David Boonin vs. Peter Kreeft Yale University December 1, 2005 Cicero's Podium: A Great Issues Debate Series V000459 For more ISI videos, visit www.isi.org
The autonomy argument ignores that parents have an overriding obligation to their children. So it is disingenuous to analogize the baby-mother relationship to any non parental relationship. Such artificial abstraction is dehumanizing. If by hypothesis we assume a fetus is a person, it follows that the woman is a mother and not merely some other person.
I thought Boonin addressed this though? The obligations of a woman being a parent are something one has to consent towards, and a woman clearly does not consent to such a relationship. You may then reply that when someone consents to sex, they consent to being a parent, but this is a different argument that Boonin already addressed in his opening speech?
This was an excellent exchange. I appreciate Dr. Peter Kreeft's work, and I very much think he stakes a good claim to be the C.S. Lewis of our time, but I think in this debate, Dr. Boonin clearly had the edge. I've heard Kreeft give similar arguments for the Pro-Life view in the context of other talks, but it's clear that his approach was not suitable in the context of Boonin's arguments. Boonin's argument was clear, logically structured, and rigorous. It was very much a re-strung version of the classic violinist argument, but with a contemporary updating; if it's wrong for the state to force people to go through burdensome procedures that demand the use of their body without their consent, then it should also be wrong for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they didn't consent too. Boonin's argument was deceptively simple as an argument from analogy, and the proper way to respond was to offer a relevant disanalogy between Boonin's case of the bone marrow and that of an unwanted pregnancy. Though Kreeft had many things to say in terms of talking points about individualism, nihilism, infanticide, and personhood, unfortunately, very little of it actually engaged with Boonin's arguments. The audience (many of whom were Pro-Life) also tried to poke holes in Boonin's analogy, but he responded to them quite effectively. People can make all sorts of claims (as they are in the comments of this video), but at least laid bare, at a logical level, the Pro-Choice argument was clearly the more successful one in this exchange.
Part 1/2 @RealAtheology I appreciate your kind words about Kreeft, with whom you obviously disagree. I also think that Kreeft did not have the upper hand and he also seems not to have grasped the dialectic of the debate, at least concerning Boonin´s argument. But in my opinion Boonin is not only the best defender of abortion rights I know of. He is an outstanding and entertaining debater, too. Nevertheless, here is at least my humble try of a response to the bodily rights argument, defended by philosophers like Judith Thomson (the violinist case) and David Boonin (the bone marrow case, which is analogous to cases of blood or organ donation). I think something like the following formulation is the strongest version of the argument to which I will respond: (P1): Every person has a right to life. (P2): Unborn human beings are persons (conceded at least for the sake of argument). (C1): All unborn human beings have a right to life. (P3): Every person has the right to bodily autonomy and integrity. (P4): No human being has a legal claim to the use or even continued use of the body or organs of another human being. (C2): The right to life of an unborn human being does not include the legal right to use or even to continue to use the woman's body or organs. (P6): Abortion, and thus the fatal deprivation of the use of the woman's body or organs, does not violate the right to life of the unborn human being. (C3): Abortion, and thus the fatal deprivation of the use of the woman's body or organs, should not be legally prohibited. Now, I think the parental obligation objection (there is a strong duty of parents to care for their depended offspring) as well as the responsibility objection (if you deliberately engage in an act that may result in the creation of a helpless, innocent or morally incapacitated and depended human being, you are - even without further explicit consent - responsible to care for this human being; at least you are not allowed to kill it in any case) is helpful, persuasive for many people and applicable in most circumstances. But I am afraid it does not go to the heart of the matter. For example, I can come up with a thought experiment on pregnancy which is, at least by my lights, in turn analogous in all morally relevant aspects to the violinist case of Thomson or Boonin´s cases and therefore sidesteps all Pro-Life objections which try to block the argument by pointing out dissimilarities. But I (as well as all Pro-Lifers I know of to which I presented this case) still think it is not permissible to remove the child from the uterus of the woman. Imagine that in the future an incubator will be developed which is what we may call an artificial womb and which can already care for a human being in the first stages of its development and let it mature until "birth". In this future, however, there is also a hereditary disease, which the growing child can only survive if it remains connected to the woman's body during pregnancy. In this thought experiment, the basic care of the child can thus obviously be provided without the woman's body and the connection would have to be maintained for therapeutic reasons alone. Suppose a woman does not want to carry her child (which is diagnosed with this disease) because it was conceived through rape and the psychological and physical strain until birth seems unbearable to her (we can even strengthen the case by assuming the embryo is a "stranger" and comes from a fertilized egg of another woman and was implanted without her consent). In this case, does she have the right to demand that the child be transferred to an appropriate incubator, even if this procedure leads unavoidably to the death of the child? I think it is not permissible to do that and in my estimation in this case as well as in the case of the violinist the doctrine of double effect (DDE) needs to be taken into account. When we consider the conditions of DDE I think all these cases are successfully resolved - even if we grant for the sake of argument Thomson´s premise that not even one’s own child has a natural right to the use of the woman´s body. As you may know, there are other thought experiments which highlight severe problems with Thomson´s (and Boonin´s) reasoning. For example consider the following case which is inspired by an idea from Francis Beckwith: Imagine that two girls, Lara and Lea, develop as conjoined twins. Furthermore, only in the body of Lea kidneys are formed and we know that Lara's body does not accept any donated kidney. Lara is therefore dependent for her survival on the connection to Lea's body and, in contrast to Lea, would not survive a potentially possible separation. In this scenario we are therefore even faced with the extreme case described by Thomson, in which the connection between two people must be maintained for a lifetime. Suppose that through the connection between the two bodies, the girls suffer for a few months every few years from physical and psychological problems comparable to a pregnancy, in addition to the otherwise already stressful situation. Lara is a fighter and has come to terms with the situation, not least for lack of alternatives. However, Lea, who has all the vital organs in her body, does not want to accept this situation any longer. In this case, does Lea have the right to demand separation, even if it means her sister Lara's death? According to the argument of Thomson and Boonin, I think this would have to be affirmed.
@@jogo5660 The abortion legislation that takes public money to kill an innocent is deeply unjust. It is, in fact, contrary to one of the principal and most serious duties of the State, called to protect the life of all citizens, especially the most defenseless. By whom has the woman been given the power to suppress an innocent human life? No one is the master of another's life. Not even parents are masters of the lives of their children. The acceptance of abortion in the mindset, in customs, and in the positive law of the state is an eloquent sign of a dangerously deep crisis of moral sense, which becomes increasingly unable to distinguish between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Now more than ever, there is a need for the courage to face the truth and to call things by their name, without succumbing to convenient compromises or the temptation of self-deception. Particularly in the case of abortion, there is a spread of ambiguous terminology, even if it is "clear, logically structured, and rigorous," (as stated in the previous comment) such as "pregnancy termination," which tends to conceal its true nature and mitigate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of discomfort in consciences. But no words can change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, however it is carried out, of a human being in the initial stage of existence, between conception and birth. The moral gravity of procured abortion appears in all its truth if one recognizes that it is homicide and, in particular, if one considers the specific circumstances that qualify it. The one who is suppressed is a human being who is about to enter life, the most innocent being imaginable: never could it be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor ("it should also be wrong for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they didn't consent"!?). It is weak, defenseless, to the extent of being deprived even of that minimal form of defense constituted by the imploring strength of the cries and cries of the newborn. It is entirely entrusted to the protection and care of she who carries it in her womb. Yet, sometimes, it is she, the mother, who decides and asks for its suppression, even procuring it. It is true that often the choice of abortion is dramatic and painful for the mother, as the decision to dispose of the conception is not made for purely selfish and convenient reasons, but because one would like to safeguard some important goods, such as one's own health or a dignified level of life for other family members ("a woman does not want to carry her child -which is diagnosed with this disease - because it was conceived through rape and the psychological and physical strain until birth seems unbearable to her -we can even strengthen the case by assuming the embryo is a "stranger" and comes from a fertilized egg of another woman and was implanted without her consent"). Sometimes there is fear for the unborn child of conditions of existence such as to make one think that it would be better for him not to be born. However, these and other similar reasons, however serious and dramatic, can never justify the deliberate suppression of an innocent human being. Certainly, there is ignorance in this serious issue concerning nascent human life. Furthermore, there is a denial of evidence that is very strong: in fact, anyone knows that the human being that begins to develop in the womb of one's mother is of the human species and is a new and unique individual, such as there has never been and never will be in history, absolutely distinct from the mother. But, if you are a Christian, there is also error in faith because it is contrary to the definitive, infallible, and irreformable teaching of the Church. And such error, if willfully and persistently sustained, is certainly a grave sin.
"If it's wrong for the state to force people to go through burdensome procedures that demand the use of their body without their consent, then it should also be wrong for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they didn't consent too." This argument is simply foolish. The woman's body is not the child's body! No circumstance, no purpose, no law in the world can ever make lawful an act that is intrinsically unlawful, because it is contrary to God's Law, written in the heart of every man, recognizable by reason itself. It is about the violent suppression of an innocent, defenseless human being, in need of everything and everyone. Abortion is condemned even if the woman has suffered sexual violence. Certainly, sexual violence is one of the greatest crimes that can be committed against a person. But this crime is not remedied by committing another, killing an innocent. The same applies to a poor family: the Church and society must take care of it. And it also applies if it is diagnosed that the child will be born with some handicap. The fact is that he is alive and as such has the right to life as much as an adult. It doesn't matter that he hasn't yet seen the light of day. No one is the master of their own life. For this reason, life, once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care. Even in the case of a difficult birth where the lives of both the child and the mother are endangered, everything must be done to save both. The child is a human being, even if not yet born, to the same degree and by the same title as the mother. Furthermore, every human being, even the child in the mother's womb, has the right to life, a right that comes directly from God, not from parents, nor from any human society and authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic, moral indication that can exhibit or provide a valid legal title for a direct, deliberate disposition over an innocent human life, namely a disposition aimed at its destruction. The state cannot legitimize abortion, much less make it a free service. The state's task is to serve every person, starting with those who are unable to provide for themselves, such as children in the womb of their mothers. The state, by serving the people, must also serve pregnant women to help them bring the pregnancy to term, not to kill the child. When one talk about mentally unstable women, one only consider the problem from the woman's point of view. But there is a child in the middle, who is innocent and defenseless and has the right to life as much as the mother and anyone else. Even in the case of a woman showing signs of mental instability, she should be helped to bring the pregnancy to term and then the community will take care of the child. In a nutshell, when arguing about abortion (which consists of the suppression of a human being), the object to keep in mind must always be the child. No one gives us the right to kill him. Those who behave like this are tyrants. For this reason, the Second Vatican Council says: "God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the highest mission of protecting life: a mission that must be carried out in a humane manner. Therefore, life, once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care, and abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes".
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp, I fail to see in what sense you are addressing me here. I unambiguously argued that abortion is not permissible under any circumstances. It is only licit to perform medical surgery to save the mother´s life without intentionally or directly killing the unborn human being (e. g. removing a part of the fallopian tube in cases of an ectopic pregnancy).
@@jogo5660 I apologize for the hasty interpretation. I indeed thought that C3 (Abortion, and thus the fatal deprivation of the use of the woman's body or organs, should not be legally prohibited.) was a possibility considered in your intervention.
Which of these men would you rather have trust your life to? Which of them would you expect to put himself at risk to try to save you if you needed it? Which one is more likely to play it safe and look out for himself?
Question to pro-lifers, suggested by one of the points made by Boonin during the Q & A. If an unwanted pregnancy, detected, say, at five weeks, could be transplanted - with technology that we obviously do not have right now but, who knows, might one day become available - into the uterus of a willing surrogate, would you be happy for this to take place in order to allow the unwilling party the opportunity to avoid her pregnancy whilst keeping alive the product of that pregnancy? Would you be happy for this to be a normal, mainstream option? And, as a consistent pro-lifer, would you be happy to provide such surrogacy services yourself rather see the pregnancy end with an abortion?
@@AKdon68 The former head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, for many years the main abortion provider in the UK, has a son, conceived with difficulty following fertility treatment. This baby's parents were not prolifers.
@@AKdon68 The most prolific abortionist in the world is - guess who? - God. He brings about millions of spontaneous abortions every day via the mechanism of so-called "natural miscarriage", which in fact is nature's way of keeping the genetic pool healthy. God actually generates these abortions himself. These are what pro-lifers would call children, who bible believers claim God knew before they were even in the womb, yet God causes them to die, innocent and helpless though they are.
There a few parts with this question. So I would say there is no need to do that. It’s very simple women need to learn and accept their pregnancy and as her biological process she is meant to bare a child. So sure if there was “ would you rather” sure let’s have a artificial uterus. But the issue is no one has to take care of their child unless! The circumstances. But we can’t have a society to say “I don’t want my child Therfore I can kill them or you put them in your uterus.
@C Trent Horn didn't defeat Boonin in their debate. Horn was skilful and eloquent but you would have to be very biased to claim that he overcame Boonin.
@@laurameszaros9547 Well, the outcome of those debates is unimportant. I really think people overcomplicate things. Look at my other comment on this video. I saw the truth very easily.
@@michaelhunt372 You're right that the outcome of these debates is not necessarily important in terms of what sways public opinion. However the fact that you and I watch these debates suggests that we, at least, have some interest in the arguments being presented. Trent Horn is touted as a brilliant Catholic apologist, but I think Matt Dillahunty got very much the better of him in their debate on the resurrection and Richard Carrier, who most Christians love to scorn, certainly gave him a run for his money in their debate on the historicity of Christ. I actually agree with one of the comments on this thread that Peter Kreeft's essential point is that abortion is wrong because God thinks it's wrong, hence, from a logical standpoint on very shaky ground indeed. Ultimately many people derive their views on subjects such as abortion from emotional persuasions - I know I certainly do - and whilst I don't believe there's anything wrong with that, we need to acknowledge such to be the case and take it into consideration when public policies are decided and wider attitudes encouraged.
@@laurameszaros9547 The issue is that Boonin equates life extension and life creation, which would lead to conclusions that most religious and non-religious people would not accept.
Those who say that abortion is morally unjustified, can you give me an example where the bodily autonomy of a human being can be compromised and also make it consistent?
The bodily autonomy argument has always been weak, a women has a right to get an abortion, because even if it has the right to life, and even if the right to life comes before the right to bodily autonomy, the right to life =/= the right to be kept alive by someone else.
Sorry that’s not making sense. I would say it makes logical reason to compromise during pregnancy as the proper place for the unborn is to exist in the womb.
@@chrisarmon1002 So, if I wanted an organ donor who is not willing to donate his organ (or part of it in some cases) to me or someone for whom I want a transplant, can I then take it forcibly?
@@jaz_shl that’s called a false equivalency fallacy. Do you know what that means? Now I’ll explain. Why. So the uterus is existing for the unborn. A women’s own body is biologically meant for the unborn based off these facts. 1. We exist in the womb. 2. Her uterus, 3. Her own body has a period for the preparing of the unborn 4. The body allowed it. NOW! Organ donation is something that’s NO! We don’t all need someone heart for example. This is why pregnancy is a ordinary biological process. Forced organ donation is extraordinary. Major differences in why you can’t compare
Well at least we got an honest response from Kreeft at the end. Why is abortion wrong? Because God doesn't want it. This is as childish and unreflective a justification as it gets.
There can be multiple lines of reasoning for a position. A christian can provide rationale in common with non-theists that murdering an adult human being is wrong AND provide religious rationale for the same thing. Same with abortion.
@@kyler9323 It’s a motivating factor that in this case manifests in a clear and obvious bias. When you give vague allusions to philosophical disagreements in the debate and then close by making an impassioned emotional connection to a religious audience it is a clear reason to doubt the force of said person’s philosophical arguments with vague allusions to philosophical disagreements.
@@blamtasticful I disagree. The differences Kreeft mentioned are real, sharp, and applicable here. For example, the differences between pre and post Cartesian philosophy alone are profound and bear on notions of personhood, the social nature of man and corresponding rights and duties, and the role of the State. Kreeft didn't flesh that out enough (he treated the whole matter more like a discussion than a debate), but he identified it and he was right. I know enough about thomism (the philosophical school which Kreeft belongs to) to know that Kreeft actually thinks these philosophical differences to be true and really the whole show. His impassioned plea at the end was really just to take a bigger picture view of what's at stake and urge people towards the truth. Philosophy, while communicating real practical knowledge, doesn't really get people nearly as impassioned as religious motivations do. For example, I'm pro-life for deeply philosophical reasons and for theological reasons but what causes me to identify life as prime issue and perhaps stick my neck out for the voiceless, regardless of the cost, would mostly be theological in nature.
@@kyler9323 I agree, but as I said vague allusions to one's philosophical differences is not an argument. You are right that Thomistic metaphysics is incredibly complex which is why they need to be scrutinized. Broad appeals to shared intuitions of the religious is a tactic that doesn't work once you put those ideas of those complex metaphysical issues on the table and go through the minutia. He at times treated the debate as a discussion and at other times was aggressive towards secular perspectives. Such confidence is not warranted by simple allusion to philosophy before Descartes. If you don't believe me try publishing a paper that way. To me religious motivations were used as a way to bypass careful meticulous reflective philosophical reasoning. If this closing is what he believes he should defend it in the actual debate instead of arguing from different propositions and avoiding criticism of this other clearly relevant motivating factor.
@@blamtasticful Yes, I don't disagree with you there. I personally don't think Kreeft did well in the debate.He got to the differences, he just didn't put forward an argument capitalizing on those differences. He is a good writer, a good philosopher, but not a quick thinking eloquent debater. I just don't think he was acting inappropriate at the end. As an example, in a different way, in his debates William Lane Craig will often spend part of his closing statement evangelizing. I personally don't have an issue with that. If that is how he wants to spend his time.
Fascinating debate, if not merely because of how Boonin represented the pro-choice side. I studied his sort of philosophy as an undergrad major in my twenties, and for a decade after. I was vegan/vegetarian for over a decade. I enjoyed listening to myself pontificate, to hear myself “get someone” in a debate. Then, as a psychotherapist and now psychoanalyst, I began looking more deeply at these arguments, and understanding human nature differently through my work. I’ve realized how overly-intellectualized Boonin is (as I once was) - though this isn’t to say that Kreeft isn’t appropriately intellectual and coherent, but that Boonin’s intellectualism severely lacks important qualities that might make him more properly a moral agent. It’s strange. I was very attached to “knowing,” to being “right,” in search of certainty and control, in my 20s and 30s. I thought my vegetarianism and pacifism was righteous and ideal. Things changed in my 40s. I think, in part, I began to see the uniqueness of humankind as compared with nonhuman animals, and I began looking more closely at theologians (philosophers) like Aquinas and Augustine. I returned to my Catholic roots (slowly, over several years, culminating in my attending Easter this year for the first time in over 20 years). About 10 years ago I began raising chickens for eggs, and then meat, and any physical issues I’d had over the past 20 years have all subsided because of this diet change. I’m unapologetically pro-life, anti-abortion, and believe in the fundamental dignity of human life.
@@HT-rq5pi I don’t justify “forced” pregnancies. I just don’t believe it’s moral to murder humans. Nonhuman animals aren’t human and are a natural and important source of food, so killing applies very differently to them. I asked the same questions 20 years ago, and I was never open to this response, so I don’t expect you to be.
@@swansandducks1996 The problem with Bonin is ultimately that of Gnosticism, idealism, the devaluation of classical metaphysics. It is true that nearly every major philosophical development since Hegel began with the rejection of Hegel, in many different directions: Marxism, atheistic existentialism, theistic existentialism, personalism, positivism, logical positivism, analytic philosophy, pragmatism, phenomenology, deconstructionist. But since Metaphysics declined from its nobility and foundation, becomes uncertain, and descends to the level of logic, mathematics, or physics, or even, as in Occam's case, and the Oxford School, to grammar and language, it was no longer about seeing the order of being, but about respecting the rules of grammar, logical analysis, and syntax. To speak of metaphysics, one settles for little: just entering the world of the metasensible of mathematics, of beings of reason, of logic, and the syntax of propositions, certainly not into the world of the spirit, the proper terrain of metaphysics, to believe that one has reached the pinnacle and the unattainable summit of theoretical philosophy. Ockham, by orienting metaphysics towards the individual rather than towards being, gives metaphysics an individualistic turn, causing it to forget the universal. The self begins to fold in on itself. The empirical approach and the excessive utilitarian concern for concrete existence lead it to narrow and lower the horizon of thought, which truthfully can only form a demonstrative science by relying on universal essence, and surpassing sensitivity to demonstratively rise to the supreme degree of being and essence, which is God, singular yes, but at the same time universal and spiritual principle of all reality. After Ockham, Descartes no longer places being as the object of metaphysics but rather his own self, which, by becoming the principle of certainty, knowledge, and being, clearly transcends the limits of the individual self and tends to enlarge excessively in order to sustain the weight of the totality of reality. The Cartesian self presents itself modestly at the beginning as Descartes' self, created by God, and yet being implicitly conceived by him as the foundation of truth, in Descartes' followers, who articulate and develop the logical consequences of his disproportionate conception of the self, this self in the following centuries will gradually manifest its claims to transcend the individual self or the human self to become the divine Self. Descartes makes a turn in metaphysical interest, which is always directed towards being, but if before him the metaphysician uses the verb "to be" in the third person, so that the metaphysician says: it or he is, or being is, now the interest shifts to the first person: I am. However, now the problem arises: there is no difficulty in saying I exist. But can I say I am? Christ says it because He is God, indeed only God can say of Himself, as it appears from the Bible (Exodus 3:14), "I Am," because, as St. Thomas had already pointed out, He is the Ipsum Esse, the very Self-subsisting Being, so only God can say of Himself "I am Being." I, as a creature, must say, instead, I have being. I have received being, I do not have it from myself, but from God who created me. If He had not made me to be, I would be nothing. Everything I am, I owe to Him. Instead, the Cartesian "I think" in its ambiguity (do I exist or am I?), will be interpreted by Fichte as if I, as a creature, could predicate this absolute being of myself. This is what the idealists call "presupposed being," which for them is a smoke in the eyes, because it would be a being independent of them, whereas they want being to depend on their thought. For this reason, Fichte can say: I, by affirming to exist, posit myself, I posit my being and with this I posit being simpliciter, I posit being in toto, so there is no other being distinct from mine that posits my being; I posit it by myself. But if it is actually God who posits my being by creating me, it is clear that I am replacing God. For this reason, Fichte was rightly accused of atheism. And Descartes indeed leads to atheism. At the same time, with the substitution of "he is" with "I am," the "you are" without a nominal predicate also disappears, which is present in Scripture referring to God and which corresponds precisely to the "I Am." This means that the dialogue with God, prayer, and religion are lost. It is clear that if I am God, should I pray to myself? This is why in the development of German idealism from Kant to Hegel, God is gradually devalued, because man appropriates His attributes and in the end, with Nietzsche, only the human self remains and God has disappeared. Man instead of God. This is the final outcome of Descartes' cogito and 'metaphysics,' to which Boonin and all postmodern thinkers are not entirely strangers.
@@chasestewart8419 It's easy to advocate that others be murdered in the womb, when you yourself were not. It's extremely convenient. This is called-' Deadly Hypocrisy'.
@@robinrobyn1714 Way to beg the questions, you have yet to prove that the fetus is person who can "murdered,". Also its very easy to advocate for others to go through the pain of child birth and the poverty forced child birth brings when yourself have not. This is called psychopathic behavior.
@@chasestewart8419 It is called' Psychopathic behavior'- determining who or who is not a" person'. Only an idiot doesn't recognize the humanity within the fetus. As only an idiot doesn't take into account the FACT that every Human pregnancy results in another PERSON... ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. It's psychopathic behavior to endorse murdering other Human Beings according to your convenient labeling of who and who is not Human. Thank you for letting us all know that you exhibit psychopathic behavior
David Boonins analogy of an unborn baby and someone in need of bone marrow is wildly out of context. The baby is living, growing and learning and even possibly dying from natural causes...but the bone marrow patient is dying. Both of these are part of the natural life cycle. Why would he compare someone who is dying to someone who is just coming into life? We are all going to die...Boonin's argument misses the point...do we have the right to live from the beginning of our human person until natural death?
It’s irrelevant, Boonin can run the exact same argument so that the person under threat is healthy but hostile conditions like space (and needs to be connected to a person’s body to be prevented from dying).
@@naomifranco4739 I understood it perfectly clearly. Forcing me to give bone marrow, isn't the same as forcing a mother to not have her baby killed. Scientifically or spiritually, there's no denying you're killing a human being during abortion....that's it...there's really nothing else that needs to be said. Someone dying and in need of bone marrow is dying of natural causes. There's nothing that forces anyone to do anything special for someone in this state...because it's a NATURAL CAUSE...get it...abortion isn't a natural cause, even if you don't believe it's murder, there's no denying that an abortion is NOT a natural cause....so it's two completely different circumstances.
@@JohnFisherChoir wrong. We are talking about dying from natural causes in the video's argument. Need bone marrow indicates you're dying from a natural cause, not someone coming in and sucking your brains out and dismembering you because someone doesn't want you. Having an abortion is a willful choice to kill a human being...even according to science...there's no state in our life when we aren't human...
Here you go. If you believe murder is okay, then yes, abortion is okay too. God said this - be fruitful and multiply, or I knew you while you when you were in the womb… there’s plenty more. So when you die and are judged, and if you took part in an abortion, do you imagine standing in front of God while he says “John or whoever, I agree with your actions and it pleases me?
The overwhelming majority of spontaneous abortions (so-called miscarriages) take place during early pregnancy. It's nature's way of keeping the genetic pool strong. In these cases it is clear that it is God who is the abortionist, God who condemns the embryo to oblivion, despite claims that he knew the infant before it entered the womb. What do you think about a God who causes miscarriages? On the day of judgement would God condemn himself?
This argument is very flawed from the beginning because you're using God as a tool to further your argument. Not everyone believes in a god. Personally, I've never talked to or heard from a god. The only "evidence" of the Christian God we have is the Bible, which is a book written by humans. Your argument would be the equivalent of me quoting a line from a Spider-Man comic and using that as foundation for my argument.
0:03:36 Boonin Opening (15)
0:19:07 Kreeft Opening (15)
0:31:21 Boonin 1st Rebuttal (5)
0:36:22 Kreeft 1st Rebuttal (5)
0:41:18 Boonin 2nd Rebuttal (5)
0:46:12 Kreeft 2nd Rebuttal (5)
0:52:51 Boonin Q & Kreeft A (5)
0:55:44 Kreeft Q & Boonin A (5)
1:00:10 Kreeft Closing (5)
1:05:49 Boonin Closing (5)
1:11:03 Q&A (20)
Peter Kreeft is wise beyond belief. He is one of the few who realizes that saving one soul is worth more than “winning” any debate.
Fantastic discussion. Wow!
The autonomy argument ignores that parents have an overriding obligation to their children. So it is disingenuous to analogize the baby-mother relationship to any non parental relationship. Such artificial abstraction is dehumanizing. If by hypothesis we assume a fetus is a person, it follows that the woman is a mother and not merely some other person.
Glad someone pointed this out! I was thinking it the whole debate.
I thought Boonin addressed this though? The obligations of a woman being a parent are something one has to consent towards, and a woman clearly does not consent to such a relationship. You may then reply that when someone consents to sex, they consent to being a parent, but this is a different argument that Boonin already addressed in his opening speech?
What a gem!
This was an excellent exchange. I appreciate Dr. Peter Kreeft's work, and I very much think he stakes a good claim to be the C.S. Lewis of our time, but I think in this debate, Dr. Boonin clearly had the edge. I've heard Kreeft give similar arguments for the Pro-Life view in the context of other talks, but it's clear that his approach was not suitable in the context of Boonin's arguments. Boonin's argument was clear, logically structured, and rigorous. It was very much a re-strung version of the classic violinist argument, but with a contemporary updating; if it's wrong for the state to force people to go through burdensome procedures that demand the use of their body without their consent, then it should also be wrong for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they didn't consent too.
Boonin's argument was deceptively simple as an argument from analogy, and the proper way to respond was to offer a relevant disanalogy between Boonin's case of the bone marrow and that of an unwanted pregnancy. Though Kreeft had many things to say in terms of talking points about individualism, nihilism, infanticide, and personhood, unfortunately, very little of it actually engaged with Boonin's arguments. The audience (many of whom were Pro-Life) also tried to poke holes in Boonin's analogy, but he responded to them quite effectively.
People can make all sorts of claims (as they are in the comments of this video), but at least laid bare, at a logical level, the Pro-Choice argument was clearly the more successful one in this exchange.
Part 1/2
@RealAtheology
I appreciate your kind words about Kreeft, with whom you obviously disagree. I also think that Kreeft did not have the upper hand and he also seems not to have grasped the dialectic of the debate, at least concerning Boonin´s argument. But in my opinion Boonin is not only the best defender of abortion rights I know of. He is an outstanding and entertaining debater, too. Nevertheless, here is at least my humble try of a response to the bodily rights argument, defended by philosophers like Judith Thomson (the violinist case) and David Boonin (the bone marrow case, which is analogous to cases of blood or organ donation). I think something like the following formulation is the strongest version of the argument to which I will respond:
(P1): Every person has a right to life.
(P2): Unborn human beings are persons (conceded at least for the sake of argument).
(C1): All unborn human beings have a right to life.
(P3): Every person has the right to bodily autonomy and integrity.
(P4): No human being has a legal claim to the use or even continued use of the body or organs of another human being.
(C2): The right to life of an unborn human being does not include the legal right to use or even to continue to use the woman's body or organs.
(P6): Abortion, and thus the fatal deprivation of the use of the woman's body or organs, does not violate the right to life of the unborn human being.
(C3): Abortion, and thus the fatal deprivation of the use of the woman's body or organs, should not be legally prohibited.
Now, I think the parental obligation objection (there is a strong duty of parents to care for their depended offspring) as well as the responsibility objection (if you deliberately engage in an act that may result in the creation of a helpless, innocent or morally incapacitated and depended human being, you are - even without further explicit consent - responsible to care for this human being; at least you are not allowed to kill it in any case) is helpful, persuasive for many people and applicable in most circumstances. But I am afraid it does not go to the heart of the matter.
For example, I can come up with a thought experiment on pregnancy which is, at least by my lights, in turn analogous in all morally relevant aspects to the violinist case of Thomson or Boonin´s cases and therefore sidesteps all Pro-Life objections which try to block the argument by pointing out dissimilarities. But I (as well as all Pro-Lifers I know of to which I presented this case) still think it is not permissible to remove the child from the uterus of the woman.
Imagine that in the future an incubator will be developed which is what we may call an artificial womb and which can already care for a human being in the first stages of its development and let it mature until "birth". In this future, however, there is also a hereditary disease, which the growing child can only survive if it remains connected to the woman's body during pregnancy. In this thought experiment, the basic care of the child can thus obviously be provided without the woman's body and the connection would have to be maintained for therapeutic reasons alone. Suppose a woman does not want to carry her child (which is diagnosed with this disease) because it was conceived through rape and the psychological and physical strain until birth seems unbearable to her (we can even strengthen the case by assuming the embryo is a "stranger" and comes from a fertilized egg of another woman and was implanted without her consent). In this case, does she have the right to demand that the child be transferred to an appropriate incubator, even if this procedure leads unavoidably to the death of the child?
I think it is not permissible to do that and in my estimation in this case as well as in the case of the violinist the doctrine of double effect (DDE) needs to be taken into account. When we consider the conditions of DDE I think all these cases are successfully resolved - even if we grant for the sake of argument Thomson´s premise that not even one’s own child has a natural right to the use of the woman´s body.
As you may know, there are other thought experiments which highlight severe problems with Thomson´s (and Boonin´s) reasoning. For example consider the following case which is inspired by an idea from Francis Beckwith: Imagine that two girls, Lara and Lea, develop as conjoined twins. Furthermore, only in the body of Lea kidneys are formed and we know that Lara's body does not accept any donated kidney. Lara is therefore dependent for her survival on the connection to Lea's body and, in contrast to Lea, would not survive a potentially possible separation. In this scenario we are therefore even faced with the extreme case described by Thomson, in which the connection between two people must be maintained for a lifetime. Suppose that through the connection between the two bodies, the girls suffer for a few months every few years from physical and psychological problems comparable to a pregnancy, in addition to the otherwise already stressful situation. Lara is a fighter and has come to terms with the situation, not least for lack of alternatives. However, Lea, who has all the vital organs in her body, does not want to accept this situation any longer. In this case, does Lea have the right to demand separation, even if it means her sister Lara's death? According to the argument of Thomson and Boonin, I think this would have to be affirmed.
@@jogo5660
The abortion legislation that takes public money to kill an innocent is deeply unjust. It is, in fact, contrary to one of the principal and most serious duties of the State, called to protect the life of all citizens, especially the most defenseless. By whom has the woman been given the power to suppress an innocent human life? No one is the master of another's life. Not even parents are masters of the lives of their children.
The acceptance of abortion in the mindset, in customs, and in the positive law of the state is an eloquent sign of a dangerously deep crisis of moral sense, which becomes increasingly unable to distinguish between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Now more than ever, there is a need for the courage to face the truth and to call things by their name, without succumbing to convenient compromises or the temptation of self-deception.
Particularly in the case of abortion, there is a spread of ambiguous terminology, even if it is "clear, logically structured, and rigorous," (as stated in the previous comment) such as "pregnancy termination," which tends to conceal its true nature and mitigate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of discomfort in consciences.
But no words can change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, however it is carried out, of a human being in the initial stage of existence, between conception and birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion appears in all its truth if one recognizes that it is homicide and, in particular, if one considers the specific circumstances that qualify it. The one who is suppressed is a human being who is about to enter life, the most innocent being imaginable: never could it be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor ("it should also be wrong for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they didn't consent"!?). It is weak, defenseless, to the extent of being deprived even of that minimal form of defense constituted by the imploring strength of the cries and cries of the newborn. It is entirely entrusted to the protection and care of she who carries it in her womb. Yet, sometimes, it is she, the mother, who decides and asks for its suppression, even procuring it.
It is true that often the choice of abortion is dramatic and painful for the mother, as the decision to dispose of the conception is not made for purely selfish and convenient reasons, but because one would like to safeguard some important goods, such as one's own health or a dignified level of life for other family members ("a woman does not want to carry her child -which is diagnosed with this disease - because it was conceived through rape and the psychological and physical strain until birth seems unbearable to her -we can even strengthen the case by assuming the embryo is a "stranger" and comes from a fertilized egg of another woman and was implanted without her consent").
Sometimes there is fear for the unborn child of conditions of existence such as to make one think that it would be better for him not to be born.
However, these and other similar reasons, however serious and dramatic, can never justify the deliberate suppression of an innocent human being. Certainly, there is ignorance in this serious issue concerning nascent human life. Furthermore, there is a denial of evidence that is very strong: in fact, anyone knows that the human being that begins to develop in the womb of one's mother is of the human species and is a new and unique individual, such as there has never been and never will be in history, absolutely distinct from the mother.
But, if you are a Christian, there is also error in faith because it is contrary to the definitive, infallible, and irreformable teaching of the Church. And such error, if willfully and persistently sustained, is certainly a grave sin.
"If it's wrong for the state to force people to go through burdensome procedures that demand the use of their body without their consent, then it should also be wrong for women to be forced to continue a pregnancy they didn't consent too."
This argument is simply foolish. The woman's body is not the child's body! No circumstance, no purpose, no law in the world can ever make lawful an act that is intrinsically unlawful, because it is contrary to God's Law, written in the heart of every man, recognizable by reason itself. It is about the violent suppression of an innocent, defenseless human being, in need of everything and everyone.
Abortion is condemned even if the woman has suffered sexual violence. Certainly, sexual violence is one of the greatest crimes that can be committed against a person. But this crime is not remedied by committing another, killing an innocent. The same applies to a poor family: the Church and society must take care of it. And it also applies if it is diagnosed that the child will be born with some handicap. The fact is that he is alive and as such has the right to life as much as an adult. It doesn't matter that he hasn't yet seen the light of day. No one is the master of their own life. For this reason, life, once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care. Even in the case of a difficult birth where the lives of both the child and the mother are endangered, everything must be done to save both. The child is a human being, even if not yet born, to the same degree and by the same title as the mother. Furthermore, every human being, even the child in the mother's womb, has the right to life, a right that comes directly from God, not from parents, nor from any human society and authority.
Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic, moral indication that can exhibit or provide a valid legal title for a direct, deliberate disposition over an innocent human life, namely a disposition aimed at its destruction.
The state cannot legitimize abortion, much less make it a free service. The state's task is to serve every person, starting with those who are unable to provide for themselves, such as children in the womb of their mothers. The state, by serving the people, must also serve pregnant women to help them bring the pregnancy to term, not to kill the child.
When one talk about mentally unstable women, one only consider the problem from the woman's point of view. But there is a child in the middle, who is innocent and defenseless and has the right to life as much as the mother and anyone else. Even in the case of a woman showing signs of mental instability, she should be helped to bring the pregnancy to term and then the community will take care of the child.
In a nutshell, when arguing about abortion (which consists of the suppression of a human being), the object to keep in mind must always be the child. No one gives us the right to kill him. Those who behave like this are tyrants. For this reason, the Second Vatican Council says: "God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the highest mission of protecting life: a mission that must be carried out in a humane manner. Therefore, life, once conceived, must be protected with the utmost care, and abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes".
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp, I fail to see in what sense you are addressing me here. I unambiguously argued that abortion is not permissible under any circumstances. It is only licit to perform medical surgery to save the mother´s life without intentionally or directly killing the unborn human being (e. g. removing a part of the fallopian tube in cases of an ectopic pregnancy).
@@jogo5660 I apologize for the hasty interpretation. I indeed thought that C3 (Abortion, and thus the fatal deprivation of the use of the woman's body or organs, should not be legally prohibited.) was a possibility considered in your intervention.
Which of these men would you rather have trust your life to? Which of them would you expect to put himself at risk to try to save you if you needed it? Which one is more likely to play it safe and look out for himself?
Notice the very last word from Dr. Boonin in this debate was, “individual.”
And?
Which of these men seem like a better father to you?
Question to pro-lifers, suggested by one of the points made by Boonin during the Q & A. If an unwanted pregnancy, detected, say, at five weeks, could be transplanted - with technology that we obviously do not have right now but, who knows, might one day become available - into the uterus of a willing surrogate, would you be happy for this to take place in order to allow the unwilling party the opportunity to avoid her pregnancy whilst keeping alive the product of that pregnancy? Would you be happy for this to be a normal, mainstream option? And, as a consistent pro-lifer, would you be happy to provide such surrogacy services yourself rather see the pregnancy end with an abortion?
Pro-Choicers would never be in this world if their parents weren't Pro-Lifers.. 💌🥰
@@AKdon68 The former head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, for many years the main abortion provider in the UK, has a son, conceived with difficulty following fertility treatment. This baby's parents were not prolifers.
@@laurameszaros9547 But your parents made the right choice for you.. Should others also get the right choice as you did?
@@AKdon68 The most prolific abortionist in the world is - guess who? - God. He brings about millions of spontaneous abortions every day via the mechanism of so-called "natural miscarriage", which in fact is nature's way of keeping the genetic pool healthy. God actually generates these abortions himself. These are what pro-lifers would call children, who bible believers claim God knew before they were even in the womb, yet God causes them to die, innocent and helpless though they are.
There a few parts with this question. So I would say there is no need to do that. It’s very simple women need to learn and accept their pregnancy and as her biological process she is meant to bare a child. So sure if there was “ would you rather” sure let’s have a artificial uterus. But the issue is no one has to take care of their child unless! The circumstances. But we can’t have a society to say “I don’t want my child Therfore I can kill them or you put them in your uterus.
It’s sad to see that Kreeff lost the debate. Wonder if anyone other Catholic philosophers can help us regain this battle…
@C Trent Horn didn't defeat Boonin in their debate. Horn was skilful and eloquent but you would have to be very biased to claim that he overcame Boonin.
@@laurameszaros9547 Well, the outcome of those debates is unimportant. I really think people overcomplicate things. Look at my other comment on this video. I saw the truth very easily.
@@michaelhunt372 You're right that the outcome of these debates is not necessarily important in terms of what sways public opinion. However the fact that you and I watch these debates suggests that we, at least, have some interest in the arguments being presented. Trent Horn is touted as a brilliant Catholic apologist, but I think Matt Dillahunty got very much the better of him in their debate on the resurrection and Richard Carrier, who most Christians love to scorn, certainly gave him a run for his money in their debate on the historicity of Christ. I actually agree with one of the comments on this thread that Peter Kreeft's essential point is that abortion is wrong because God thinks it's wrong, hence, from a logical standpoint on very shaky ground indeed. Ultimately many people derive their views on subjects such as abortion from emotional persuasions - I know I certainly do - and whilst I don't believe there's anything wrong with that, we need to acknowledge such to be the case and take it into consideration when public policies are decided and wider attitudes encouraged.
@@laurameszaros9547 The issue is that Boonin equates life extension and life creation, which would lead to conclusions that most religious and non-religious people would not accept.
Those who say that abortion is morally unjustified, can you give me an example where the bodily autonomy of a human being can be compromised and also make it consistent?
The bodily autonomy argument has always been weak, a women has a right to get an abortion, because even if it has the right to life, and even if the right to life comes before the right to bodily autonomy, the right to life =/= the right to be kept alive by someone else.
Sorry that’s not making sense. I would say it makes logical reason to compromise during pregnancy as the proper place for the unborn is to exist in the womb.
One that comes up a lot is conscription during wartime but whether this is actually relevantly similar is up for debate.
@@chrisarmon1002 So, if I wanted an organ donor who is not willing to donate his organ (or part of it in some cases) to me or someone for whom I want a transplant, can I then take it forcibly?
@@jaz_shl that’s called a false equivalency fallacy. Do you know what that means?
Now I’ll explain. Why. So the uterus is existing for the unborn. A women’s own body is biologically meant for the unborn based off these facts. 1. We exist in the womb. 2. Her uterus, 3. Her own body has a period for the preparing of the unborn 4. The body allowed it.
NOW! Organ donation is something that’s NO! We don’t all need someone heart for example. This is why pregnancy is a ordinary biological process. Forced organ donation is extraordinary. Major differences in why you can’t compare
No one can win arguments with Dr. Kreeft on abortion.
David Boonin just did?
Well at least we got an honest response from Kreeft at the end. Why is abortion wrong? Because God doesn't want it. This is as childish and unreflective a justification as it gets.
There can be multiple lines of reasoning for a position. A christian can provide rationale in common with non-theists that murdering an adult human being is wrong AND provide religious rationale for the same thing. Same with abortion.
@@kyler9323 It’s a motivating factor that in this case manifests in a clear and obvious bias. When you give vague allusions to philosophical disagreements in the debate and then close by making an impassioned emotional connection to a religious audience it is a clear reason to doubt the force of said person’s philosophical arguments with vague allusions to philosophical disagreements.
@@blamtasticful I disagree. The differences Kreeft mentioned are real, sharp, and applicable here. For example, the differences between pre and post Cartesian philosophy alone are profound and bear on notions of personhood, the social nature of man and corresponding rights and duties, and the role of the State. Kreeft didn't flesh that out enough (he treated the whole matter more like a discussion than a debate), but he identified it and he was right.
I know enough about thomism (the philosophical school which Kreeft belongs to) to know that Kreeft actually thinks these philosophical differences to be true and really the whole show. His impassioned plea at the end was really just to take a bigger picture view of what's at stake and urge people towards the truth. Philosophy, while communicating real practical knowledge, doesn't really get people nearly as impassioned as religious motivations do. For example, I'm pro-life for deeply philosophical reasons and for theological reasons but what causes me to identify life as prime issue and perhaps stick my neck out for the voiceless, regardless of the cost, would mostly be theological in nature.
@@kyler9323 I agree, but as I said vague allusions to one's philosophical differences is not an argument. You are right that Thomistic metaphysics is incredibly complex which is why they need to be scrutinized. Broad appeals to shared intuitions of the religious is a tactic that doesn't work once you put those ideas of those complex metaphysical issues on the table and go through the minutia. He at times treated the debate as a discussion and at other times was aggressive towards secular perspectives. Such confidence is not warranted by simple allusion to philosophy before Descartes. If you don't believe me try publishing a paper that way.
To me religious motivations were used as a way to bypass careful meticulous reflective philosophical reasoning. If this closing is what he believes he should defend it in the actual debate instead of arguing from different propositions and avoiding criticism of this other clearly relevant motivating factor.
@@blamtasticful Yes, I don't disagree with you there. I personally don't think Kreeft did well in the debate.He got to the differences, he just didn't put forward an argument capitalizing on those differences. He is a good writer, a good philosopher, but not a quick thinking eloquent debater.
I just don't think he was acting inappropriate at the end. As an example, in a different way, in his debates William Lane Craig will often spend part of his closing statement evangelizing. I personally don't have an issue with that. If that is how he wants to spend his time.
Kreeft for the win.
Fascinating debate, if not merely because of how Boonin represented the pro-choice side. I studied his sort of philosophy as an undergrad major in my twenties, and for a decade after. I was vegan/vegetarian for over a decade. I enjoyed listening to myself pontificate, to hear myself “get someone” in a debate. Then, as a psychotherapist and now psychoanalyst, I began looking more deeply at these arguments, and understanding human nature differently through my work. I’ve realized how overly-intellectualized Boonin is (as I once was) - though this isn’t to say that Kreeft isn’t appropriately intellectual and coherent, but that Boonin’s intellectualism severely lacks important qualities that might make him more properly a moral agent. It’s strange. I was very attached to “knowing,” to being “right,” in search of certainty and control, in my 20s and 30s. I thought my vegetarianism and pacifism was righteous and ideal. Things changed in my 40s. I think, in part, I began to see the uniqueness of humankind as compared with nonhuman animals, and I began looking more closely at theologians (philosophers) like Aquinas and Augustine. I returned to my Catholic roots (slowly, over several years, culminating in my attending Easter this year for the first time in over 20 years). About 10 years ago I began raising chickens for eggs, and then meat, and any physical issues I’d had over the past 20 years have all subsided because of this diet change. I’m unapologetically pro-life, anti-abortion, and believe in the fundamental dignity of human life.
So how do you morally justify forced pregnancies and slaughtering animals for food?
@@HT-rq5pi I don’t justify “forced” pregnancies. I just don’t believe it’s moral to murder humans. Nonhuman animals aren’t human and are a natural and important source of food, so killing applies very differently to them.
I asked the same questions 20 years ago, and I was never open to this response, so I don’t expect you to be.
could you explain why you think Boonin is over-intellectualized? what is lacking his philosophy according to your opinion?
@@swansandducks1996 The problem with Bonin is ultimately that of Gnosticism, idealism, the devaluation of classical metaphysics.
It is true that nearly every major philosophical development since Hegel began with the rejection of Hegel, in many different directions: Marxism, atheistic existentialism, theistic existentialism, personalism, positivism, logical positivism, analytic philosophy, pragmatism, phenomenology, deconstructionist.
But since Metaphysics declined from its nobility and foundation, becomes uncertain, and descends to the level of logic, mathematics, or physics, or even, as in Occam's case, and the Oxford School, to grammar and language, it was no longer about seeing the order of being, but about respecting the rules of grammar, logical analysis, and syntax.
To speak of metaphysics, one settles for little: just entering the world of the metasensible of mathematics, of beings of reason, of logic, and the syntax of propositions, certainly not into the world of the spirit, the proper terrain of metaphysics, to believe that one has reached the pinnacle and the unattainable summit of theoretical philosophy.
Ockham, by orienting metaphysics towards the individual rather than towards being, gives metaphysics an individualistic turn, causing it to forget the universal. The self begins to fold in on itself. The empirical approach and the excessive utilitarian concern for concrete existence lead it to narrow and lower the horizon of thought, which truthfully can only form a demonstrative science by relying on universal essence, and surpassing sensitivity to demonstratively rise to the supreme degree of being and essence, which is God, singular yes, but at the same time universal and spiritual principle of all reality.
After Ockham, Descartes no longer places being as the object of metaphysics but rather his own self, which, by becoming the principle of certainty, knowledge, and being, clearly transcends the limits of the individual self and tends to enlarge excessively in order to sustain the weight of the totality of reality. The Cartesian self presents itself modestly at the beginning as Descartes' self, created by God, and yet being implicitly conceived by him as the foundation of truth, in Descartes' followers, who articulate and develop the logical consequences of his disproportionate conception of the self, this self in the following centuries will gradually manifest its claims to transcend the individual self or the human self to become the divine Self.
Descartes makes a turn in metaphysical interest, which is always directed towards being, but if before him the metaphysician uses the verb "to be" in the third person, so that the metaphysician says: it or he is, or being is, now the interest shifts to the first person: I am.
However, now the problem arises: there is no difficulty in saying I exist. But can I say I am? Christ says it because He is God, indeed only God can say of Himself, as it appears from the Bible (Exodus 3:14), "I Am," because, as St. Thomas had already pointed out, He is the Ipsum Esse, the very Self-subsisting Being, so only God can say of Himself "I am Being." I, as a creature, must say, instead, I have being. I have received being, I do not have it from myself, but from God who created me. If He had not made me to be, I would be nothing. Everything I am, I owe to Him.
Instead, the Cartesian "I think" in its ambiguity (do I exist or am I?), will be interpreted by Fichte as if I, as a creature, could predicate this absolute being of myself. This is what the idealists call "presupposed being," which for them is a smoke in the eyes, because it would be a being independent of them, whereas they want being to depend on their thought. For this reason, Fichte can say: I, by affirming to exist, posit myself, I posit my being and with this I posit being simpliciter, I posit being in toto, so there is no other being distinct from mine that posits my being; I posit it by myself. But if it is actually God who posits my being by creating me, it is clear that I am replacing God.
For this reason, Fichte was rightly accused of atheism.
And Descartes indeed leads to atheism.
At the same time, with the substitution of "he is" with "I am," the "you are" without a nominal predicate also disappears, which is present in Scripture referring to God and which corresponds precisely to the "I Am." This means that the dialogue with God, prayer, and religion are lost. It is clear that if I am God, should I pray to myself? This is why in the development of German idealism from Kant to Hegel, God is gradually devalued, because man appropriates His attributes and in the end, with Nietzsche, only the human self remains and God has disappeared. Man instead of God.
This is the final outcome of Descartes' cogito and 'metaphysics,' to which Boonin and all postmodern thinkers are not entirely strangers.
Did this guy seriouky start out with a bone marrow transplant analogy ?? That's thoroughly laughable - its not even close to the same thing!
I'd love to hear your take on violinists.
Watch Trent Horn’s debate with David Boonin. Trent ably handles this argument.
Pro-Choicers would never be in this world if their parents weren't Pro-Lifers.. 💌🥰
Absolutely not.
It is tho
@@chasestewart8419 It never is.
@@chasestewart8419 It's easy to advocate that others be murdered in the womb, when you yourself were not. It's extremely convenient. This is called-' Deadly Hypocrisy'.
@@robinrobyn1714 Way to beg the questions, you have yet to prove that the fetus is person who can "murdered,".
Also its very easy to advocate for others to go through the pain of child birth and the poverty forced child birth brings when yourself have not. This is called psychopathic behavior.
@@chasestewart8419 It is called' Psychopathic behavior'- determining who or who is not a" person'. Only an idiot doesn't recognize the humanity within the fetus. As only an idiot doesn't take into account the FACT that every Human pregnancy results in another PERSON... ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. It's psychopathic behavior to endorse murdering other Human Beings according to your convenient labeling of who and who is not Human. Thank you for letting us all know that you exhibit psychopathic behavior
David Boonins analogy of an unborn baby and someone in need of bone marrow is wildly out of context. The baby is living, growing and learning and even possibly dying from natural causes...but the bone marrow patient is dying. Both of these are part of the natural life cycle. Why would he compare someone who is dying to someone who is just coming into life? We are all going to die...Boonin's argument misses the point...do we have the right to live from the beginning of our human person until natural death?
You didn't understand anything, did you?
It’s irrelevant, Boonin can run the exact same argument so that the person under threat is healthy but hostile conditions like space (and needs to be connected to a person’s body to be prevented from dying).
@@naomifranco4739 I understood it perfectly clearly. Forcing me to give bone marrow, isn't the same as forcing a mother to not have her baby killed. Scientifically or spiritually, there's no denying you're killing a human being during abortion....that's it...there's really nothing else that needs to be said. Someone dying and in need of bone marrow is dying of natural causes. There's nothing that forces anyone to do anything special for someone in this state...because it's a NATURAL CAUSE...get it...abortion isn't a natural cause, even if you don't believe it's murder, there's no denying that an abortion is NOT a natural cause....so it's two completely different circumstances.
@@JohnFisherChoir wrong. We are talking about dying from natural causes in the video's argument. Need bone marrow indicates you're dying from a natural cause, not someone coming in and sucking your brains out and dismembering you because someone doesn't want you. Having an abortion is a willful choice to kill a human being...even according to science...there's no state in our life when we aren't human...
@@paulv3968
You don't understand anything, you confirmed it to me. It's very difficult for you to take this into a philosophical realm.
Here you go. If you believe murder is okay, then yes, abortion is okay too. God said this - be fruitful and multiply, or I knew you while you when you were in the womb… there’s plenty more. So when you die and are judged, and if you took part in an abortion, do you imagine standing in front of God while he says “John or whoever, I agree with your actions and it pleases me?
The overwhelming majority of spontaneous abortions (so-called miscarriages) take place during early pregnancy. It's nature's way of keeping the genetic pool strong. In these cases it is clear that it is God who is the abortionist, God who condemns the embryo to oblivion, despite claims that he knew the infant before it entered the womb. What do you think about a God who causes miscarriages? On the day of judgement would God condemn himself?
This argument is very flawed from the beginning because you're using God as a tool to further your argument. Not everyone believes in a god. Personally, I've never talked to or heard from a god. The only "evidence" of the Christian God we have is the Bible, which is a book written by humans. Your argument would be the equivalent of me quoting a line from a Spider-Man comic and using that as foundation for my argument.
@@MotownModels not believing in a spiritual world would preempt the thought.
@@MotownModels hahaha the spiderman argument would be more valid than the "god" from the bible