How would a Pragmatist Approach The Abortion Debate?
I've been reading William James' lectures on Pragmatism and I like the idea of a belief's truth value being reduced to its practical consequences. James gives several examples of how endless debates about a word's metaphysical meaning get us nowhere, and that we instead ought to look at the practical differences between opposing sides of any given debate.
Some examples:
Free Will vs Determinism
He mentions that when it comes to Free Will, many people claim to be concerned about merits and demerits in the criminal realm and how it will affect justice, but that this view is mistaken; people who do bad things will continue to be punished regardless of whether we believe they have agency or not. What really is at stake in the Free Will debate is whether we believe we have capacity to create novelty. If we are mere products of physical processes we don't have the capacity to change, whereas if we have volition, we do, and this is the only thing that matters in practical terms.
Spiritualism vs Materialism
He makes a similar case for the Spiritualism vs Materialism debate. He says that both theories are exactly the same in terms of what has already occurred. Whether or not there is matter and everything in the world is composed of it, is of secondary importance at best. What really is at stake, in terms of practical cash value, in this debate, is whether or not we believe our future holds a promise for moral order. If Spiritualism is true, then there will always be a moral order that is guarded by God, whereas if Materialism is true, our life is just a physical contingency devoid of ethics.
Setting aside the possibility that I could've misunderstood him in what he meant (if so please correct me), what would a Pragmatist say about Pro Life vs Pro Choice?
Some examples:
Free Will vs Determinism
He mentions that when it comes to Free Will, many people claim to be concerned about merits and demerits in the criminal realm and how it will affect justice, but that this view is mistaken; people who do bad things will continue to be punished regardless of whether we believe they have agency or not. What really is at stake in the Free Will debate is whether we believe we have capacity to create novelty. If we are mere products of physical processes we don't have the capacity to change, whereas if we have volition, we do, and this is the only thing that matters in practical terms.
Spiritualism vs Materialism
He makes a similar case for the Spiritualism vs Materialism debate. He says that both theories are exactly the same in terms of what has already occurred. Whether or not there is matter and everything in the world is composed of it, is of secondary importance at best. What really is at stake, in terms of practical cash value, in this debate, is whether or not we believe our future holds a promise for moral order. If Spiritualism is true, then there will always be a moral order that is guarded by God, whereas if Materialism is true, our life is just a physical contingency devoid of ethics.
Setting aside the possibility that I could've misunderstood him in what he meant (if so please correct me), what would a Pragmatist say about Pro Life vs Pro Choice?
Comments (13)
The debate, where it exists, largely turns upon how to understand the significance of actions (taken or not taken).
Something that is indicated by William:
Quoting rickyk95
You're not saving yourself the trouble, you're sparing yourself the responsibility when you choose to abort.
Assuming it's an unwanted baby, which would be raised in circumstances which are far from ideal, then it would lead to living a normal life.
If it's because of some potential health consequences, then you save a life.
If it's done last minute, say, 8 months in, things are quite murky.
It is, but there are worse things, like backstreet abortions, or children being raised in impoverished conditions.
Because women live to TOLO! And they must live to TOLO!
It makes it easier when you remove the fetus from the values set. We have done that in the 'progressive' west. If we restore the value of the fetus, now we're treading water with great depths below us, and who knows what's down there looking up?
If we reduce the value of 'free will' to zero, as some insist we should, then we must also destroy the apparent intrinsic value of altruism. And, few would agree that abortion is altruistic..........right? It could be, maybe even in a heavy majority of cases arguably, but not always.
Sometimes all you can do is the best you can do.
Or, a pragmatist might say that a human being has sovereign rule over the life, death or health of anyone else who resides within their body. End of story.
All other arguments or debate or legislation or fly-specking or BS about sentience, pain, appearance, heartbeat, rape, incest, age, fatherhood, God, viability, trimesters, conception, genetic infirmity and whatnot is impractical, unrealistic, idealistic.
What is life without choice and what is choice without life? Luckily or not, we can't have, as some like to say, the best of both worlds. Pragmatically speaking, we should actually be examining the metaphysical aspects of the problem - do their truth/falsity in any way affect our lives, what would we do different if they were true/false? Souls?