Tags: Critical Thinking Skills For StudentsEssay On Save The WildlifeOriflame Business PlanVacation EssayEffective School Leadership ThesisServing In Florida EssaySoftware To Help Write EssaysDissertations.SeMarijuana Essays Effects
Killing human beings is often deeply wrong, so is abortion wrong? And w While this argument is influential in some circles, it is nevertheless dubious.You are likely over three feet tall now, but weren’t always. You have the right to make autonomous decisions about your own life, but didn’t always.Fetuses have no awareness of their futures whatsoever, and this is one important difference between their futures and our futures.
On this theory of personhood, early fetuses are not persons.
This is because their brains and nervous systems aren’t sufficiently developed and complexly interconnected enough for consciousness and personhood.
Socrates saw no conflict between self-interest and morality.
On the contrary, he saw virtue as the greatest benefit and maintained that immoral actions actually harmed the agent and could therefore only be committed out of ignorance and misunderstanding of what the greatest benefit is.
According to Socrates (Plato, 1961) it is not in human nature to choose to act in a way what one believes to be harmful, instead of a way that is good.
He claimed that all wrong, or evil, is only done out of ignorance and not from the intention to do evil.Many examples show that just because we have some property or right Perhaps not.It is wrong to kill us, arguably, because killing us prevents us from experiencing the goods of our future: accomplishments, relationships, enjoying our lives and so on, which is distinct from being a human being. It justifies a growing belief that some non-human animals are (non-human) persons.For example, someone who gives money to charity does so because it makes them feel good and they perceive the pleasure derived from helping people as a greater benefit than spending the money on themselves.What an individual perceives as the best course of action may not necessarily align with what they want.As Socrates tells Polus (Plato, 2013) that one chooses to drink medicine for the sake of health, a longer-term benefit, even though it is unpleasant and is not what one ones to do.Therefore, a person may choose an unpleasant means or sacrifice some short-term gain, if they believe the end result will benefit them.This argument is developed in Beckwith (2007), and in George and Tollefsen (2008).This presentation here is based on Beckwith’s emphasis that fetuses and the adults they often later become are the “same being.” These arguments, however, can be interpreted in a more complex way, in which we understand them as arguing that having rights, or the properties that result in having rights, is to human beings, meaning that we have rights whenever we exist (and so since a fetus and the later adult are the “same being” they have rights whenever they exist).Socrates asserted that all human actions were driven by self-interest.He also argued that this instinct prevents people from intentionally harming themselves and that when people do harmful things, it is only out of ignorance; either not knowing what will benefit them the most, not knowing the correct method of attaining that benefit, or not knowing how not to do something which is harmful to them.