2

How do we trade-off the rights of the individual woman to drink, against the right of a person to be born without foetal (fetal) alcohol syndrome?

Kevin Ryan
  • 167
  • 4
  • There is no "moral value" that can put more weight on the individual pleasure that cause suffering and damages to others. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 29 '20 at 14:28
  • Since this depends pretty much on the moral theory you apply and there are some of them which might lead to very different outcomes, I'd like you to be more specific. Applied ethics is a messy field in and of itself and without some focus, you can basically write books about any and every particular problem. – Philip Klöcking Jan 29 '20 at 14:44
  • @Mauro. Of course that's not true. The world is full of examples where the pain of the few is sacrificed for the pleasure and convenience of the many. Alcohol is a perfect example. Do we ban it because of the addictions and alcohol related deaths? No, we say the enjoyment of the larger population trumps them. – Kevin Ryan Jan 29 '20 at 15:06
  • @Philip. Explain what you mean by 'focused'. It's a very simple question. If you can't explain yourself, you give the impression that you close questions that you are afraid of. – Kevin Ryan Jan 29 '20 at 15:10
  • The world is full of ... everything. This does not mean that it is correct/moral to do so. You asked for "morality": IMO, it means judgement about an action/decision. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 29 '20 at 15:14
  • It *seems* like a simple question, but there are multiple factors that make it fuzzy. Firstly, who are "we"? US Americans? Westerners? Christians? Secondly, what is meant with trading of rights? Is it a law-question or about ethical entitlement? Thirdly, which theory or textual basis are we supposed to base an answer on? I could cite clerical, juridical, philosophical, biological, ... sources. In short: In order to be able to evaluate what a *correct* answer would look like, we need more context telling us the focus and background of the question. There is no single correct answer here. – Philip Klöcking Jan 29 '20 at 15:17
  • @Mauro - so your morality is very simple. There is no such thing as the greater good. No pleasure should be permitted to the public if it causes suffering to one person. I'm glad I don't live in that world. – Kevin Ryan Jan 29 '20 at 15:22
  • Philip - I challenge you to find a single question on this site where you couldn't just cut and paste that reply as a reason not to answer it. Literally everything is contextual. Of course there is no correct answer, but there should be scope for a conversation. What you're doing feels like censorship because you think some people will get offended. In which case, I wonder what purpose you think a forum like this is supposed to serve. – Kevin Ryan Jan 29 '20 at 15:29
  • @Philip - this is a current real-life moral question, that I don't see asked anywhere else in this forum. If you don't agree with how I've framed it, I'm happy for you to structure and pose the question instead – Kevin Ryan Jan 29 '20 at 16:50
  • You know, it's not like what I say [was new](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/11391/using-embryos-in-stem-cell-medicine). I understand that it might be frustrating to new users because the standards here are different from the wider internet, but I encourage you to read articles of the help centre and change the question as suggested in the linked one. Another possibility would be asking for *references* discussing the ethical implications of the use of drugs during pregnancy, preferably alcohol. That's not the same as basically asking "Hey folks, what do you think?" – Philip Klöcking Jan 29 '20 at 18:11
  • What's wrong with asking (presumably intelligent) people what they think? I'm obviously new to the forum, but I can see the shibboleths and the etiquette. It seems to me there's as much time and energy spent here on status signalling as there is on discussing questions. No jeans in the golf club bar Philip. Helps keep the oiks out.You know what I mean? – Kevin Ryan Jan 29 '20 at 21:44
  • I don't think this question should have been closed. The focus on rights clearly suggests a deontologist approach. – Quentin Ruyant Jan 30 '20 at 02:13
  • @QuentinRuyant - I don't either but I don't possess the expertise here to re-frame it. Maybe you could ask it in a way that wouldn't get closed. I'm more interested in having the conversation than "owning" it. To address Philip's criticisms- In terms of who I mean by "we" - I mean any society that legally permits the sale of alcohol. I'm obviously asking an ethical rather than legal question. And I'd be interested in the widest range of perspectives, ex religious views (but that's my personal bias against the opinions of imaginary creatures) – Kevin Ryan Jan 30 '20 at 11:05
  • 1
    @KevinRyan maybe you can simply ask for references in moral philosophy concerning conflicts between rights that would apply to your example, in particular, rights of fetus. You can look at this entry to make your question more focused and maybe answer part of it https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-pregnancy/ – Quentin Ruyant Jan 30 '20 at 17:46
  • @PhilipKlöcking I understand your concern for the quality of this website, but the question is clearly about moral issues (not legal issues), and furthermore its mention of rights suggests a particular ethical approach. Why would you think that "we" would be US Americans (or westerners or...)? From this I presume that *you* are from the US but a priori, moral issues are not restricted to any nationality, so this is a weird question to ask... – Quentin Ruyant Jan 30 '20 at 17:56
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA - I've been thinking and maybe you are right, there is no such thing morally as "the greater good". Do you have any advice about where I'd go to investigate that as a question ? I'd ask it here, but I don't feel welcome to. BTW on this topic, I assume you know the story The Ones who walk away from Omelas, if not it's here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCJsJthP2ek and I'd recommend it. – Kevin Ryan Feb 05 '20 at 16:56

0 Answers0