AGAINST DR PETER KREEFT REGARDING ANTI-CHOICE ARGUMENT (Utilitarianism)

AGAINST DR PETER KREEFT REGARDING ANTI-CHOICE ARGUMENT (Utilitarianism)

RESPONSE #1 (Utilitarianism)

‪#‎distressingideas ‪#‎moralrealism ‪#‎prolifeprochoice

Dr. Kreeft begins his pro-life / anti-choice argument with three presuppositions: things he will presume REASONABLE pro-choicers and pro-lifers would accept.

Presupposition One: Ethics is not about feelings. Moral reality is objectively real, otherwise no argument regarding morality would be possible as everything would be about personal, subjective feelings.

Presupposition Two: Because the distinction between fact and value is not absolute, total moral relativism is impossible. While some degree of moral relativism may apply in certain situations, morality is largely grounded in metaphysics. What is REAL is a major determinant regarding what is RIGHT. And to claim that something is RIGHT is to imply that it is also REAL.

Presupposition Three: The value of something (in this case, a person) is different from its function. Utilitarianism / pragmatism are rejected as grounds for a pro-choice / pro-life argument.

My first counter-argument deals with Presupposition Three.

I believe it is fatally flawed.

PRESUPPOSITION THREE

Here is Dr. Kreeft at about 7:07 into his argument.

(Link to outline and video at the end for context.)

*****

7:07: There may even be a third hidden presupposition in my argument and we may want to argue about that. And that is that a certain theory in morality has to be implicitly rejected in order in order to make sense of the pro-life argument and that is pragmatism or utilitarianism. Let's define pragmatism and utilitarianism. They are different philosophies in a sense but they both agree that, something like, the end justifies the means.That if you can benefit some people by harming other people, that that might be okay. That you calculate goodness or happiness or pleasure quantitatively. And also that people are to be judged by function. That there's no final end: everything is a means or instrument or function for something else. So if you are not functioning in a complete way, a human way, a rational way, an adult way, a useful way, a social way, a good way, that's terribly important. It's the only thing that's important. What you are is not distinct from what you do. And if you don't do good stuff than you aren't good stuff. In other words the pragmatist or the utilitarian would not understand or would not agree with the old adage that you must love the sinner even though you hate the sin. 8:00

*****

So, you cannot calculate “goodness or happiness or pleasure quantitatively” and you can’t judge the value of a person by their function or utility.

QUADRILEMMA POSSIBILITY #2

About a half hour later, around 37:05, Dr. Kreeft makes the following counter-argument against the pro-choice argument that a fetus is human, but it is not yet a person.

This corresponds to the second possibility in his Quadrilemma Argument:  IF a fetus is not a person AND you know it, then you are ethically off the hook.

He says that such an argument - that not all humans are persons - has a dark history involving the Dred Scott decision, forced sterilization, and Nazi eugenics.

Dr. Kreeft’s counter-argument is that QuadrIIemma Option 2 is dependent on the category of “person” being smaller than the category of human.

He believes that the category of “person” is actually LARGER than the category of human and gives tenets of his Catholic faith (the Trinity, angels) as examples of non-human entities who are nonetheless persons.

He goes on to a  SECULAR example.

*****

37:05 So either all humans are persons or some humans are persons. I believe that all humans are persons. I believe the category of person is larger, not smaller, than the category humans. As a Christian I believe God is three Persons. I also believe angels are persons: persons without bodies. I also believe it's possible that there are extra-terrestrial persons of other species, biological species. But they are rational, they have self-consciousness, they have free choice and therefore moral responsibility. So ET is a person. 37:39

*****

The problem is that, in Presupposition #3, Dr. Kreeft presupposes that it is unethical to judge the value of a person by the function they perform or the utility or benefit they provide to society.

Yet, focusing JUST on his “alien” persons (we’ll leave divine and angelic persons to some later time :-)) he says he would consider them persons if they were “rational, they have self-consciousness, they have free choice and therefore moral responsibility.”

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID WE *CANNOT* ETHICALLY DO: ASCRIBE PERSONHOOD ON SOME INDETERMINATE BEING ONLY IF THEY FUNCTION LIKE A HUMAN BEING.

Presumably, were Dr. Kreeft to encounter an alien entity that DID NOT perform those qualifying functions (rationality, self-consciousness, free choice, moral responsibility), he would DENY that they are persons: alien entities, maybe, even animalistic entities with primitive thoughts and feelings, like farm animals, BUT NOT PERSONS ENTITLED TO THE LEGAL PROTECTION DUE PERSONS.

CONCLUSION

Dr. Kreeft’s argument succumbs to the special pleading logical fallacy by first saying that you cannot judge personhood based on function or utility and then saying that, in an encounter with an alien entity, he would do EXACTLY that: judging their personhood on their evidencing rationality, self-consciousness, free choice, and moral responsibility.

In other words Dr. Kreeft reserves to himself the right to determine that an entity that does not look like a human and does not function as a human is not a person when dealing with extraterrestrials that may or may not exist BUT WOULD DENY THAT RIGHT to a woman who must decide whether to abort a pregnancy under ALL circumstances whether it be an early term abortion based on being unready to care for the baby that will later result, or whether the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape, and despite the fact that having a baby under ANY circumstances will put her OWN life at risk.

Ethically serious people WHO ARE REASONABLE will reject his argument.

Link to an outline of and the video of Dr. Peter Kreeft’s Pro-Life Argument at The Inclusive Christian Blog

Discipleship

Discipleship is the continuing, lifelong, identification with the crucifixion and resurrection of God in Christ in the context of the particular and unique circumstances of one's life.

THE (NOT SO) SECRET OF SUCCESS FOR TRUMP AND SANDERS

 

I think it's as simple as this: Bush and Clinton appeal to those who believe the political and economic systems can be tweaked. Sanders and Trump appeal to those who believe it needs to be overturned.
 

Bush and Clinton speak to those who feel, at some level or another, reconciled to the system as it is - though they would each tweak it in their own way.
 

Sanders and Trump (and, for that matter, Black Lives Matter and the Religious Right) appeal to those who are alienated and feel disenfranchised by the system.

And, the fact of the matter is, folks like me (the Bush / Clinton "tweak the system" types) are getting hammered with political and economic reality and giving Trump and Sanders a good listen AS THEY SEEM TO BE THE ONLY NON-POLITICAL POLITICIANS WHO ARE TELLING THE TRUTH as the truth is believed to be by the alienated.

Which, in my opinion, is why Trump and Sanders are gaining the momentum that Bush and Clinton are losing.

It goes far beyond "Bush and Clinton represent the past": it's more like "Bush and Clinton are symbols of a failed system."

Which might be fine... other than the fact that Sanders and Trump represent the polarized, opposing, extremes of the American electorate with mutually contradictory beliefs in what America is all about.

**********

“Should college education be available to all regardless of their income?

“Why are we the only major country on Earth without a national health-care program guaranteeing health care for all people?

“Why is the middle class of this country disappearing?

“Is it moral that we have massive wealth and income inequality?"

-Bernie Sanders

**************

"We are a whipping post, we are a laughingstock as a country, we are not respected anymore, and that's why I decided to run for president because I don't want to take it anymore."

-Donald Trump

********************

The Cost of Discipleship

When a recipient of the Good News of God in Christ confronts the alienated and indentured with specific tokens of reconciliation and freedom, they will get hurt.

As with God in Christ, so also with the disciple of Christ

Surprising Aspects of the Gospel of God in Christ

1.It’s catholic: available to all, throughout all cultures, throughout all historical periods, throughout all political systems, throughout all religions, and throughout all ideologies, including naturalism and atheism.

2.It requires nothing beyond acceptance: God will take care of the rest.

3.It has facilitators throughout the realm of the Christian religion and beyond, but has no mediators other than Jesus Christ.

4.One may pray to do the will of God, but one cannot know the specific will of God in an ethical situation nor can one know, in specific, how God will judge a specific thing or action.

5.There are no specifically Christian ethics. There are human ethics that, in the particularity of history, one might hope to be inspired by the gospel.

Gretchen, Percy, and Paxil.

Just a brief note marking that I have consigned Percy's ashes back to the earth from whence we all came.

Same place as I scattered Gretchen the Dachshund's ashes after having her euthanized 15 years ago today, almost to the hour. And that was on her 18th birthday so she was born 33 years ago today.

Went home and allowed myself to be distracted by the very needy Paxil.

I've reached that age where I'm pretty sure I'm on my last dog. :-)

BILL'S TENTATIVE FORAY INTO THE GREAT DISCUSSION ON RACE IN AMERICA

Went to the Giant Supermarket this morning at 6:30 AM and was not fully awake.

Filled my shopping cart with food (thank you, Lord!) and got in line at the checkout.

Started to put my groceries on the chute and I saw a late, middle-aged, woman holding one gallon of milk.

"You've only got one thing and I have a cartful. Would you like to go first?" I asked courteously. (A Scout is Courteous.)

At this point I saw that behind her was a more "middle" middle-aged man behind her with a cart full of groceries.

"Oh," I said, "Are you two togeth..."

It was at this moment that I BELATEDLY noticed that she was White and he was Black.

I'm not sure how she responded to that awkward pause, but the Black man gave me a big smile and said, "We're not married."

I somewhat defensively smiled and replied, "I'm a liberal, you know. So I had to ask."

Dr Peter Kreeft Pro-Life Argument (Outline Form & Video)

1. Presuppositions

1. Natural Law / Rejection of Subjective Moral Reality

1. 1. We can argue about ethics. There is a role for reason and logic within ethics. There is no absolute division between truth and goodness, fact and value, logic and morality, reason and will.
2. 2. This implies that there is something real about good and evil, right and wrong, rights and duties because we don't argue about our dreams, our fantasies, our creations, our purely personal likes and dislikes. If ethics is reduced to feelings it is not longer conducive to resolution by argument.

2. Moral Realism / Rejection of Moral Relativism

1. Dr. Kreeft talks about the fact / value distinction:  The distinction between facts and values is not total. It is a fact, though not a scientific fact, that there are values and that some things are valuable and some things are not. You can make meaningful statements about values. You can argue about values. We do argue about values, all the time. If we didn't believe, in fact, there was something objective about values we'd never have ethical arguments. We'd just fight.
2. The fact that there are objective values means that total moral relativism is false. There may be some things that are morally relative, but something must be morally objective or, again, you'd never have a moral argument.

3. Rejection of Utilitarianism / Pragmatism (Possible Third Presupposition)

1. A certain theory in morality has to be implicitly rejected to make sense of the pro-life argument and that is pragmatism and utilitarianism (the end justifies the means).
2. That is, the idea that you can help some people by harming other people, and that might be okay. That happiness, etc., can be calculated and that people are to be judged by function. Accepting pragmatism or utilitarianism as a supposition means that nothing can be seen as a final end - everything is a means.
3. Applied to the value of a person, this means that what you are is not distinct from what you do.

4. Burden of Proof

1. Dr. Kreeft then deals with the preliminary issue of burden of proof.
2. Which side has the burden of proof: pro-life or pro-choice?
3. He says that within a community and a tradition (and here I'm presuming he means Roman Catholicism, the burden of proof is on pro-choice.
4. But within the larger society, the burden of proof is on pro-life as the pro-choice movement should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

2. The Three-Step Essential Pro-Life Argument (Argument)

1. Expression One: Three Premises

1. 1. A premise of FACT
2. 2. A premise of NATURAL VALUE
3. 3. and a premise of SOCIAL VALUE, CONVENTIONAL VALUE, or LEGAL VALUE

2. Expression 1 PREMISE OF FACT:

1. The life of each individual of a species, at least regarding mammals, begins at conception or fertilization. That's when a genetically new or genetically complete individual comes into existence.
2. This was a truism in every argument or biological text pre-Roe v Wade in 1972.
3. There was no scientific study to justify that change.
4. So Dr. Krefts Premise One of Fact is that ALL HUMANS ARE HUMAN AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.

3. Expression 1 PREMISE OF NATURAL VALUE.

1. Premise Two of Natural Value states that ALL HUMANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL HUMAN PERSONS. We all share the "human essence."
2. (As a brief excurses he notes that philosophical nominalists do not believe in universals, only specific instances. So there is no essence to "chair," just individual instances of things we call "chairs" because we're too lazy to come up with individual names of each. They would also, by the same reasoning, deny the reality of "human nature," again, as just a sloppy way of referring to individuals that share a sort-of family resemblance. He says most people are not nominalists and therefore believe in the reality of human nature.
3. So, since all humans are human, and since we don't want other humans killing us, so too we ought not to kill them.

4. Expression 1 PREMISE OF SOCIAL VALUE (or CONVENTIONAL VALUE, LEGAL VALUE):

1. The law must protect the basic human rights of all citizens. Self defense is not excluded: if my life is as valuable as yours and you're starting to attack me and you threaten to murder me I have a right to defend my life, if necessary, by taking yours.
2. Dr. Kreeft says there are three types of pro-choicers: those who deny the first premise, those who deny the second and those who deny the third.

5. DENIAL OF THE PREMISE OF FACT:

1. This pro-choice argument states that which you abort is a fetus, or a bunch of cells, or a potential person, not an actual person.
2. DR. KREEFTS REBUTTAL: "From a scientific point of view, certainly from a genetic point of view, that little thing there is a very little human." It's not doing anything other than something only a human can do: it's growing a human brain, a human nervous system, etc. "It's not a potential human being, it's a potential adult."

6. DENIAL OF THE PREMISE OF NATURAL VALUE:

1. A fetus may be a human but not a person with the value and rights of a person.
2. DR. KREEFTS REBUTTAL: Denying premise two to justify abortion is an extremely serious thing and can – and has – been used to justify genocide and euthanasia.

7. DENIAL OF THE LEGAL PREMISE:

1. "I'm personally against it, but I don't want to stop someone who believes its okay." In other words, the decision to have an abortion is subjective or personal and presumably no business of society or government.
2. DR. KREEFTS REBUTTAL: Why personally against it? And why not impose your belief on society?
3. Would you say that you're personally against slavery but you wouldn't want to impose your belief on others?
4. The presumption is that abortion is a non-serious, subjective thing with no societal consequences.

3. Expression Two: The Skeptical Argument (Clarification)

1. EXPRESSION TWO: The Skeptical Argument

1. We don't know if a fetus is a person with human rights because we don't know when human life begins. We won't legislate when we don't know. There is a hidden premise that is kept in mind as well as the stated premise that if we don't know when human life begins, than we should not outlaw abortion.
2. Counter: 1. We DO know when human life begins.
3. Counter 2. The implied premise is that it is okay to kill what might be a human if you're not sure. We would not do that in any other area: we would not implode a building if we thought there MIGHT still be a person inside it, a hunter would not shoot a target that he THOUGHT was a bear but might actually be a person.
4. His catch phrase for the skeptical argument is, "IF YOU DON'T KNOW, DON'T SHOOT."
5. [As a former NRA-certified Rifle, Shotgun and Black Powder instructor, I will absolutely grant his point!]

2. The Skeptical Arguments Relevance to Pro-Life / Pro-Choice

1. The skeptical argument should work AGAINST pro-choice.
2. When Dr. Kreeft is asked, "Do you know that a human life begins at fertilization?" he replies, "Do you know that it doesn't?"
3. Odd that SCOTUS used a skeptical argument to justify abortion.

4. Expression Three: The quadralemma (Argument)

1. What is a “quadralemma”?

1. Question 1: What is a fetus? (Objective Fact)
2. Question 2: How much certainty do we have in that knowledge? (Subjective Belief)
3. Two questions together form a quadralemma similar to Pascals Wager.
4. Do I believe in God?    YES     NO
5. Does God exist?         YES     NO
6. This gives us four alternatives with four “happiness” outcomes
7. 1 I believe in God and God DOES exist: temporary inconvenience in this life leads to eternal bliss in the next.
8. 2. I don’t believe in God and God DOES exist: Temporary pleasure in this life leads to eternal agony in the next.
9. 3. I don’t believe in God and God DOES NOT exist: Temporary pleasure in this life followed by oblivion so you’re right, but it doesn’t give you very much “payoff” for risking eternal damnation if you are wrong.
10. 4 I believe in God and God DOES NOT exist: Temporary inconvenience in this life leads to oblivion after death.. and no one to tell me I’m wrong. :-)
11. (The preceding is not his endorsement of Pascal’s Wager but in aid of explaining his own "quadrallemic" argument.)

2. Application to the Pro-Life / Pro-Choice Argument

1. 1. Objective Fact: EITHER pro-lifers are right and it's murder because the fetus is a person OR the pro-choicers are right and the fetus is not a human life.
2. 2. Subjective Knowledge ("Because it is knowledge, not belief, that makes one morally responsible): EITHER you know what a fetus is OR you do not.

3. Pro-Life / Pro-Choice Quadralemma Outcomes.

1. 1. IF a fetus is a person AND you know it, then abortion is murder
2. 2. IF a fetus is not a person AND you know it, then you are ethically off the hook.
3. 3. IF a fetus is a person AND those involved don't know it then the skeptical argument applies and, at the least, they've committed negligent homicide or manslaughter because the rule is, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, DON'T SHOOT.
4. 4. IF you don't know AND it is not a person then those involved with abortion are STILL criminally negligent: they're just lucky.

4. Defeating the Pro-Life / Pro-Choice Quadralemma

1. To defeat this argument, someone who is pro-choice must defeat one of these four possible outcomes of fact and belief/knowledge.

2. The pro-choice philosopher tries to defeat #1 and says that a fetus is biologically and genetically a human being but not a person.
3. The argument against #2 is dark in that some human beings are defined as persons and some humans are not.
1. The issue comes down to whether all humans have rights or only some humans have rights.
2. Talks about a Nazi era book, "Life Unworthy of Life, " that inspired the Nazi Eugenics program.
3. Dr. Kreeft says that the "all humans have rights" escapes this outcome
4. Since rights come from persons (that is, only persons have rights), a pro-choice rebuttal is that a fetus is a human being but not a person.
5. That is, the class of "person" is SMALLER than the class of "human beings."
6. He says there are, logically, only two possibilities.
7. Either all humans are persons or some humans are persons.
8. Dr. Kreeft believes all humans are persons.
9. He believes the category of person is LARGER, not smaller, than the category of human being.
10. "I also believe that it's possible that there are extraterrestrial persons of other species, biological species, but they're rational, they have self consciousness, they have free choice and therefore moral responsibility."
11. Pro-choice: category of person smaller than humanity.
4. Any argument against #3 and #4 can be defeated with the Skeptical Argument (“If you don’t know, don’t shoot.”)

5. EXPRESSION FOUR: If we know what an apple is, we know what a fetus is. (Clarification of the Quadrallema: We KNOW what a fetus is.)

1. [NOTE: I found a link to the Cut Apple Argument (or clarification)  and will discuss that separately.]

6. Conclusion: Morality involves making the right response to reality so the basis of all moral arguments is metaphysics / ontology.

1. He concludes by saying that metaphysics (the part of philosophy that deals with the qustion of being) is the basis of all moral arguments because morality involves making the right response to reality
2. Metaphysically, does nature define a human being or can humans define it?
3. Dr. Kreeft says, "Human nature exists and We can know something about it and that grounds human values. Human beings have human values because they are human. And different kinds of people have different rights and different duties because they are differently human."
4. So a parent may forbid their 17 yr old son from driving the family car because they believe he lacks judgment, but some other person cannot – because they are not the boy's parent.
5. His final argument against the pro choice skeptical rebuttal that we don't know human nature is, first, you ACT like you know and, second, if you don't know, DON'T SHOOT." Pro-Life Logic (Dr. Peter Kreeft) (video)