Part 4 - Animal Rights: Beyond Oz: The Moral Status of Lions, Tigers and Bears

There are essentially three perspectives regarding the moral status of animals: Animal welfare, Human dominion, and Animal rights.

Animal Rights

The final position regarding the rights of non human animals is called the Animal rights position. This position contends that animals have moral rights. In fact this position argues that animals have the same moral status as humans. According to this perspective, human animals and non human animals are not to be placed in different moral categories. It further argues that when individual have moral rights, we cannot treat them as means to our ends. Therefore, animals should not be treated as means to human ends.

This position opposes most of the traditional uses of animals including those items listed as permissible under the Animal welfare and the Human dominion position, as well as issues such as the consumption of animal by products such as milk and eggs, captive breeding programs for endangered species, and finally the keeping of pets.

The philosophical underpinnings of the Animal rights argument focuses upon the contention if you have rights then we cannot justify harming you because the benefits to us outweigh the harms done to you. This would constitute abuse for the human animal and in turn it would also constitute abuse to the non human animal. Further, some non human animals have mental lives similar to those of some humans such as very small children. In addition, the argument proposes that if we recognize rights for all humans including very small children then we should also recognize the rights for those types of animals. Finally for those animals, we cannot justify harming them just because the benefits to us outweigh the harms to them.

A contemporary representative of this perspective is seen in the work of Peter Singer. Singer’s most prominent work was entitled Animal Liberation and profoundly propelled the animal rights movement in Europe and America. For Singer, to distinguish between the rights of non human animals and those of human animals has the serious consequence of leading to a distinction between the rights of various categories of human animals.

Singer proposes the hypothetical consideration of a human animal encountering an extra terrestrial. He contends that in this circumstance we would not be justified in assigning the extra terrestrial a lesser moral status because they do not possess certain characteristics of human animals, such as the possession of human DNA. He argues the same regarding the moral status of the non human animal. Simply because the non human animal does not possess some characteristic possessed by the human animal does not mean that the non human animal is to be granted lesser moral status.

Singer also argues against the use of categories or properties such as rationality, autonomy and the ability to act morally since to utilize these types of categories would potentially lead to the justification of such practices as racism and sexism. Singer cites the racist who contends that all members of his race are intellectually superior and more rational than members of other races. The racist therefore assigns a greater moral status to the members of his race than to the members of other races despite the fact that the racist is wrong in his contention of the intellectual and rational superiority of his own race. The same could be said of the individual who justifies a sexist viewpoint on the same erroneous factual grounds.

Part 3 - Animal Rights: Beyond Oz: The Moral Status of Lions, Tigers and Bears

There are essentially three perspectives regarding the moral status of animals: Animal welfare, Human dominion, and Animal rights.

Human Dominion

The second position regarding non human animal welfare is known as the Human dominion argument. This particular position contends that while we have dominion over non human animals, these creatures have value only as means to our end.

This position is a bit more radical than the previously cited Animal welfare position. According to this argument everything under animal welfare is permitted but also in addition to these, things such as cockfighting, circuses, rodeos and bull fights are also permitted.

In addition confined exotic animal hunting is also permitted since doing so serves the purpose of human enjoyment and human sport for example. In addition, this position would also permit the injuring of animals in the making of movies.

The philosophical basis of this particular position contends that animals have no moral standing since they lack consciousness, including the consciousness of pain. This seems to be a highly questionable argument, however.

In addition, this particular position would argue that it does not matter morally how we treat non human animals and that no treatment of animals can be judged immoral except in virtue of its indirect effects on humans.

Aristotle’s perspective represents the Animal welfare perspective. According to Aristotle, there is a hierarchy of being in the created order. This hierarchy is rooted in the abilities of the various creatures which comprise creation.

At the risk of oversimplification, in ascending order there are plants, animals, and human beings. Aristotle argued that only animals and human beings possess conscious experience. Therefore, plants are inferior animals and animals are inferior to human beings.

Humans possess the ability to reason while animals have the lower level capacity of instinct. Consequently, animals are here for the purposes of serving the needs of human beings. Humans possess dominion so to speak.

Aquinas, whose theology was based upon Aristotelian philosophy, also fits within this category. He contends that non human animals lack the capacity to direct their own destiny’s and therefore humanity who possesses the ability to rationally anticipate the future and provide for the future are responsible to care for the lower level creatures. Animals are merely instruments and exist for the sake of humans.

Part 2 - Animal Rights: Beyond Oz: The Moral Status of Lions, Tigers and Bears

There are essentially three perspectives regarding the moral status of animals: Animal welfare, Human dominion, and Animal rights.

Animal Welfare

The animal welfare perspective advances the idea that humans are stewards of animals. The lives of non human animals have intrinsic value; however, it is up to humans to determine how to maximize the values of non human animals by using animals in a variety of ways.

Under this heading various traditional uses of animals are permitted, as long as they serve non--trivial ends and are conducted in ways that eliminate unnecessary animal suffering. Under this heading for instance medical research conducted upon non human animals is considered to be legitimate and ethical since there is a greater good which is potentially accomplished through this research.

In addition, this approach would also advocate that animal slaughter for the purpose of the human consumption of food is advocate since the humane slaughter of animals is carried out for a higher good and in addition humane slaughter is aimed at preventing needless suffering in the non human animal.

On perhaps an even more practical level, this approach would also permit the hunting of non human animals for the purposes of preventing wildlife overpopulation.

There are three foundational philosophical principles underlying the Animal welfare position.

First, the position assumes that we have a moral obligation to balance benefits and harms as related to non human animals.

Second, the position advances the idea that if an animal can suffer pain, then we have a moral obligation to balance this harm against the benefits of any human use of the animal.

Finally, the Animal welfare position argues that we should use animals when the benefits to us outweigh the costs to them, but in doing so, we should eliminate unnecessary animal suffering.

Some philosophers justify their contention that only non human animals have rights on the basis of the following:

Only human beings have rights. According to this principle an individual that has a right to something must be able to claim that thing for himself. Since animals are not capable or representing themselves in this way they cannot have rights.

Only human beings are rational, autonomous and self conscious. These attributes confer a full and equal moral status upon those possessing them.

Only human animals have the capability to choose between various courses of action on the basis of rationality rather than instinct.

In addition, only human animals possess the capacity to enjoy great art, literature or the benefits of deep and significant relationships.

Only human beings can act morally. Human beings possess the capacity to act morally have the consequent capacity to demonstrate sacrifice in order to accomplish a greater good.

Only human beings are part of the moral community. This criterion is rooted in the affirmation that only human beings have the capacity to participate in political, economic and familial relationships.

This perspective argues that such is not the case with the non human animal.

Consequently human beings should be afforded greater moral status.

Part 1 - Animal Rights: Beyond Oz. Animal Rights and Sentience

For many philosophers the central issue in addressing the subject of the moral status of non human animals is that of “sentience.” But what is sentience?

Sentience is defined as the capacity to experience episodes of positively or negatively valenced awareness. Examples of positively valenced episodes of awareness are thing such as pleasure, joy, elation, and contentment.

Examples of negatively valenced episodes of awareness are pain, suffering, depression, and anxiety. (See the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Animals and Ethics”)

Utilitarian philosophy Jeremy Bentham argued that when addressing the issue of non human animal rights our central concern should not be whether or nor these animals speak, but whether they possess the capacity to suffer. In short, the debate concerning the moral rights of non human animals turns upon their capacity to suffer.

Because of their sentience, laws have been enacted in order to prevent cruelty to non human animals. Rene Descartes, the philosopher whose works marks the beginning of what has been termed as modern philosophy, argued against the idea that animals are machines which are devoid of an inner sense or consciousness as others would contend.

In addition to feeling of pain, it seems evident at this time that animals not only possess this inner sense or consciousness, and that non human animals also possess the capacity to suffer, but also experience other types of emotions such as fear and anger.

Another consideration in the debate concerning the moral status of non human animals emerges from the discussion regarding animal sentience. One concern centers upon the nature of cruelty to non human animals.

For example, the caging of animals or the keeping of animals as domestic pets would be considered cruel according to some. In addition another debate centers upon why we should not be cruel to these animals. A number of proposals have been presented as to why we should not exercise cruelty toward non human animals such as:


• Some believe that a major reason for not being cruel to non human animals is because of the effects on those who are cruel.


• Some believe that the reason we should not be cruel to non human animals is because the suffering of animals is bad for them.

Part 12 - Pence's Safety Standard for Human Cloning

So what is Pence's conclusion? He argues that while we should wait with regard to the issue of human cloning we should only wait until we can be "reasonably sure" that the resulting child will not be deformed or defective in some fashion.

He argues that we ought not try to clone humans until we can successfully clone other primates such as chimpanzees. And this seems on the surface to be a reasonable proposal.
But how safe does primate cloning have to become before human cloning it morally permissible. He answers by saying that we should wait until the risk is within the normal range of risk that is accepted by ordinary people in sexual reproduction. But what does he mean by the term "ordinary?" He means people who are not chemically dependent or knowingly carrying the gene for a genetically transmitted disease. For example, if researchers can lower the rate of seriously deformed cloned chimpanzees to 1% then attempting human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer would be permissible.

Part 11 - Pence's Criticism of the Physical Harm Argument: An Implicit Premise

Pence in Whose Afraid of Human Cloning presents two arguments against the physical harm argument, the first of which is weak while the second seems much more significant. First, he argues that the idea of "consent of the unborn" is ridiculous because no one can give consent until after he or she is born and is mature enough to understand what consent it.

Second, he argues that the implicit premise is unjustifiable because we already allow couples to try to conceive in lots of ways none of which is guaranteed to result in a healthy child or in any child at all. For example, parents with genetic diseases or using fertility drugs of in vitro fertilization (which has a 15-20% success rate) or even natural conception all have risks and none of which are guaranteed to result in a healthy child. In addition, he counters that many of the things, which parents do on a daily and routine basis, pose risks of harm to the children, even things such as allowing their children to ride in automobiles. In short, we cannot remove all risk from any method of conception and if we set this implicit premise up as the standard, then all bets would be off regarding attempts to conceive a child.

Part 10 - Argument against Reproductive Cloning: The Physical Harm Argument

The work Whose Afraid of Human Cloning then considers the following argument against human cloning which has been called the physical harm argument. It goes as follows:

Premise: It has not been proved that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer would result in only physically, healthy children.
Conclusion: Therefore, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer should not be allowed.

Again, there is an implicit premise within the argument that assumes that before it is allowed any new reproductive method must prove that only healthy children will be created.

In fact some bioethicists have claimed that unless a reproductive method has been shown to be save then using it constitutes experimentation on the unborn without the unborn's consent and therefore it is immoral or unethical. For example, if an experimental reproductive technology has not yet been shown almost always to result in only physically healthy babies, then before we use the method we are morally obligated to get the consent of the person to be conceived. Otherwise using the method to conceive that person amounts to using im or her as a research subject without his or her consent and this is unethical. Such human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer has no been shown to be absolutely and completely safe and since it is impossible to get someone's consent to create him or her by way of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer then the method if immoral or unethical.

Part 9 - Arguments for Reproductive Cloning: The Genetic Benefit Argument

The book entitled Whose Afraid of Human Cloning argues that the Genetic Benefit Argument is what seems to be the strongest argument in favor of human cloning. The work advances that "the possibility of reducing risk of genetic disease for a child by selective choice of ancestor genes is the strongest direct argument in favor of originating a child by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. It directly counters a major objection that such origination may harm the child." (p. 104-5.

The argument goes as follows:

Premise 1: Many devastating and fatal disease are genetic or are caused by genes inherited from one's parents.
Premise 2: Human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer would allow parents to have children without the risk that certain genetic disorders will be passed on to them.
Premise 3: This would result in an increase in overall well being for everyone concerned.
Conclusion: Therefore, human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is morally permissible.

For instance, imagine a couple that want to have a child. They discover that the female partner has the gene for Huntington's disease, a devastating degenerative brain disorder for which there is, at present, no effective treatment or cure. It slowly diminishes the affected individual's ability to walk, think, talk and reason. Eventually the person with Huntington's disease becomes totally dependent upon others for his or her care. Any child the couple has together will have a 50% risk of inheriting the gene. They want to avoid this risk but also want to have a child with whom they both have a genetic connection. They can use the male's DNA and the female's enucleated egg to create a child. Since the male does not have the Huntington's gene, the child will not have it either. And since the child will inherit the mitochondrial DNA from the female, he will have a genetic connection to both parents.

But is the argument valid?

Some have proposed that in order for the argument to be valid, it depends on what has been term "the implicit premise." The implicit premise of the argument is one that is not explicitly stated as part of the argument, but which is being assumed by the person presenting the argument. Consequently, if this premise of part of the argument, then the argument is valid. If this premise is not part of the argument, then the argument is not valid. The argument has therefore been presented as "if x results in an crease to overall well being for everyone concerned, then it is morally permissible." The argument is essentially Utilitarian in nature.

Part 8 - Misconceptions about Cloning

The book entitled, "Whose Afraid of Human Cloning" presents four misconceptions concerning cloning:

1. A human originated by Soma Cell Nuclear Transfer will be incubated in an artificial womb until he or she mature. First, there is no such thing as an "artificial womb" and there will likely not be for quite some time. Human beings simply cannot be grown in vats.

2. A human originated by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer will grow from a zygote to an adult in a short span of time, perhaps instantaneously. This is simply not true at this point. A clone would take the same amount of time as is needed for a non-clone to grow.

3. A human originated by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer will be treated as a slave or as less than human. This is not true either. It would be just as illegal to treat a clone as a slave as a non-clone. The clone would be protected by the 14th amendment just as the non-clone.

4. A human originated by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer will be an exact copy of another person; therefore in a way it is possible for a person to "reproduce himself." Again, this simply isn't true. The clone would almost be a genetic duplicate of the donor of the DNA, but not an exact genetic duplicate. In a sense the clone would only be a "virtual" twin of the donor.

Part 7 - Why Reproductive Animal Cloning?

Why have scientists engaged in cloning research? There are a number of reasons. First, Much of the motivation toward mammalian cloning is motivated by the desire to replicate specific adult individuals who possess desirable traits such as steer that produces a high quality of steak or a cow that produces milk in large quantities. The potential of cloning is immense. Pigs may be cloned with the objective of transplanting their organs for the benefit of humans, for the purposes of assisting in the treatment of hemophilia, and even for the use of bio weapons. Each of these is a motivation for mastering the capacity for cloning.

Part 6 - Recent History of Reproductive Cloning Research

Human reproductive cloning research has not yet resulted in a live birth and no children have yet been created by way of Stem Cell Nuclear Transfer. But recent advances in cloning other species of mammals indicates that it may be technically possible to created a human being by cloning an adult.

On February 24, 1997 it was reported in newspapers around the world that Ian Wilmut, a scientist at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland working for the company PPL Therapeutics had cloned a lamb or sheep. "Dolly" was born in July 1996 but Wilmot waited for months to announce her birth in order to secure the patent on the cloning technique.

Since then, the following animals have all been successfully cloned: cows mice, goats, pigs, mouflons, cats, mules, horses, rats, white tailed deer, and dogs.

Genetic Savings and Clone, a company in California will clone your pet cat for $32K; their web site says that they are working towards dog cloning by way of chromatin transfer, a different method of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

It was also reported in Science in April 2003 that scientists have run into difficult cloning monkeys and to date no primates have been successfully created by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. They speculated that perhaps there was something about primate reproduction that would make it impossible to clone primates.

However, in February 2004, it was announced that researchers in South Korea using a new technique had created a human zygote by way of cloning and them prompted it to grow into a blastocyst. This is as close to human reproductive cloning as anyone has gotten.

In December 2004, the same American team that had problems cloning monkeys announced that using the new technique pioneered in South Korea they were able to grow cloned monkey embryos to about 200 cells.

Part 5 - Reproductive Cloning

Reproductive Cloning is almost a form of asexual reproduction. By asexual reproduction is meant reproduction requiring only one donor of genetic material rather than two. Rather than having half of all of its chromosomes donated by one person and the other half by another, all 46 of a human clone's chromosomes would come from the single donor of the DNA. It is nearly but not exactly a form of asexual reproduction because a small amount of the egg donor's genetic material (mitochondrial DNA) is left behind on the mitochondria of the egg.

A human created through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer would be nearly a genetic twin of the DNA donor and if not for the mitochondrial DNA he or she would be an exact genetic twin.

Part 4 - Dr. Hwang and Deception

IN February 2004 news broke that South Korean researchers led by Dr. Hwang Won-Suk had derived the first human Embryonic Stem Cell by way of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. The results were published in the journal "Science." Hwang published a further article on this research in Science in 2005 in which he detailed how he had created 11 new lines through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Hwang became world famous and was hailed as one of South Korea's greatest scientists. However, in late 2005 the following truths came to light regarding Dr. Hwang's research.

• Not all the eggs used in the research came from women outside of the lab. Some were donated from lab technicians, at least some of whom were graduate students. Accepting donated eggs from lab employees is frowned upon by research ethicists because of the potential of coercion.

• When allegations regarding the actual source of the eggs emerged, Hwang claimed he had no idea that this had happened. But a graduate student who donated eggs later claimed that Hwang himself had accompanied her when she went to have the eggs removed.

• One researcher claimed that she was "forced" by Hwang to donate eggs after accidentally spilling ova in the laboratory.

• Even more devastating was the committee's finding that Hwang's claim to have created Embryonic Stem Cells from Somatic Nuclear Cell Transfer was also fabricated. The panel found no evidence at all that the Embryonic Stem Cells created by Hwang were cloned.

• Hwang's lab had also claimed to have used Somatic Nuclear Cell Transfer for reproductive dog cloning which resulted in the creation of "Snuppy", the world's first cloned dog. Surprisingly, this claim was actually true.

Science has unconditionally retracted both of Hwang's articles. Prosecutors in Korea are preparing to charge Hwang and nine colleagues with fraud. He has since apologized and resigned from his position but he has also blamed the fraud on junior researches in his lab.

Part 3 - Embryonic Stem Cells

Embryonic stem cells have not yet differentiated into specific cell types such as nerve cells, muscle cells, bone cells, blood cells, etc. They are "pluripotent" meaning that they have the potential to develop into many different types of body cells. Because of this they can be harvested from a blastocyst that as previously stated results in its destruction and coaxed into developing into specific types of cells. Stem cells occur in humans and in embryos but only embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. Adult stem cells can produce only a certain sort of cell, for example blood cells in adults can produce only new blood cells, spermatogonia can give rise only to sperm cells. Because Embryonic Stem Cells are pluripotent however they can be used in the treatment of disease. Scientists believe that they can be used to treat a wide range of diseases, including Alzheimer's Parkinson's, cancer, and diabetes. John Gearhart of John's Hopkins University and James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin were the first to create immortalized embryonic stem cell lines. By the term "immortalized" is intended the ability of an Embryonic Stem Cell to multiply indefinitely while still retaining its pluropotence. So we can now create from a single embryo a line of stem cells that will continue to multiply indefinitely and from which scientists can create body cells of many different types.

Part 2 - The Steps of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or Nuclear Somatic Transfer (SNT)

Step 1: A somatic cell or body cell is taken from a donor.
Step 2: The DNA (46 chromosomes in humans) is removed from that cell.
Step 3: A female gamete (an egg or ovum) is harvested from a second donor and enucleated (its nucleus is removed). This removes the DNA (23 Chromosomes in humans) in the nucleus.
Step 4: The DNA from step 2 is inserted into the enucleated egg. At this point in human cloning, the egg would contain a full set of 46 chromosomes, all from a single donor. It would be the functional equivalent of a human zygote (the single cell organism created at conception by the fusion of sperm and ovum).
Step 5: The resulting cell is allowed to mature for a few days until it is a blastocyst (a pre-implantation embryo of about 128 cells).
Step 6: The following steps depend upon the purpose of cloning. There are two possibilities:

o Therapeutic cloning: ESC's are removed (embryonic stem cells) therefore destroying the blastocyst

o Reproductive cloning: the blastocyst is introduced into a woman's womb with the aim of initiating pregnancy.

Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning raise some very different ethical issues. Therefore they require that they be treated separately.

Human Cloning

Part 1 - Types of Cloning

There are two types of cloning. Each type has a very different objective. Therapeutic cloning has as its goal the creation of embryonic stem cells for use in the treatment of disease. Reproductive cloning has as its goal the objective of initiating a pregnancy and, consequently, a new living organism. Human reproductive cloning, if successful, would result in a new human being or one who has virtually the same DNA as another individual. Both types of cloning proceed by way of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

Part 17 - Rights and Wronging: The Difference

Thomson argues that it is possible to wrong someone without violating his or her rights. One way of wronging someone is to fail to do something for that person that you should do but the fact that you should do something for a person does not imply that you have violated some right of hers by not doing it. Thomson presents the following thought experiments to support her contention.

The One Hour Violinist: Suppose that the violinist only needed an hour of your life and staying connected to him had no health consequences to you. Thomson says it would then be indecent to disconnect rather than simply wait an hour.

The Two Brothers: An older brother is given a box of chocolates and refuses to give any to his little brother who sits pitifully watching his older sibling eat the entire box. Perhaps it is mean or crude or indecent for the older brother not to share but this does not imply that the younger brother has a right to any of the chocolates. He does not have a right to them since those chocolates were given to his older brother and not to him.

Henry Fonda Across the Hall: If all Fonda has to do to save your life is step across the hall into your hospital room, it would be wrong for him not to do so, but that does not mean that if he refuses to do so he is violating some right that you have.

Thomson concludes, "Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices of health and of all other interests and concerns and of all other duties and commitments, for nine years or even for nine months in order to keep another person alive.

Part 16 - Abortion, Thomson, and The People Seed Analogy

Thomson uses what may be termed as the people seed analogy also to explain the permissibility of unwanted pregnancies. She writes:

Imagine that people seeds grow on trees. If one is blown into your house through an open window and lands on your sofa, it will grow into a person for whom you will have to care. You want your windows open, but you don't want a person growing on your couch, so you install window screens. Unfortunately, one of these fails, and a seed ends up on your couch and grows into a person. Does this person how have the right to use your house?

Thomson contends that it is morally permissible for you to fore this person to leave since he or she does not have a right to stay in your house. She takes this case to imply that abortions are morally permissible in cases of unwanted pregnancies stemming from sex using failed contraceptives.

She objects:

Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this will not do, for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a reliable army.

Part 15 - The Violinists Analogy as a Response to Marquis's Future Like Ours Argument

It is important to tie the pro-choice violinist analogy back to Marquis's pro-life future like ours argument.

If many pregnancies are analogous to Thompson's violinist analogy, then Marquis is wrong. Marquis may be right that it is prima facie immoral to kill a fetus, but in many cases a mother's right to determine what happens in and to her body trumps what right, and in those cases abortion is not immoral.

In effect, Thomson is rejecting the following claim made by Marquis: In order for the mother's right to self determination to override her obligation not to destroy the fetus, the loss she suffers if she remains pregnant must be greater than the loss suffered by the fetus if it is destroyed.

Thomson seems to intend the violinist analogy to cover the case of pregnancy by rape.

However, she offers a challenge to those who say (a) in general abortion is wrong because a fetus is a person with a right to life and (b)_ abortion in the case of rape is morally permissible.

She writes,

Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they did come into existence because of rape or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others. In particular that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are the product of a rape.

So if we read Thomson as if she were responding to Marquis, her challenge would be something like " a fetus still has a future like ours even if it was created by way of rape. If the central reason that the abortion is wrong is that it deprives a being of a future like ours, how can we allow abortion in the case or rape but not also allow it in other cases?

Part 14: Five Moral Categories of an Action

In the area of ethics, there are five moral categories into which traditionally an action can be categorized.

1. Immoral: not permitted by morality; morally bad; in performing the action, you are doing something morally wrong.

2. Morally permissible: permitted by morality; in performing the action, you are not doing anything immoral. There are three subcategories of morally permissible action: obligatory, morally neutral, and supererogatory.

• Obligatory: required by morality; if you do it, then you have done something immoral.

• Morally Neutral: neither morally good nor morally bad; no moral value whatsoever.

• Supererogatory: going above and beyond what morality requires; you are not obligated to do it, so in failing to do it, you would not be immoral, but you have done something morally good if you do it.

Part 13 - Three Lessons From the Violinist Analogy: Lesson 3

Lesson 3. While you would be doing something above and beyond the call of moral duty if you were to stay attached to the violinist, you are not doing anything wrong by detaching yourself.

In other words, staying attached to the violinist would be supererogatory but not obligatory.

Obligatory: describes an action that is morally wrong not to perform; you do something wrong by nor performing the action.

Supererogatory: describes an action that is morally good, duty not obligatory; you do nothing wrong by not performing the action.

Applied to the issue of abortion, the lesson is that it would be supererogatory to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term, but it is not obligatory.

Part 12 - Three Lessons from the Violinist Analogy: Lesson 2

Lesson 2. The right to live is not the right not to be killed; it is the right not to be killed unjustly.

Suppose that you have to spend mine years in bed in order to save the life of the violinist. According to Thomson, if you disconnect from him, you are killing him, but you are not killing him unjustly.

This is true, despite the fact that he has a right to life just as any other person.

Applied to abortion, the lesson is that the pro lifer needs to do more than show that the fetus has a right to life. The pro lifer needs to show more than that because from the fact that a fetus has a right to life it does not necessarily follow that it has a right not to be killed, but only that it has a right not to be killed unjustly.

The critic of abortion needs to go beyond this to show that abortion is unjust killing.

Part 11 - Three Lessons from the Violinist Analogy: Lesson 1

Thompson draws the following lessons from the analogy:

Lesson 1: The right to life is not the right to use someone else's body to stay alive. Because the violinist is a person, he has a right to life, but this does not imply that he has a right to use your body in order to stay alive.

If he had a right to use your body in order to stay alive, then that right might outweigh your right to determine what happens in and to your body.

But having a right to life does not imply having a right to use someone else's body to stay alive so that right does not necessarily trump your right to determine what happens in your body.

Thompson further illustrates her point with the Henry Fonda thought experiment. She writes

If I am sick unto death and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand on my fevered brow. It might be rightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. It would be less nice, though no doubt well meant, if my friends flew out to the West Coast and carried Henry Fonda back with them. But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me.

Returning to the Violinist analogy, if the violinist required not nine months of your time, but only a single hour, he still would not have a right to use your body, and so you would not be violating his rights by disconnecting.

Thomson concedes that it might be bad in some other way for you to disconnect.

You might be "self centered, callous, and indecent" if you refuse to stay connected for an hour, but you would not be behaving unjustly.

Applied to the issue of abortion, the lesson is that even if the fetus has a right to life, this does not automatically give it the right to use your body to stay alive.

Part 10 - The Violinist Analogy

Thompson proposes:

Suppose that you wake up one morning and find yourself n a hospital bed connected by many tubes to another person who is unconscious. The director of the hospital is there and explains to you that the person sharing your bed is a world famous violinist.

The violinist has a kidney disease and requires the use of someone else's' kidneys to extract toxins from his blood.

How did you come to be connected to the violinist? The Society of Music Lovers examined all available medical records and determined that your kidneys are uniquely capable of saving the violinists life. So they kidnapped you and connected you in the appropriate ways to the violinist.

The hospital director says that she never would have allowed this herself, but the Society of Music Lovers people did not it on their own, and then dropped you off at the hospital.

So far as the director is concerned you are free to disconnect yourself from the violinist and go, but if you do so the violinist will die.

You ask, "How long will I have to stay connected to him in order for him to live?"

Suppose the doctor says, "Nine months." Would you then think that it would be wrong to disconnect from the violinist? What if the doctor said nine years? Would it still be wrong to disconnect? What if the doctor says the rest of your life?

At this point, Thompson reasons as follows:

1. If the violinist's right to life always outweighs your right to determine what happens in your body, then it is always immoral to disconnect, no matter how long the violinist needs to use your body.

2. But it is not always immoral to disconnect, for instance if he needs your entire life, or nine years.

3. So the violinist's right to life does not always outweigh your right to determine what happens in your body.

Part 9 - Abortion, Judith Thompson and the Violinist Analogy

Judith Jarvis Thompson is a philosophy professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has proposed and interesting and somewhat controversial response to the issue of Abortion in her paper entitled, "A Defense of Abortion" which was published in 1971, 18 years prior to Marquis publication of his pro-life argument.

However Thompson's argument has been construed as a criticism of Marquis's future like ours argument. She begins by granting that from the moment of conception a fetus, in the broad sense of the term, is a person with a right to life. This constitutes an important concession on Thompson's part.

Not all pro-choice persons agree that an early term fetus is a person with a right to life. Thompson herself does not believe this and she indicates that a newly fertilized ovum, a new implanted clump of cells is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. She concedes the point for the sake of the argument.

Thompson then asks if a fetus' right to life outweighs a woman's right to determine what will happen in and to her body?

She answers that sometimes it does, but not in every instance.

Part 8 - Objection to Marquis' Conclusions on the Basis of the Mother's Rights

This objection to Marquis argument says that although the argument is valid, and although premises 1 and 2 may be true, the argument is unsound because premise 4 is false.

This is true because the abortion issue does not concern "just" the interests of the fetus.

It also concerns a person's basic moral right to control what happens in and to his or her body. This includes a woman's basic moral right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

So Marquis may be right that a woman has a prima facie obligation not to deprive her fetus of a future like ours, but even if this is correct that obligation is outweighed by her right to chose to end a pregnancy. So while it may be true that a woman has a prima facie moral duty not to end a pregnancy, it is false that in the vast majority of cases, there is no other moral consideration that outweighs that duty.

Therefore, premise 4 is not only false, but the entire argument of Rachel's, so it seems, is naive.

Part 7 - Marquis and the wrongness of killing a fetus

According to Marquis, killing a fetus deprives the fetus of a future like ours in the same way that killing an adult human being deprives him or her of a future like ours. For example, if it were now wrong to kill a 38 year old named Bill because it would deprive him of a future like ours, then it would have been wrong to kill Bill when he was a fetus. Just like Bill now at the age of 38, Bill as a fetus had a future like ours. In fact, he had the exact future like ours as bill as a 38 year old. This is true, even if Bill as a fetus was not a person and even if Bill as a fetus was not conscious.

Marquis is arguing that abortion is prima facie immoral. The conclusion of this argument leaves room for special cases in which the obligation not to kill a fetus might be overridden, such as cases in which the mother's life would be threatened by bringing the fetus to term. But the fact that there are such special cases does not mean that abortion, in general, is morally acceptable. Marquis believes that in the vast majority of cases, abortion is morally wrong.

Part 6 - Abortion, Marquis and a "Prima Facie" Moral Obligation

According to Marquis, it is a prima facie morally wrong to deprive a being of a future like ours.

In other words, the moral obligation not to deprive a being of a future like ours is a prima facie moral obligation.

A "prima facie moral obligation" is a genuine moral obligation that may, in certain circumstances, be overridden or outweighed or "trumped" by other, stronger, moral obligation. For example, you may have a moral obligation not to lie, but you may also have a stronger moral obligation not to cause someone undue pain. So if your 89-year-old great-grandmother asks you how her hair looks, although it would be prima facie immoral to lie and tell her that it looks great when it really looks awful, it would be much worse to hurt her feelings. In this case, your obligation not to hurt your grandmother's feelings trumps or overrides your prima facie obligation not to lie.

A prima facie moral obligation is the opposite of an absolute moral obligation, an obligation that always overrides or wins our over other obligations or considerations.

Now, let's apply this to the issue of abortion. Marquis says that depriving a being of a future like ours is prima facie morally wrong because he does not want his view to imply anything about special cases in which it may be morally permissible to deprive someone of an future like ours, such as the killing of someone in self defense. He wants to leave questions about such special cases as open questions.

But even if there are cases in which it is morally permissible to deprive someone of a future like ours that does not mean that killing, in general, is morally acceptable. Therefore, Marquis' claim is that depriving a being of a future like ours is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition of the prima facie moral wrongness of killing that being.

Part 5 - Marquis, Abortion, Sufficient and Necessary Conditions

Marquis' view is that depriving a being of a future like ours is a sufficient condition of the wrongness of killing. In other words, it is enough to make killing wrong. ON his view there need not be anything else that makes killing someone wrong. If by killing a person you deprive her of a future like ours that's enough to make killing her wrong.

Marquis also holds that depriving a being of a future like ours is not a necessary condition of the wrongness of killing. Depriving a person of a future like ours is not required to make a killing wrong. He proposes that perhaps there are other things that make killing someone wrong, such as the taking of another person's life causes grief and suffering to that persons loved ones.

It should be understood, in addition, Marquis is not, therefore, saying that it is morally permissible to kill anyone who does not have a future like ours. For example, Marquis would argue that the infant born with anencephaly did not have a future like ours, but he could still say that it would have been immoral for a stranger to sneak into her hospital room and kill her against her parents' wishes.

Part 4 - Marquis, Abortion and A Future Like Ours

Don Marquis is professor of philosophy at the University of Kansas. He offers an argument against abortion that is not based on religious considerations or on assumptions about whether the fetus has a soul or is a person. According to Marquis, before we can answer the question "is abortion immoral" we first need to answer a more fundamental question, "Why is killing wrong in general?" In other words, in order to see whether or not it is wrong to kill a fetus, we need to understand why it is wrong to kill an adult human being according to Marquis.

Marquis suggests that the following is the reason why it is wrong to kill an adult human being. Killing an adult human being inflicts one of the greatest losses a being can suffer. But he also asks, "What is it that a human being loses when he is killed." Now the apparent answer to the question is, "Life." But this is not the totality of the loss according to Marquis. He proposes that to reduce the loss of the individual who is killed to "life" is an oversimplification. The "losses" are much more complicated than this. Interestingly he writes,

Killing an adult does not deprive him of his life up to the moment of the killing. In other words, it does not deprive him of his "past" life, the life he has already lived. It only deprives him of his "future" life, the part of his life that he has not lived yet. What is primarily important is not that killing him deprives him of his future biological life. Rather what matters is that it deprives him of the experiences for which biological life is necessary.

Some have argued Marquis' point in this fashion. Imagine how immoral it would be to put an adult into a permanent coma. You are not depriving him of his biological life but rather his future experiences. Putting someone in a coma so that he can no longer have experiences seems just as immoral as killing him outright. And this suggests that what is wrong with killing him is that it deprives him, not simply of his biological life, but of his future experiences.

Further, what is important is not every sort of future experience, but valuable future experiences such as "activities, projects, experiences and enjoyments" that are "valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake."

In addition, contrast this sort of future with someone who is about to be kidnapped and tortured perhaps in the hope that he will reveal political secrets that unbeknownst to the kidnappers he is in fact does not know. He is then killed when he does not divulge anything in which they are interested. This person has a future of experiences, but they are not valuable experiences.

In summary, what is wrong about killing an adult human being is that it deprives him of the value of his future. Marquis calls a valuable future (which is one characterized by activities, projects, experiences and enjoyments) a future like ours. So what makes killing an adult human being wrong is that it deprives him or her of a future like ours.

Part 3 - Abortion, Genuine Inquiry vs. Pseudo Inquiry

What is "genuine inquiry" as opposed to pseudo inquiry"?

According to Rachel's "genuine inquiry" is distinguished from "pseudo inquiry" by motive.

On the one hand, genuine inquiry is motivated by the desire to find the truth no matter what that truth happens to be. This desire is what the scientists have called "the scientific attitude." On the other hand, pseudo inquiry is motivated by the desire to make a case for a claim that you have already settled on in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo inquiry.

First, there is "sham reasoning" which refers to making a case for a claim your commitment to which is sincere and you care that the claim is true, but which is also immune from the evidence or the argument. No matter what the evidence shows you will not change your mind even if required to do so by the evidence.

Second, there is "fake reasoning which refers to making a case for a claim not because you have a sincere commitment to it since the reality is that you don't really care whether the claim is true or false, but because you think doing so will be to your own advantage. (Politicians and Preachers do this all the time!)

Deciding in advance that abortion is immoral and then reading the bible or anything else especially any other religious document in a selective manner in order to find evidence to support your claim while ignoring evidence against you claim is "sham reasoning" rather than genuine inquiry.

Part 2 - Abortion and Religiously Entrenched Presuppositions

According to Rachel's, there is no clear support in the Bible for either position on the abortion debate. Nevertheless, people sometimes think that the Bible or church tradition offers clear support for their own personal moral views, including their views on abortion. Rachel's identifies a common pattern among these individuals:

1. Scripture or tradition contains elements favoring your positions on a moral issue and it should be added there is no consensus today among biblical scholars as to what a given passage really means.

2. You already believe that one position is correction.

3. You emphasize the elements in scripture of tradition that support your position and ignore the elements that do not or you choose the interpretations that best support your position and you ignore the other interpretations which differ from your own interpretation or interpretive conclusions.

When this occurs you are not engaging in a sincere effort to discover whether a given behavior really is right or wrong. Rather you are making up your mind ahead of time and then paying attention only to the evidence that supports your own position. Rather than lettering the premises of the evidence or reasons, determine the conclusion, you have decided on the conclusion in advance and have ignored all reasons and evidences that do not support your conclusions. It should be point out that this methodology is not genuine inquiry.

Part 1 - Abortion and Pre-conclusions

Rachel's argues regarding the relationship between morality and religion especially focusing upon Christianity. Rachel's points out:

1. With regard to some ethical questions, the scriptures offer no "specific moral guidance", such as the rights of workers, the extinction of species, and the finding of medical research as examples.

2. With regard to other questions, the scriptures, as well as church traditions, do say something, but what they say is ambiguous and they contain elements that are favorable to both sides of an issues and it should be stated that there is no universal agreement among biblical scholarship about what exactly what a given passage says. Interpretation is always an issue.

Rachel's claims that the latter is the case with regard to the issue of abortion. Here is an argument that many conservative Christians give against abortion:

1. A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception.
2. Killing a human being is immoral.
3. Therefore, killing a fetus (i.e. abortion) is immoral.

According to Rachel's, the scriptures give no straightforward support for the first premise which contends, "A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception."

Part 8 - Medieval Philosophy and Contemporary Philosophy: Parallels

Medieval philosophy does possess resemblances to contemporary philosophy.

Medieval philosophy, for example, was concerned with moral concerns, such as a Christian approach to war. In the last decade there has emerged a renewed interest in the real life moral questions as being a primary concern in philosophy.

Discussions have centered once again upon medical ethics, environmental ethics, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. In addition, there seems to be a renewed interest in the issue of the morality of war. Even more specifically, there has been a renewed concern with the role of non-military personnel or civilians and even the treatment of prisoners of war.

This reflects a similar concern that existed in the medieval era with regard to moral philosophy.

There are two philosophical questions which are of significant focus with regard to the contemporary theological scene which were also prominent in the medieval era: divine foreknowledge and free will.

In short, the question centers upon the seeming incompatibility of these two beliefs. This issue has posed a special problem for Christians, a problem which has its roots in Augustinian theology that argued that no one achieves salvation but salvation is achieved only by means of predestination.

Philosophically the work done by theologians in the middle ages is replicated by philosophers in the contemporary context regarding the issue scientific determinism. There is little concern contemporarily with theological dimensions of the issue of free will and self-determination.

Part 7 - Aquinas, the Beginning of the World, Philosophy and Religion

Aquinas addressed the issue of what we believe and why we retain this belief.

He is careful to distinguish between these two issues. He does so by differentiating these different perspectives or questions by distinguishing between his role as a philosopher and his role as a theologian.

As a theologian Aquinas articulates and defends the revelation of the history of the world, the future of the world, and the salvation of the world.

As a philosopher, Aquinas understands his job to be clarifying what the world is like using reason and rationality unaided by divine revelation.

Interestingly, Aquinas admits that philosophical arguments would lead him to believe that the world has always existed and actually had no beginning point. In his conclusion as a philosopher the world may have gone on forever and he contends that this is a reasonable conclusion.

However, Aquinas also believed that unaided human reason couldn't prove that the world did or did not have a beginning. If we were to ask Aquinas why he believed that the world had a beginning, he would as a theologian have assigned this believed to the fact that the first word of the Bible states that the world had just such a creative beginning.

In this progression of thought, we observe the different roles of Aquinas as a philosopher and a theologian.

In addition, in his work entitled Summa contra Gentiles, Aquinas evidences his philosophical role. The work is aimed at individuals who are not Christian, but who are Islamic or Jewish or even atheistic.

His aim is to present the non-Christian with purely human reasons for believing there is a God.

However, in his Summa Theologia, Aquinas is targeting a Christian audience that accepts scripture. While in this work Aquinas does make use of philosophical rationality and reflection, he does not primarily do so as with Summa contra Gentiles.

Part 6 - Religion and Philosophy: Toward a Reconciliation

Contained and reflected in the works of the medieval theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas, was a desire to reconcile the classic philosophy of Greece with the Christian religion. This was their pre-occupation during the medieval era and this was especially true for Aquinas.

Augustine was more interested in the work of Plato, while Aquinas' interests lay with Aristotle.

In short the presence of Plato and Aristotle permeates the works of the medieval theological philosophic giants, such as Augustine and Aquinas.

As has been previously indicated, much of medieval philosophy was looking for reasons to justify what it already believed. This was a primary problem for medieval philosophy since it lay in the hands of the ecclesiastics who were primarily concerned with defending religious assumptions.

However, the fact is that this could be said of philosophers in general.

Each philosopher seems in some sense to have been searching for a rational justification for what he already believed.

For example, Descartes was searching for a reason to defend what he already believed about the self and the external world. However, the philosophers task, or so it seems, is to develop a criteria for distinguishing good arguments from bad or weak arguments.

It seems that at precisely this point, there is a distinction to be made between the efforts of philosophers in general to defend what they already believed and to sacrifice these previously adhered to beliefs it arguments failed them.

The ecclesiastics did not seem to be so readily willing to abandon weak or failed beliefs.

Such still seems to be the case today in the religious world.

Part 5 - The 8 Million Words of Aquinas

Aquinas wrote approximately 8 million words and his works are extremely profound. They are discussed at great length in most serious theological contexts.

His works reflect great intensity and great rigor. His methodology is one of disputation. Aquinas wrote in a tradition that would pose two students, perhaps a junior and a senior student against one another.

One student would defend one perspective or one particular thesis, while the opposing student would defend and argue the opposite. The disputation between the students was carried out in the context of rigorous logical rules.

Finally, the teacher would point out the weaknesses in the student's positions and then provide a solution to the dispute.

Part 4 - Augustine and Aquinas: Differences and Similarities

The death of Saint Augustine and the fall of the Roman Empire were followed by the period of the Dark Ages. During this time of the Dark Ages, it was all the entire literate and the learned world could do to hold onto the remnants of civilization.

In short, individuals were simply trying to survive.

From Saint Augustine to the life of Saint Anselm who another of the philosophers/theologians of the age, a period of 700 years passed. The period includes the other Philosophers such as John the Scot, Saint Anselm, Saint Abelard, Francis Bacon, Dons Scotus, and William of Occam.

These two great philosophers, Augustine and Aquinas, were very different from one another, however.

On the one hand, Augustine was a solitary and isolated figure. As we shall see, Aquinas was much to the contrary. Augustine wrote his Confessions as a reflection upon his own inner life. It is characterized by an amazing and compelling reflective ness.

Aquinas wrote in a much later period and unlike Augustine, he was anything but a solitary figure. He lived, thought and wrote in the middle of a religious and academic tradition.

He lived among the monks of Catholicism and worked as a University teacher, and as previously indicated, produced two great works that are very difficult to read primarily due to the reality that he was writing in an academic context and for an academic audience.

Part 3 - Aquinas - (1225-74)

The other great philosopher of the medieval era was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was an Italian philosopher-theologian. He was the most influential thinker of the medieval period. He produced a powerful philosophical synthesis that combined Aristotelian and neo-Platonic elements within a Christian context.

He is said to have done so in an ingenious and original fashion. He was both an outstanding philosopher and a theologian. The major part of his work is theological in nature. However, as will be seen later, Aquinas distinguished between strictly philosophical investigation and inquiry and theological investigation and inquiry.

His philosophy was based on the light of natural reason and his theology presupposes faith in divine revelation. He argued for a complimentarity between the discipline and truths of philosophy and theology. He concluded that it is impossible for there to exist a contradiction between philosophical truth and theological truth since all truth is God's and God's truth is rational or reasonable. If one of these disciplines is false, then we are forced to attribute falsity to God and God is never the source of falsity.

Methodologically, Aquinas proposed that in the discipline of theology one reason from belief in God and his revelation to the implications of this for created reality. In philosophy one begins with an investigation of created reality insofar as this can be understood by human reason and then seeks to arrive at some knowledge of divine reality viewed as the cause of created reality and the end or goal of one's philosophical inquiry.

Aquinas wrote a more technical style of philosophical/theological work and his great works are also twofold: Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologia.

Part 2 - Augustine (354- 430)

Augustine wrote two great works: the Confessions and The City of God.

In his Confessions, Augustine focused upon the events related to the first half of his life. In the work, Augustine shows that he actually received very little actual education in the discipline of philosophy. He was actually trained as a rhetorician.

The only philosophical work mentioned by Augustine was Cicero's Hortensius

Augustine's conversion to Christianity occurred primarily under the influence of the Platonists. Bishop Ambrose exposed him to the teachings of Plato during his time in Rome. Ambrose was a great Platonic philosopher and he greatly influenced Augustine to embrace the Christian faith, primarily due to Augustine's high regard for Ambrose's intellectual abilities.

Consequently, Augustine taught a form of "neo-Platonism" which enabled him to conceive of a cosmic hierarchy descending from an immaterial, eternal and intelligible God. Augustine's view of reality emerged from his understanding of a pyramidal three level hierarchy of Being at the top of which was God, in particular the Christian God, descending into the visible world of things, then into the bottom layer of reality which consisted of an invisible world of spirits, including the world of evil.

He was known as Augustine of Hippo. He was a Christian philosopher and a church father and was one of the chief sources of Christian thought in the West. His importance for Medieval and modern European philosophy is impossible to describe in a brief manner. He wrote voluminously and dialectically as a Christian theologian. He treated philosophical topics primarily only as they related to Theology or to the extent that they were corrected by Theology.

Part 1 - Medieval Philosophy - The Domination of Philosophy by Religion

Plato and Aristotle dominated ancient philosophy.

Usually attention is focused upon these great philosophers of the Socratic era who provided much of the edifice upon which philosophy has been constructed. Consequently medieval philosophy is greatly ignored and even in some instances avoided. Regarding the time of its existence, medieval philosophy covers the era from the fall of the Roman Empire to the period of the Renaissance.

During this time, because every important philosopher was an ecclesiastic, the study of medieval philosophy is avoided by some since the conclusion of many is that the allegiance to religion was so great by the medieval ecclesiastic philosophers that the genuine search for truth was sacrificed as a result. It is said of medieval philosophy that it spent much of its time defending what was already believed by the philosophers of the era rather than being actually engaged in the search for truth.

Among the greatest of the Medieval Philosophers were two giants: Augustine and Aquinas.

Aristotle Part 7 - Aristotle and General Metaphysics

The implications of Aristotle's philosophy for materialism are devastating and with regard to the issue of the philosophy of mind since Aristotle essentially undercuts the approach of naturalistic materialism.

Aristotle began with what may be termed "general metaphysics." He moves from general metaphysics to subjects such as the philosophy of nature. Aristotle was interested in focusing on how many kinds of explanations of nature and how nature works which the philosopher could find useful.

He was convinced that when we look at the events of the world there is some source of causation behind it all. In fact he proposed that observing the world is something like looking at a puppet show in that there is something occurring behind the scenes that is producing the visible and observable results at which we peer.

Aristotle Part 6 - Aristotle and Plato's World of Forms

Aristotle's conclusions concerning change and identity, may lead someone to ask, "Was Aristotle simply advocating for Plato's World or Theory of Forms in a different fashion?"

However, important distinctions exist between Aristotle's conclusions concerning identity and change, and Plato's theory of Forms.

First, Aristotle made the form immanent to the particular while Plato made the form completely separate from the particular. For example, Aristotle still argued that the essence of "dogness" is in the dog whereas Plato argued that the essence of "dogness" is removed from the individual or particular dog and is located in the world of forms or ideas. This is a major distinction between Aristotle's conclusions and those of Plato.

Second, Aristotelian forms describe particulars and not universals as with Plato. The form for Aristotle was related to the particular dog or the individual dog. In other words, "dogness" is found in the individual dog rather than dogs in general, whereas in Plato "dogness" transcends the particular or individual dog and represents "dogness" for all dogs. For Aristotle the form is in the particular, but for Plato the form is a universal form.

Aristotle Part 5 - Aristotle and Substance

The subject of "substance" in Aristotle's work entailed two questions. One question concerned the topic of change while another question entailed the topic of identity.

Regarding the topic of change, Aristotle acknowledged that in our encounters with reality we inevitably encounter change. Leaves on the trees change. Bugs change. Children are born, grow, mature and age.

Aristotle, therefore, became concerned with the "it" that remains the same in the midst of these changes. He readily acknowledged that there is something within the "it" that grows, withers, and dies but he was concerned with that element or those elements that are continuous in the midst of these changes.

He searched for something upon which we could anchor our discourse about change. Aristotle was concerned with the attributes that remain, which do not change, which continue to exist in the midst of change and transformation.

Regarding the topic of identity, Aristotle was concerned with the question concerning the properties that the individual, for instance, possesses that are more fundamental than those properties that transform and change. He engaged in a search for that property or those properties that I must have in order to be myself.

What are the attributes which remain or which do not change or which continue to exist in the midst of the observable changes of my life?

These two issues, change and identity, were intimately connected for Aristotle. Early natural philosophy seemed to be concerned with the nature of matter. It asked concerning the persistent "stuff" or animals, children, trees. Therefore, early natural philosophy had concluded that since when these things "die" matter remains then this must be the underlying identity that he proposed was matter, in short, the stuff of life.

This was an ancient turn on the contemporary idea of reductive materialism.

On the other hand, those of the Platonist school focused on the identity question in a different manner. They attempted to explain identity in terms of relations to immaterial objects that are found in an unseen world, the world of forms or ideas. Each element of one's identity has a matching or corresponding eternal reality in the world of forms. The color brown, the dog, the human, all of these has their corresponding perfect and eternal reality in the unseen Platonic world of forms.

Aristotle however differed with these Platonic conclusions.

He argued for instance that "brown" is "on me", so to speak, and I can lose it without ceasing to be myself.

"Humanness" is different, however.

One quality, brown, is a non-essential quality.

The other quality, humanness" is an essential quality.

In addition, Aristotle also responded to the materialists. He advanced the idea that rather than "humanness" being a "stuff" or "material composition" rather "humanness" consists of an order which exists in the midst of the structure.

He called this the "form" though not in the sense of which Plato spoke of "forms".

Aristotle advanced that idea that Eddie Carder, for instance, is organized to function in a certain way and that this is required for me to exist as Eddie Carder.

For Aristotle, this was true for three reasons:

1. Aristotle reminded that matter is always changing. Socrates cannot be identified exclusively with the matter that composes his body since this matter is constantly changing; yet Socrates remains the same Socrates despite the changes.

2. Aristotle proposed that what he terms the "conception of the artifact" remains the same despite change or alterations. For example, we could take a ship and replace certain parts, but the functionality of the ship remains the same. It is therefore the same ship.

3. Aristotle concluded that matter is not definite to be utilized in a description of the continuity of identity. Matter is only a heap of stuff and is not to be equated with form or function according to Aristotle