harming it would cause "badness" to it)
she does not talk about consciousness at all.
also, her definition is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15299162]

>>15299146
You clearly have no reading comprehension or logical reasoning skills.

[Anonymous No.15299176]

>>15299156
You literally said there were "empty words" and "circularity" in the sentence, moron. So don't try backing out now. The truth is, you lack the brain power even to grasp what she's talking about. Which is sad, because the concepts are quite concrete and accessible.

[Anonymous No.15299177]

It's kinda pathetic that Americans have to go to these lengths just to support abortion. Not saying that debates about the ethics of abortion or euthanasia cannot be interesting, but I'm not sure if what the world needs right now is more liberal philosophy like this:
>The Harm Argument seeks to establish that it is never permissible to cause the deaths of brain-dead former persons, contrary to a common belief. The Harm Argument also raises the worry that if we grant that brain-dead former person share moral status, as my view implies, then we will not be able to hold that euthanasia of them is ever permissible. I have argued that not only is it unproblematic to claim that brain-dead former persons have moral status, it is important to say this. Otherwise we will not be able to explain why we are sometimes requires to cause the deaths of brain-dead former persons for their own sakes.
It seems to deal a lot with contrived situations, while the Dutch and Swiss already solved these problems decades ago. It's not interesting to me.

[Anonymous No.15299180]

>>15299162
uh huh. clearly, but it's so obviously beneath you to dirty yourself saying, well, pretty much anything, ever, except to make a bunch of implications of your superiority. it's almost like i've talked to you before, but it was probably one of your thousands of doppelgangers.

[Anonymous No.15299183]

you can really see academia on its death throes now. the virus has exposed that they're just in it to get paid

[Anonymous No.15299195]

>>15299176
Keep seething bugman

[Anonymous No.15299197]

>>15299176
>concrete and accessible
Could you translate some them?

[Anonymous No.15299205]

>>15299104
Butterfly, I usually don't like you, but that's the second good thing you've done today. Thank you. Please keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.15299217]

>>15298804
>>15298825
Hello Dr. Harman

[Anonymous No.15299226]

>>15298669

her argument is really simple. in context of abortion, you're not harming anything if you perform an abortion because the fetus is not 'conscious' by our measurable standards. whether or not this is true or not is an entirely different scenario, and requires a prior acceptance of other arguments, like life not beginning at conception, and lack of belief in a 'soul'

[Anonymous No.15299237]

>>15299226
And repeat
You are a fucking revolting person

[Anonymous No.15299252]

>>15299159
Are you literally retarded? The third point of the abstract says:

>A living thing has moral status just in case it is ever conscious.

How can you not understand that sentence?

[Anonymous No.15299257]

>>15299217
Lol she mad

[Anonymous No.15299260]

>>15299217
>anyone with an IQ over 60 is Dr Harman!
Keep seething, retard.

[Anonymous No.15299266]

>>15299237
That's not very Professorial!!

[Anonymous No.15299268]

>>15299104
>>15299205
You're both retards who should have been aborted.

[Anonymous No.15299269]

>>15299237

why?

[Anonymous No.15299275]

>>15299197
She's saying that living things have moral status if and only if they are, were, or will be conscious at some point.

[Anonymous No.15299284]

>>15299237
Lmao. You mouthbreathers are becoming deranged (frothing at the mouth) because you can't refute Harman's arguments.

[Anonymous No.15299293]

>>15299176
Not him, but
I define moral status as follows: A thing can be said to have moral status if,
1. It can be harmed.
2. Such harm would be immoral. (Assuming that she is using the word "bad" to mean immoral. She might simply be using it to mean "deleterious," but to assume so would be unkind to her).
3. The mere fact of harming it constitutes rational ground for not doing so.
>>15299128
We understand what she's saying. We just happen to think it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.15299296]

>>15299284
It's hard to refute something so dazzling as Harman's writing

[Anonymous No.15299301]

>>15299177
>while the Dutch and Swiss already solved these problems decades ago.
Sources?

[Anonymous No.15299304]

>>15299293
>We just happen to think it's retarded.
And yet, you have been unable to refute it.

[Anonymous No.15299306]

>>15298579
I want to play with those milkies

[Anonymous No.15299308]

>>15298579
Literally who? Why should we care who this is, exactly?

[Anonymous No.15299316]

>>15299308
Gilbert Harman's daughter.

[Anonymous No.15299320]

>>15299284
there was one anon in the prior thread who waved his hands a bit and referenced liebniz' writings on temporal mediation (which wasn't a concept i was able to find any record of) and claimed her ideas were tautological, again without providing any actual rationalization. it seems to be thematic on /lit/ that everyone will simply imply their arguments' substance -- often also hilariously declining to actually make an argument at all -- and heap on a bunch of impressive-sounding scorn. it makes for a lot of entertaining posting, to be sure, but also frustratingly little actual discourse.

[Anonymous No.15299323]

>>15299284

the argument in itself is bad. life begins at conception. consciousness is also completely independent of whether or not life is present in an organism. she started wrong from the start because it isn't real philosophy, it is just propaganda

[Anonymous No.15299335]

>>15299323
>the argument in itself is bad. life begins at conception. consciousness is also completely independent of whether or not life is present in an organism. she started wrong from the start because it isn't real philosophy, it is just propaganda
this entire post is just a statement of your beliefs without an attempt at putting forth anything anyone can reasonably respond to except by saying "i disagree."

[Anonymous No.15299337]

>>15299284
There is no point in "refuting" an argument if it cannot even stand on its own two legs. The point here is that her argument is terribly weak, attempts to circumvent all the issues that attend any serious attempt at moral philosophy with hand-waving, and is ultimately little more than an attempt to give her a priori political beliefs a veneer of philosophical respectability. It's not even worth engaging with on a deep level.

[Anonymous No.15299342]

>>15299323
>the argument in itself is bad.
How?

>life begins at conception.
She doesn't deny that. In fact, her argument depends on that.

>consciousness is also completely independent of whether or not life is present in an organism.
No, dead bodies are not conscious.

>she started wrong from the start because it isn't real philosophy
You didn't even read it, much less understand it.

>it is just propaganda
If you think her thesis has anything to do with defending abortion, you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.15299344]

>>15299335
>this entire post is just a statement of your beliefs without an attempt at putting forth anything anyone can reasonably respond to except by saying "i disagree."
Sounds like it would make a good thesis

[Anonymous No.15299353]

>>15299344
i can't tell if you're making fun of harman or indicting the entire field of philosophy

[Anonymous No.15299359]

>>15299337
>There is no point in "refuting" an argument if it cannot even stand on its own two legs.
Your post is entirely empty of content. You are basically saying "it's wrong because I think it's wrong". Provide a refutation or admit you can't do it.

>her a priori political beliefs
And what are those? By the way, this is how I know you didn't read it.

[Anonymous No.15299377]

Isn't that just sophism trying to argue for something you want, instead of trying to look for the truth?

[Anonymous No.15299379]

/sci/ here, if you want a bad PhD thesis, look here: http://www.theliberatedmathematician.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PiperThesisPostPrint.pdf
>Traditional structuring is white supremacism
This was in Princeton btw

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15299380]

>>15299342
>If you think her thesis has anything to do with defending abortion, you're a moron.

it's defending rational morality which is in fact far more insidious and propagandic than anything pro-choice

[Anonymous No.15299382]

>>15299377
And what, pray tell, does she "want"?

[Anonymous No.15299390]

>>15299380
kys tripfag bag of shit

[Anonymous No.15299391]

>>15299284
Resurrection of Christ (pbuh) eternally refutes (((Harman))) and her arguments

[Anonymous No.15299392]

>>15299382
To defend abortion.

[Anonymous No.15299395]

>>15299391
No, it doesn't. Jesus was conscious.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.15299398]

>>15299390
nigger

[Anonymous No.15299407]

>>15299335

it isn't a belief, i am just stating facts. she's arguing that fetuses and human organisms below don't have 'moral status'

>>15299342

the entire reason why this broad is posted here now is due to her interview on abortion, you're delusional if you think you can just weasel out of that. lot of weaklings in this thread

[Anonymous No.15299409]

>>15299392
So basically, you have no idea at all what her argument is. The framework she develops could just as easily be used in justifying the prohibition of abortion. That fact that you can't see that indicates you're a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15299413]

>>15299409
Explain how it would justify the prohibition of abortion

[Anonymous No.15299418]

>>15299407
>oh, it's retarded

[Anonymous No.15299421]

>>15299359
Nigga no, I stated my criticisms here and earlier in the thread.
>And what are those?
Abortion is morally permissible according to her.
>>15299377
Yes. And that's the point of this thread.
>>15299379
Thanks for the contribution, but is there some kind of backstory?
>>15299390
She's literally right, though.

[Anonymous No.15299424]

>>15299407
>she's arguing that fetuses and human organisms below don't have 'moral status'
No she isn't, you fucking idiot.

> you're delusional if you think you can just weasel out of that
What the fuck are you trying to say? Her thesis is not a defense of abortion.

[Anonymous No.15299428]

>>15299379
https://mathbabe.org/2015/12/11/piper-harron-discusses-her-artistic-and-wonderful-math-ph-d-thesis/

[Anonymous No.15299434]

>>15299421
In other words, you have no refutation. Thanks for playing, mouthbreather.

[Anonymous No.15299458]

>>15299418
>>15299424

weird how these discord trannies are so quick to call everyone who disagrees with them emotional and retarded, they try to force you to argue in their vernacular, and yet they are so quick to reply. really gets the noggin joggin, if they had one

[Anonymous No.15299462]

>>15299458
>call everyone who disagrees with them emotional and retarded
Welcome to 4chan.

[Anonymous No.15299472]

>>15299424
She doesn't say that they have no moral status. She says that they have moral status up until the moment we decide to kill them. Because they died before attaining consciousness, they have no moral status, and therefore the murder was justified.
It's the most autistic form of sophistry one can imagine. In case you still doubt me, check out page ten:

Chapter One is concerned to resolve an apparent tension between what I call "the very liberal view of abortion"--the view that abortion of early fetuses requires no moral justification whatsoever--and several other attractive views: that some early fetuses are the appropriate objects of love, that we are prohibited from harming some early fetuses in virtue of the kinds of things they are, that it is reasonable to be very upset by an early miscarriage, that the decision whether to abort is one of unique uncertainty, and that it is reasonable to regret an abortion. The very liberal view of abortion appears to be committed to the view that all early fetuses lack moral status; some of the other attractive views appear to be committed to the view that all early fetuses have moral status. However, the following view could be adopted instead:
The Actual Future Principle (Consciousness Version): Early fetuses that will die without ever being conscious lack moral status. Early fetuses that will become conscious have moral status.

[Anonymous No.15299474]

>>15298579
To the uninitiated listener it will seem like she has answered the moral questions about abortion forever and anyone who attempts to disagree with her is a religious fundamentalist and a fossilized relic of history, someone who will not accept reasoning and arguments. Of course anyone who is even superficially acquainted with academia will know that this solves nothing, that her work probably received both enthusiastic acclaim as well as thoughtful criticism so the issue is far from being closed. This has been the continuous trend in moral philosophy for 2500 years and Nietzsche already refuted any attempts at """rationa""" moral philosophy. If you feel like you disagree with her on the issue of abortion (either because of religion or moral intuition) but can't really point to any flaws in her argumentationthen worry not - reason is just a post-Enlightenment manifestation of the Will to Power but we've been tricked into thinking that it's somehow more "civilized" and less "barbaric" than raw force and it is this stealthiness that makes it even more disgusting than raw force. Fundamentally there isn't any difference between being physically attacked and being disagreed with so feel free to kill her and facefuck her dead body, Nietzsche advocated doing just that with Socrates but unfortunately Socrates' ideas survived his corporal life.

[Anonymous No.15299485]

Why are the two Harman white knights here such insufferable spergs?

[Anonymous No.15299483]

>>15299474
Based reposter

[Anonymous No.15299486]

>>15299472
>therefore the murder was justified
Nope, that's not what she's arguing.

[Anonymous No.15299493]

>>15299474
t. didn't even read it

[Anonymous No.15299496]

>>15299485
it's probably just Harman's husband and Harman's boyfriend

[Anonymous No.15299499]

>Reading what a woman has written when there are thousands of books available that are infinitely better
Your time is finite, anon. Dont waste it on women's writing.

[Anonymous No.15299501]

>>15298608
Holy cringe

[Anonymous No.15299509]

>>15299493
You're right, I didn't read her dissertation nor do I intend to, rational moral philosophy after Nietzsche is redundant

[Anonymous No.15299510]

>>15299472
>fetuses that will become conscious have moral status
>whoops, we aborted this one looks like it never had moral status in the first place
based retard solves all ethical problems with one weird trick

[Anonymous No.15299515]

>>15299462

yes, this board is filled with lying bitches like yourself. I'm not passing judgement, just merely describing

[Anonymous No.15299520]

>>15299509
> rational moral philosophy after Nietzsche is redundant
why?

[Anonymous No.15299521]

>>15299509
Nietzsche was a poet, pseudfag.

[Anonymous No.15299532]

>>15299485
>>15299496
I don't know why you keep posting this thread, but at some point I would like to have (once again) on /lit/ a discussion of philosophy and literature that isn't idiots repeatedly posting about how something hurt their aesthetic sensibilities real bad, or that they don't like feeling confused by complicated things. I assume the thinking is much the same for others. Stop getting mad about people disagreeing with you and form an argument, as it is you're posting the most effeminate hysterical responses that can be conceived.

[Anonymous No.15299533]

>>15299499
this

[Anonymous No.15299542]

>>15299510
It's similar to moral luck in this sense though. In fact it is a kind of moral luck.

[Anonymous No.15299543]

>>15299499

[Anonymous No.15299554]

>>15299486
It literally says it right there.
>The Actual Future Principle (Consciousness Version): Early fetuses that will die without ever being conscious lack moral status. Early fetuses that will become conscious have moral status.
If the fetus is carried to term and becomes conscious, it has moral status. If it dies without ever having achieved consciousness, it has no moral status.
Another huge problem with this is the question of forcible abortion, or the deliberate murder of another woman's child. If, for instance, a soldier stabs a pregnant woman in the belly and terminates her pregnancy without killing her, has he committed an immoral act? In this view, the fact that the baby has not achieved consciousness means that it has no moral status, and therefore that its murder is not immoral. But is that a conclusion that any sane person, Harman included, could possibly agree with? Of course not, and that's the problem.

[Anonymous No.15299555]

>>15299532
Arguing with emotion is superior to arguing with reason. Check your male privilege.

[Anonymous No.15299566]

>>15299554
>It literally says it right there.
No, it literally doesn't. Learn how to read.

[Anonymous No.15299568]

>>15299555
Check your digits.

[Anonymous No.15299572]

>>15299520
read Nietzsche. start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra + Leo Strauss' lectures on it, continue with On Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil
>>15299521
Nietzsche wrote in a poetic style because he was a staunch critic of overarching moral systems so making up another moral system intended to overthrow the previous ones would just betray his cause, still it's impossible to miss his point despite that.

[Anonymous No.15299574]

>>15298789
>Something has moral status at t just in case it is not dead at t and there is a time at which it is conscious
Isn't this very arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.15299586]

>>15299574
No. Read the dissertation that argues for it.

[Anonymous No.15299590]

>>15299586
Could you explain in her place? I'm not reading an entire dissertation.

[Anonymous No.15299601]

>>15298579
>something has moral status just in case we have reasons not to cause harms to it simply in virtue of the badness of the harms for it
Damn I got filtered by the first sentence, this bitch must be a genius.

[Anonymous No.15299603]

>>15299574
Yes. It is completely arbitrary.
>>15299566
It literally says so.
>Early fetuses that will die without ever being conscious lack moral status.
If we take this together with
>Something has moral status just in case there is a reason against any action that harms it, merely in virtue of the badness of the harm for it.' (I call these reasons "moral-status-based reasons.")
The conclusion is that it is not immoral to harm the fetus. There is no reason to not harm the fetus. It is okay to abort fetuses. How do you propose to get around this?

[Anonymous No.15299610]

>>15299601
You think highly of yourself.

[Anonymous No.15299618]

>>15299603
>The conclusion is that it is not immoral to harm the fetus.
Yes but also no.

[Anonymous No.15299628]

>>15299532

take time to come up with better tactics bro, reformulate the plan back at reddit

[Anonymous No.15299640]

>>15299499
y'all need Gately

[Anonymous No.15299646]

I don't understand why should we kill anyone who lacks moral status.

[Anonymous No.15299647]

>>15299532
>Stop getting mad
I'm not mad, I'm amused by the amount of effort you're spending to try to have a 'civilized' discussion on an image board. You don't seem to understand that most people find her argument not worth engaging and/or badly formulated. You're the one who keeps getting mad and sperging out that people think this, anon.

[Anonymous No.15299654]

>>15299603
That's assuming:
(1) the fetus is not conscious at time of termination
(2) if there is no reason not to perform action X, then there is a reason to perform action X

Assumption (1) is an empirical matter, and assumption (2) is just false.

[Anonymous No.15299655]

[Anonymous No.15299657]

>>15299618
Uh, no. That's the conclusion. That's literally it. The conclusion is that abortion is morally permissible because the death of a fetus that has not reached the stage of consciousness is not immoral.
Most importantly, she doesn't even bother to explain why anyone should accept the central place of consciousness in her scheme. She dismisses all such concerns with a single paragraph that contains neither content nor argumentation.
It's terrible.

[Anonymous No.15299658]

>>15298669
I would really like someone defending this to rewrite that sentence. Not interpret it, but rewrite it so the grammar is clearer.

[Anonymous No.15299659]

>>15299646
Or why you can't give moral status to fetuses.

[Anonymous No.15299663]

>>15299654
>That's assuming:
>(2) if there is no reason not to perform action X, then there is a reason to perform action X
lol no it isn’t

[Anonymous No.15299664]

>>15299654
The "reason not to" comes from >>15298669 where she basically uses it in place of immoral. What you've pointed out makes her argument even weaker than it would be otherwise, though.

[Anonymous No.15299669]

>>15299657
>Most importantly, she doesn't even bother to explain why anyone should accept the central place of consciousness in her scheme. She dismisses all such concerns with a single paragraph that contains neither content nor argumentation.

The state of modern philosophy. Find a result that is favorable for our progressive overlords and anything to reach the conclusion is fine.

[Anonymous No.15299675]

>>15299657
where's that paragraph?

[Anonymous No.15299676]

>>15299663
That's literally what you said, anon.

>>15299664
There's nothing wrong with the "reason not to" formulation. What's wrong is your conflation of that condition with justification.

[Anonymous No.15299685]

>>15299676
>That's literally what you said, anon
lol no it isn’t

[Anonymous No.15299702]

>>15299675
See >>15298789
>>15299676
I'm not the one conflating the two. I did not say that she has provided a positive reason to carry out abortions. All I said is that she has attempted to argue that abortion is morally permissible. In other words, that she has attempted to defend her a priori political positions on shaky philosophical ground.

[Anonymous No.15299704]

>>15299685
You literally said, in your (false) summary of her views:

>Because they died before attaining consciousness, they have no moral status, and therefore the murder was justified.

That's how this conversation got started. I quoted you here >>15299486 and replied that no, that is not what she's arguing. It was only a few minutes ago, anon.

[Anonymous No.15299706]

>>15299702
>she has attempted to defend her a priori political positions on shaky philosophical ground.
Isn't that just sophism?

[Anonymous No.15299714]

>>15299704
Could you explain what she is arguing, instead?

[Anonymous No.15299716]

>>15299704
>You literally said,
lol no I didn’t

[Anonymous No.15299730]

>>15299706
Yes. That's at least 50% of what we are taking issue with here.
>>15299704
You're conflating several different posters, myself included.

[Anonymous No.15299737]

>>15299716
You're either delusional, or tried to spoof somebody else in the conversation.

[Anonymous No.15299749]

>>15298669
She's giving a metaphysical explanation (grounding) using typical analytic language to (probably) an analytic audience. I'm not going to say whether she is right or wrong (or whether this is a useful way to do philosophy), but here is how I would interpret it.

Her goal? To explain moral status.

Think of everything after "as follows:" as similar to a definition with a left hand side (the word to be defined) and right hand side (other words doing the defining) of the definition.

LHS of explanation: some thing (some entity) has moral status. This is the part that she needs to explain. She ties to the RHS with "just in case".
RHS of explanation: we have reasons not to cause harms to the entity simply in virtue of the badness of the harms for the entity.

The phrase "in virtue of" is usually used as a sort of grounding explanation. "x in virtue of y" means "y accounts for x" or that "x is grounded in y" or that "x is metaphysically explained by y". Where in this case x is "we have reasons not to cause harms to the entity" and y is "the badness of the harms for the entity".

You could explicate "reasons", "cause", "harms", and "badness" further, but I think you should understand what these are. A way to rephrase her explanation without any technicalities is the following: She thinks we have reasons not to cause harm to something. Why shouldn't we cause harm? What are those reasons? Because of the badness of the harms for that thing. In turn this is what she thinks it means to have moral status.

[Anonymous No.15299764]

>>15299749
What the fuck? Literally just rewrite the quoted sentence please, prove you understand the grammar.

[Anonymous No.15299769]

>>15299603
>Something has moral status just in case there is a reason against any action that harms it, merely in virtue of the badness of the harm for it.' (I call these reasons "moral-status-based reasons.")
You're skipping over the key part here. What matters in this conception is the badness of the harm *for it*. Even if a living thing has no moral status, it can still be morally impermissible to kill it for reasons other than the badness of the harm for it.

[Anonymous No.15299776]

>>15299749
Thanks for the high effort post. I attempted a much more concise explanation here >>15299293

[Anonymous No.15299780]

>>15299252
the very first line is what I quoted and rephrased
>something has moral status just in case we have reasons not to cause harms to it simply in virtue of the badness of the harms for it
that is her own definition. if she, later on, adds some conditions or scenarios (like that "something" now could be a "living thing", as in "scenario a"), those still have to rest upon her first definition, which states nothing about consciousness.
i disagree with her position because my reasoning starts from different principles. she is trying to argue that morality can be reduced to some absolute statements or conditions (whatever they might be) when the very problem about morality resides in the impossibility of such reduction. is like trying to find a "law of morality", something akin to a law of mathematics or fundamental physics. most of anons here are disagreeing with her because (i think) they intuitively understand the difficulty within trying to state universals laws about morality, a thing that is contingent if viewed from a different perspective.

[Anonymous No.15299792]

>>15299301
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Switzerland

[Anonymous No.15299794]

>>15299769
That's a very charitable interpretation of her argument, but she does not say that in the dissertation, and she openly advocates the moral permissibility of abortion in a clip that was posted in the last thread. I appreciate your attempt at nuance, but it's very clear what she's trying to do here.

[Anonymous No.15299796]

>>15299764
Not sure what you are expecting. I gave you a typical breakdown of an explanation (the explanandum and the explanans), and noted the technical language she was using ("in virtue of") that denotes she is giving a metaphysical explanation (along with the "has" and other words). This is fairly typical language and method in analytic philosophy. I broke it down into an inquiring, question-like format in my last paragraph. That's about as simple as you can get. Again, not saying this is a good way to do philosophy, but it's fairly clear to me what she is doing. Alternatively, take this from a continental angle: in a rhetorical situation you have an audience for your speech. She's speaking to a particular audience using specialist words her audience understands. It's her PhD after all.

[Anonymous No.15299797]

>>15299780
>that is her own definition.
Yes, and the substance of her thesis links that concept of 'moral status' to consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15299798]

>>15298608
Josh Cohen will always be the lesser, more autistic, Joshua Cohen of /lit/

[Anonymous No.15299807]

>>15299737
lol no I didn’t

[Anonymous No.15299814]

>>15299794
>That's a very charitable interpretation of her argument, but she does not say that in the dissertation
That's exactly what she says in her dissertation. Why would she take pains to qualify her definition with "in virtue of the badness of the harms for it" unless she intended to exclude other reasons?

[Anonymous No.15299815]

>>15299474
Overly based and Dancing-on-the-rubble-of-your-idols-as-you-birth-new-stars-pilled

[Anonymous No.15299838]

>>15299657
>The conclusion is that abortion is morally permissible because the death of a fetus that has not reached the stage of consciousness is not immoral.
I'll show you part of where you're getting confused and then I'll emphasize a simple point of comparison in the paper:
"The Actual Future Principle does not say that a fetus that lacks moral status could
not have had moral status, nor does it say that a fetus that has moral status could
not have lacked moral status; clearly these are both possibilities. Rather, it says
that each fetus has its status in virtue of facts about that fetus's actual life; these
facts might have been different. If we do not abort an early fetus (and the fetus
does not die in an early miscarriage), then it turns out that the fetus is the kind of
thing that has moral status, according to the Actual Future Principle. It is not the
case that this fetus is the kind of thing it would have been wrong (or at all morally
problematic) to abort. If this fetus had been aborted, it would have turned out to
be a different kind of thing, a kind of thing with no moral status."

In other words, there are foetuses and there are foetuses, each with different moral status.

The major comparison drawn is between aborting a foetus and an having an early miscarriage. This isn't a difficult argument to extend beyond the paper's scope: just as it may be seen as a duty to provide aid to those in need around you and prevent their death, similarly if you argue that an early foetus has moral status it ought to become a duty to aid them also. Why are we then funding so much cancer and dementia research while not funding research into miscarriage prevention? For a lot of people itt that seems to me to be an obvious point of reflection. Instead what we're getting is a bunch of people loudly and emotionally proclaiming that they disagree and hoping people will care because someone said something other than "abortion is wrong". This kind of reaction and thinking is anathema to philosophical thought and discussion.

[Anonymous No.15299841]

[Anonymous No.15299852]

>>15299838
>The major comparison drawn is between aborting a foetus and an having an early miscarriage. This isn't a difficult argument to extend beyond the paper's scope: just as it may be seen as a duty to provide aid to those in need around you and prevent their death, similarly if you argue that an early foetus has moral status it ought to become a duty to aid them also. Why are we then funding so much cancer and dementia research while not funding research into miscarriage prevention? For a lot of people itt that seems to me to be an obvious point of reflection. Instead what we're getting is a bunch of people loudly and emotionally proclaiming that they disagree and hoping people will care because someone said something other than "abortion is wrong". This kind of reaction and thinking is anathema to philosophical thought and discussion.
Interesting point.

[Anonymous No.15299856]

>>15299796
>She's speaking to a particular audience using specialist words her audience understands. It's her PhD after all.
What specialist words, "just in case?" I think any layperson can understand the words she's using regardless of the precision with which she uses them. It's just a really bad sentence.
>Something has moral status when the reason not to harm it is because the harm harms it.

[Anonymous No.15299860]

>>15299814
>That's exactly what she says in her dissertation.
She does not say "it can still be morally impermissible to kill it for reasons other than the badness of the harm for it" or anything remotely approaching that. Furthermore, the "for it" that you're fixating on doesn't make much sense in light of the following section on page 10:

"Chapter One is concerned to resolve an apparent tension between what I call "the very liberal view of abortion"--the view that abortion of early fetuses requires no moral justification whatsoever--and several other attractive views: that some early fetuses are the appropriate objects of love, that we are prohibited from harming some early fetuses in virtue of the kinds of things they are, that it is reasonable to be very upset by an early miscarriage, that the decision whether to abort is one of unique uncertainty, and that it is reasonable to regret an abortion. The very liberal view of abortion appears to be committed to the view that all early fetuses lack moral status; some of the other attractive views appear to be committed to the view that all early fetuses have moral status. However, the following view could be adopted instead:
The Actual Future Principle (Consciousness Version): Early fetuses that
will die without ever being conscious lack moral status. Early fetuses that will become conscious have moral status.
This view can underlie both the very liberal view and the other attractive views."
The point is that if this "principle" is correct, then abortion is moral at the moment that the act is committed. Once the act has been committed, it becomes moral. Once it has been committed, there is no way to argue that it is immoral. However, up until the moment that the act is committed, it is possible to argue that it is immoral because the fetus might possess consciousness in the future. However, if it does not possess consciousness, i.e. if the decision is made to abort it, at that moment it loses its "moral status" and abortion becomes moral.
This is completely incoherent. It's akin to stating that murder becomes admissible at the point of death, because the victim is already dead. It's bizarre and nearly impossible to take seriously, even without the other gaping holes in her presentation.

[Anonymous No.15299865]

>>15299856
>I think any layperson can understand the words she's using
Clearly not. Take a look at the posts in this thread.

>It's just a really bad sentence.
Wrong. If you know a better way to say it, go right ahead.

>Something has moral status when the reason not to harm it is because the harm harms it
That ain't it, chief.

[Anonymous No.15299902]

>>15299865
>Clearly not. Take a look at the posts in this thread.
Well tell me how "badness" differs significantly in meaning from what a layperson would understand. Go on and tell me what the specialist words are.
>Wrong. If you know a better way to say it, go right ahead.
You can't be telling me there is no simpler way to communicate what she is expressing in plain English. You haven't even tried, and I don't think you will - because you can't. Her language is covering up a dearth of meaning, which is revealed when attempting to reword her sentence like I did.

[Anonymous No.15299910]

>>15299860
>She does not say "it can still be morally impermissible to kill it for reasons other than the badness of the harm for it" or anything remotely approaching that.
The definitions she gave specifically leave open that possibility. The definition would have been a lot simpler if she didn't want to allow for other grounds for moral impermissibility.

[Anonymous No.15299911]

>>15299856
>It's just a really bad sentence.
I don't think so. It's just compact and compressed with language that is obvious to people who understand the method and terms she is using.

You can read the SEP article on grounding if you want: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounding/

I'm bowing out, as you seem to have an axe to grind.

[Anonymous No.15299920]

>>15299838
>In other words, there are foetuses and there are foetuses, each with different moral status.
This is itself incoherent.
>The major comparison drawn is between aborting a foetus and an having an early miscarriage. This isn't a difficult argument to extend beyond the paper's scope: just as it may be seen as a duty to provide aid to those in need around you and prevent their death, similarly if you argue that an early foetus has moral status it ought to become a duty to aid them also.
That is literally not her position. I don't know why you're putting words in her mouth to try and defend her, but you're seeming less and less credible with each post.
>Rather, it says that each fetus has its status in virtue of facts about that fetus's actual life; these facts might have been different
If we kill it, killing it is okay. If we don't kill it, it's not okay to kill it. Do you genuinely think this is anything but sophistry?

[Anonymous No.15299922]

>>15299902
>You can't be telling me there is no simpler way to communicate what she is expressing in plain English.
That's exactly what I'm telling you. If you understand the words in her definition but think it could be more concisely or elegantly phrased, go right ahead. You're talking out your ass.

[Anonymous No.15299934]

>>15299910
>The definitions she gave specifically leave open that possibility.
That's irrelevant, because that's not how she develops her argument.
> The definition would have been a lot simpler if she didn't want to allow for other grounds for moral impermissibility.
The Maginot Line would not have been built if the French didn't want the Germans to invade. You're being dumb, mate.
>>15299911
A more clear version of the statement was presented earlier in this thread. The entire paper is full of stilted, hackneyed, and opaque writing. It's genuinely poorly-written. Why are you defending bad writing, anon?

[Anonymous No.15299941]

>>15299911
>>15299922
>just in case we have reasons not to cause harms to it simply in virtue of the badness of the harms for it.
All she is fucking saying is that if harm is bad for something, that is the condition of that thing having moral status. Explain to me how that is not what she is saying.

[Anonymous No.15299960]

>>15299941
>that is the condition of that thing having moral status
It could be but if the Actual Future Principle applies.

[Anonymous No.15299983]

>>15299934
>The Maginot Line would not have been built if the French didn't want the Germans to invade.
You wot m8? You're dodging the point. Why didn't she just say "just in case we have reasons not to cause harms to it" -- period -- rather than qualify the definition with a specific type of grounds, if she didn't want to qualify the definition with a specific type of grounds?

>A more clear version of the statement was presented earlier in this thread.
No, it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.15300013]

>>15299983
>You wot m8? You're dodging the point. Why didn't she just say "just in case we have reasons not to cause harms to it" -- period -- rather than qualify the definition with a specific type of grounds, if she didn't want to qualify the definition with a specific type of grounds?
You're asking me to guess her motives. I cannot read minds. What I can do is read arguments, and the argument that she develops there and in the video clip that was posted earlier today does not accord with what you say.
>No, it wasn't.
Yes, it was. I linked to it in a post earlier.

[Anonymous No.15300052]

>>15299941
>All she is fucking saying is that if harm is bad for something, that is the condition of that thing having moral status.
Not quite.

X has moral status iff:
1) there is a reason not to cause harms to X;
2) such a reason is specifically grounded in the badness of those harms to X.

[Anonymous No.15300061]

>>15299532
That anon isn’t the original poster who started the 300+ reply thread yesterday. I am, and it feels good to see someone took this up in my stead.

[Anonymous No.15300064]

>>15300013
>You're asking me to guess her motives.
No, I'm asking you to read the words in the definition. You can't just ignore clause #2 as laid out here >>15300052

[Anonymous No.15300122]

>>15300064
I did not ignore clause #2. I am simply not fixating on two minor words in clause #2 and attempting to extrapolate a line of reasoning that she herself does not engage in. The "for it" can be elided without any change in meaning, because it is made use of nowhere else in her argument. You are attempting to build a defense of her argument on the basis of two words that she clearly does not attach importance to while ignoring the numerous gaping holes that have been pointed out already. I have no clue what you think you're accomplishing here, but it sure isn't an effective defense of her work.

[Anonymous No.15300183]

>>15298579

[Anonymous No.15300197]

>>15300122
>The "for it" can be elided without any change in meaning, because it is made use of nowhere else in her argument.
"Harms for it" just means the harms are located within the entity itself. For example, if my wife becomes suicidal at the sight of a dead spider, it can be morally impermissible for me to kill a spider for reasons other than the harm done to the spider (namely, on account of the harm inflicted on my wife's mental state).

[Anonymous No.15300206]

Why is this thread poppin? I never heard of this lady and her wikipedia has barely any information.

Here's her husband

>I work on a variety of topics in moral, legal, and political philosophy, and epistemology (particularly social epistemology). I also have interests in African Philosophy, Latin American Philosophy, and Native American Philosophy. I am currently working on a book that argues that we should use lotteries, rather than elections, to select our political officials.

https://philosophy.rutgers.edu/people/faculty/details/182-faculty1/faculty-profiles/849-guerrero-alex

[Anonymous No.15300216]

>>15300206
kek this guy has leveraged his entire academic career to land some black puss and get a cush job.
I look in his eyes and I see a kindred spirit, so I know he doesn't buy the shit he's peddling. Mans just got him some angles.

[Anonymous No.15300260]

>>15300206
>I am currently working on a book that argues that we should use lotteries, rather than elections, to select our political officials.

[Anonymous No.15300266]

>>15299920
>This is itself incoherent.
It is not. If you cannot understand it in this simple language, however, maybe consider that you do need more complexly formed statements.
>That is literally not her position.
You're obsessed with taking a position and "winning" rather than exploring thought. Where I went beyond the paper I said, but the entire paper is comparing abortion to early stage miscarriages, so insofar as there is a position, yes that's the position.
>If we kill it, killing it is okay. If we don't kill it, it's not okay to kill it.
Your argument is seeming to amount to "killing it (abortion) is bad, but not because it dies (miscarriage)". I can see you find the problem of miscarriage, well, problematic.

[Anonymous No.15300280]

>>15300206
> I am currently working on a book that argues that we should use lotteries, rather than elections, to select our political officials.
unexpectedly based

[Anonymous No.15300286]

>>15299658
>>15298669
>>15298804

>something has moral status if and only if we have a reason not to harm because we consider harming it intrinsically bad

she's a garbage writer, but it's not just her--I have professors who write like she does (AT BOOK LENGTH) and I think it's frankly more difficult than reading continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.15300300]

>>15300286
>and I think it's frankly more difficult than reading continental philosophy
Now this is an interesting debate.

[Anonymous No.15300314]

>>15300266
>If you cannot understand
It's not a question of comprehension. It's a question of sense-making. It is nonsense.
> but the entire paper is comparing abortion to early stage miscarriages, so insofar as there is a position, yes that's the position.
You're telling lies at this point.
>Your argument is seeming to amount to "killing it (abortion) is bad, but not because it dies (miscarriage)".
I haven't made any positive arguments in this thread. I have done nothing but point out the holes in Harman's argument. Do not attribute to me arguments that I have not made.
At the same time, there is nothing problematic with the statement you just made.
>I can see you find the problem of miscarriage, well, problematic.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.15300335]

>>15300300
>The negation of proposition that a is F -- which is the cognitive act of representing a as being F -- can be taken to be the act of negating that proposition, which represents a as not being F. The disjunction of the propositions that a is F and that b is G may be identified with the act of operating on the them to produce the proposition that represents the pair a,b as standing in the 2-place relation R that consists of the first’s being F or the second’s being G. One who performs this act represents a and b as standing in this disjunctive relation, which is what it is to represent a as being F or b as being G. Applying negation to the disjunctive proposition generates the proposition that represents a,b as standing in the relation ~R that consists in not being such that the first is F or the second is G, or, more simply, neither the first’s being F nor the second’s being G.

JUST USE FUCKING WORDS OKAY NO MORE FUCKING LETTERS JESUS CHRIST JUST SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY

[Anonymous No.15300341]

>>15300286
Your translation is vague and ambiguous in a way that makes it unacceptable as a philosophical proposition. Philosophy is not literature, where a pretty prose style is everything. It is closer to mathematics. Definitions must be given rigorously, with each word carefully chosen to so that the meaning of the sentence is absolutely clear and unequivocal in meaning.

[Anonymous No.15300362]

>>15300314
>I have done nothing but point out the holes in Harman's argument.
You have done no such thing. This entire discussion is over your head.

[Anonymous No.15300372]

>>15300335
University education isn't for everyone, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.15300378]

>>15300314
>You're telling lies at this point.
I'm not. It even has the reverse argument from Tooley's Abortion and Infanticide argument referred to as Tooley's Kittens

[Anonymous No.15300380]

>>15300362
No lmao

[Anonymous No.15300390]

>>15300335
Yet a common argument from analytics is that continental philosophers are obscurantist in their language, and over use scientific sounding language.

[Anonymous No.15300401]

>>15300390
Because they are and do.

[Anonymous No.15300413]

>>15300341
>something has moral status if and only if we have a reason not to harm because we consider harming it intrinsically bad

exploit the ambiguities so it doesn't produce the following when regimented

>∀x ∈ M(x) (B(x)R(x))
>such that M(x) means x is a moral agent, B(x) means that harming x is bad, and R(x) means we have a reason not to harm x

fuck off cunt

[Anonymous No.15300426]

>>15300413
okay 4chan deleted all my conditionals and bicons
>∀x ∈ M(x) <->(B(x)->R(x))

[Anonymous No.15300495]

>>15300413
>>15300426
That's not even a WFF, poseur. Also, moral agency is not even under discussion. You also left out the key part of the definition. I could go on. You're way off.

[Anonymous No.15300519]

>moral philosophy
What a joke.

[Anonymous No.15300554]

>>15298579
From the silly interview she gave:

Murdering a thing with moral status is wrong.
An early fetus may or may not have moral status contingent on whether or not it has a future.
If the early fetus does not have a future it is not wrong to murder the early fetus.
If the early fetus does have a future it is wrong to murder the early fetus.

But to decide to murder the early fetus is to deprive it of a future, which is to deprive it of moral status; which is to say the the act of murdering the early fetus is not wrong because you decided to murder the early fetus, depriving it of a future and thus of moral status.

Put another way: the future is unknown, and to condition the moral status of a thing on an unknown is to make the moral status of the thing unknown. So the only way the moral status of a thing is known is retrospectively (or conditioned on the past and NOT the future). So your moral status is contingent on whether or not your mother (in the present) has decided to murder (abort) you or not, since the present decision fixes the future and thus the retrospective (or past) moral status of the early fetus.

Her argument basically boils down to murdering a fetus is not wrong because you decided to murder the fetus. This honestly pisses me off. Rather than just state plainly what it is you want to say so its comprehensible, they engage in all this empty-headed blather that's disguised to make you think they're some kind of subtly about it, and you are forced to go through it piece by piece, only to end up with something that is almost pathetically stupid.

Not going to bother reading the paper because abortion doesn't interest me.

[Anonymous No.15300561]

This thread contains a high level of autistic gatekeeping

[Anonymous No.15300569]

>If BABIES PROVIDE STRONGER REASONS is true, then there must be something that explains why harms to human babies matter more than similar harms to cats.
When will the anthropocentric bigotry end?

[Anonymous No.15300575]

>>15300554
You don't have the brainpower to process the argument.

[Anonymous No.15300594]

>>15300554
Based reposter

[Anonymous No.15300599]

>>15300575
Really? Prove it then. Because its easy for posers like you to say shit like this. Let's see you back it up.

[Anonymous No.15300605]

>>15300061
These threads are great for outing all the antiphilosophical pseuds on /lit/ who lack basic reading comprehension. Very entertaining.

[Anonymous No.15300628]

>>15300495
>∃y∀x ∈ x=y <->[Mx <->(Bx->Rx)]
do you know how much this benefits our understanding? not at all

>such that Mx means x has moral status, Bx means that harming x is intrinsically bad, Rx means we have a reason not to harm x

tell me how that doesn't necessarily regiment from
>something has moral status if and only if we have a reason not to harm because we consider harming it intrinsically bad

explain it to me convincingly and I'll agree that you're right; i'm far more vitriolic than dogmatic

i'm almost certain you're probably some depressed postgrad who's defensive about the fact that his vaunted analytic tradition is at a dead end and will never produce any great intellectual insight

[Anonymous No.15300657]

>>15300052
I don't see how that meaningfully modifies the meaning from how I simplified it. If harm wasn't bad, it wouldn't be harm, so the second clause is superfluous.

[Anonymous No.15300698]

>>15300628
>∃y∀x ∈ x=y
That's gibberish. What is the copula doing there? If you remove it to create a wff, the statement is an empty tautology.

>tell me how that doesn't necessarily regiment from
"because" is not translated with a biconditional, among many other things

>i'm almost certain
Up your epistemological standards, hothead.

[Anonymous No.15300704]

>>15300569
Viviocentrism is a better word. Does no one remember our boy Mitchell Heisman?
>The attempt to go beyond ethnocentrism and
anthropomorphism leads towards overcoming the prejudices of what I call viviocentrism, or, life-centeredness. Just as overcoming ethnocentrism requires recognition of the provincialism of ethnic values, overcoming viviocentrism emerges from the recognition of the provincialism of life values. Viviocentric provincialism is exposed through an enlarged view from our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and the limits of our knowledge of the larger cosmos we live in.
He didn't coin it I'm sure, not a 100% who did, only know of Maud Ellman's Ghosts of Ulysses where she uses the word 'vivicentrism'.

[Anonymous No.15300721]

>>15300704
Messed up the quote but you get the point.

[Anonymous No.15300739]

>>15300657
>If harm wasn't bad, it wouldn't be harm
No, if the reason not to harm X is grounded in a concern external to X, then the definition doesn't apply. E.g., not harming a fly because it upsets your friend.

[Anonymous No.15300798]

>>15300698
>remove the copula to form a wff
it's already a wff you shithead

>because is not translated with a biconditional
I never did
>Bx->Rx

>epistemological standards
I'm definitely right

[Anonymous No.15300800]

>>15298579
I was trying to figure out why this woman is of any note and all I found was a video with her and James Franco talking about abortion. Is that why this bait thread was posted?

[Anonymous No.15300819]

>>15300800
I believe so.

[Anonymous No.15300838]

>>15300800
>>15300819
check the thread in the archive

[Anonymous No.15300844]

>>15300798
"∃y∀x ∈ x=y" is not a wff in FOL.

[Anonymous No.15300931]

>>15300800
>bait thread
Oh, fuck off, some of us actually want to talk about this

[Anonymous No.15300990]

>>15300800
Also because Princeton academic

[Anonymous No.15301157]

>>15300931
The entirety of this thread is evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.15301355]

>>15301157
>"entire thread"
>2 people complaining out of 47 posters

[Anonymous No.15301370]

Actual Future Principle: Some psycho murders your unborn child, but he didn't wrong it because the act causes its moral value function to collapse to zero. Bet you feel really stupid now about having cherished that worthless clump of cells, huh?

This is an "attractive view".

[Anonymous No.15301410]

>mfw the analytics in this thread
>analytic philosophy is so fucking degraded that they're defending this tripe SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CONFORMS TO ANALYTIC NORMS

Hahahahaha. How about evaluating the content you wannabe mathematicians?

Jesus, why is analytic phil a special hell for people who failed to become math grad students? What did they do to deserve this level of punishment, being a laughingstock for every real mathematician, every real philosopher, and the population at large? This is what you devoted your life to, defending the squiggly symbols of a woman saying something idiotic, simply because she said the idiotic thing with your favorite squiggly symbols.

[Anonymous No.15301419]

>>15301370
>>15301410
Jesus Christ, have mercy on their poor souls

[Anonymous No.15301458]

>>15301410
>Logic is all about CLARITY and RIGOROUS DEFINITION!
>That's why this woman's obvious self-referential fallacy, wrapped up in logical symbols, is so confusing that I can't explain it to you.
>No, I won't explain it, pleb! It is only for the eyes of the elite!
>No I won't explain it!! Spend ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars learning it like I did, so that you can be the third person on earth to think she's correct, after me and her!
>If I act arrogant and elitist, you'll admire me for spending ten years learning the symbols, right? Please??

[Anonymous No.15301771]

>>15299640
gay

[Anonymous No.15301924]

>>15299533
Hmm, I can't resist

[Anonymous No.15301944]

>>15300362

Nice projection lol

[Anonymous No.15301976]

>>15301370
I agree that her argument is absurdly stupid. But she manages to avoid circularity simply by saying it isn't the act of murder that justifies the murder, but rather the DECISION to murder that justifies the murder. So in the strict formal sense the argument holds. But in the real world no rational person would take this shit seriously, since decision and act are effectively one and the same, and thus begs the question.

[Anonymous No.15301980]

>>15300844
>>15300798
>>15300698
>>15300628
Are you guys aliens?

[Anonymous No.15301999]

>>15300372

Are you by chance familiar with the term "sophistry"?

[Anonymous No.15302001]

>>15300704
And now we push on to the final frontier- existencentrism, or the provincialism of existing values

[Anonymous No.15302013]

>>15301999
Philosophy is the opposite of sophistry. That's the problem with pseuds like yourself: you always bring sophistry to a philosophy fight. Sad.

[Anonymous No.15302060]

>>15302013

Holy projection batman.

[Anonymous No.15302073]

>>15301976
>since decision and act are effectively one and the same,
I have decided I want to get laid by a girl with soft tits and freckles.
AHEM.
I HAVE DECIDED I WANT TO GET LAID BY A GIRL WITH SOFT TITS AND FRECKLES.

Bro, it doesn't work, they're not the same at all.

[Anonymous No.15302085]

>>15301976
I mean. You don't know whether it is wrong to murder your fetus. If you decide to murder your fetus it isn't wrong. But you can't decide to murder your fetus because you don't know whether it is wrong or not.

[Anonymous No.15302096]

>>15302001
That's just nihilism painted with broad but still less vulgar strokes than the ones claiming nihilism is the belief in nothing/no value at all. Heisman takes more steps and is more nuanced than that, but I grant that he — somewhat imprecisely — seems to equate the two, life and existence, death and non-existence. Still, he's rather examining supposed arguments than making them up himself — much like a thesis, funnily enough.

[Anonymous No.15302111]

>>15302073
Yes they are. You have introduced a new variable. Whether or not SHE has decided to sleep with you. You might presumably sleep with her regardless. But in any case you don't decide to do something and not do it, without deciding first not to do it. You might forget or be prevented, but that's trivial to the basic argument.

[Anonymous No.15302140]

>>15302111
>all those people who decide they are gonna turn their life around have actually already done it
bruh wat

[Anonymous No.15302155]

>>15302073
besides talking about the real world, nobody decides to want something; you either want something or you do not.

[Anonymous No.15302159]

>>15302140
baiting

[Anonymous No.15302214]

>>15302140
You are confusing a concrete act and a quality; "turn your life around" is not a concrete act you can decide upon. It's a quality that you presume to be contingent on a set of concrete acts you can decide upon.