Academic Publishing Wiki

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 16: Line 16:
 
As such, we are entitled to believe that the agnostic position in respect to this question has a firm ground, since neither religion, nor science, nor moral philosophy could reliably establish a moral truth in this matter.
 
As such, we are entitled to believe that the agnostic position in respect to this question has a firm ground, since neither religion, nor science, nor moral philosophy could reliably establish a moral truth in this matter.
   
Now, the question is: if we are agnostic in respect to the above question, should abortion be permitted or should it be banned? Since we are unsure if a foetus is a human being, one should proceed with maximal care, since if we later learn the true answer in respect to this question and if it would happen that the answer is affirmative, there is no way to redress the harm done by permitting abortions. The precautionary principle says that when we will really know if a foetus is a human being, it would be too late for redressing such harm. Therefore, from this agnostic viewpoint it follows that abortions should be banned, since we are not sure if they are either harmless or murder. In these matters, if we err, we should err on the safe side, namely by banning abortions.
+
Now, the question is: if we are agnostic in respect to the above question, should abortion be permitted or should it be banned? Since we are unsure if a foetus is a human being, one should proceed with maximal care, since if we later learn the true answer in respect to this question and if it would happen that the answer is affirmative, there is no way to redress the harm done by permitting abortions. The precautionary principle says that when we will really know if a foetus is a human being, it would be too late for redressing such harm. Therefore, from this agnostic viewpoint it follows that abortions should be banned, since we are not sure that if they are either harmless or murder. In these matters, if we err, we should err on the safe side, namely by banning abortions.
   
 
An argument could be devised that my position is intellectually suicidal, since moral philosophy cannot reliably provide moral truths. My answer would be that this article is not a piece of moral philosophy, but an exercise into pragmatic politics or political philosophy, just as Kant could build his theory about noumena and phenomena after noticing the antinomies of metaphysics.
 
An argument could be devised that my position is intellectually suicidal, since moral philosophy cannot reliably provide moral truths. My answer would be that this article is not a piece of moral philosophy, but an exercise into pragmatic politics or political philosophy, just as Kant could build his theory about noumena and phenomena after noticing the antinomies of metaphysics.

Please note that all contributions to the Academic Publishing Wiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: