2022 Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest

 2022 Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest

The APA committee on public philosophy sponsors the Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest for the best opinion-editorials published by philosophers. The goal is to honor up to five standout pieces that successfully blend philosophical argumentation with an op-ed writing style. Winning submissions will call public attention, either directly or indirectly, to the value of philosophical thinking. The pieces will be judged in terms of their success as examples of public philosophy, and should be accessible to the general public, focused on important topics of public concern, and characterized by sound reasoning.

Awardees

2022

Max Khan Hayward (The University of Sheffield), “Eat, Drink, and Be Merry! No, Really.” (The Atlantic, 2021)

Milena Ivanova (The University of Cambridge), “The Beautiful Experiment” (Aeon, 2021)

A. Minh Nguyen (Florida Gulf Coast University), “When Your Daughter Is Told ‘Your Face Is Not American’” (The News-Press, 2021)

Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College) and Jonathan Dudley (Johns Hopkins), “Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking” (Salon, 2021)

Lisa Forsberg (Oxford University) and Anthony Skelton (University of Western Ontario), “3 reasons for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for children” (The Conversation, 2021)

"Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking"

Our [update: AWARD WINNING!] 2021 Salon article "Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking" generated some responses. 

Here are some of those responses and some of our (or my) responses to those responses! If you know of any other responses, please let me know:

• Salon Piece Says ‘Pro-Choice Ethics’ Prove Abortion Isn’t Murder, Townhall, Katie Yoder, 4/24/2021.

A quick response: 

Dear Ms. Yoder, 

Thanks for this response. I am curious though about your claim about babies: do you really think that babies aren't conscious or aware or feeling? Surely you have been around a baby, so why do you suggest they are not conscious?  

Second, you write that "it’s wrong to commit an action with the sole purpose and intent to end the life of an innocent human being." But that's not the sole purpose and intent behind abortions: the main purpose is to end pregnancies, for a variety of reasons.  

If you meant to say that "it’s wrong to commit an action with the purpose and intent to end the life of an innocent human being," the point of the article was to observe that if that's true, then killing human beings for organ donation is wrong, as is letting anencephalic die. But these aren't wrong, although they involve "intentionally destroy[ing] the life of an innocent human being"--and this is best explained by their lacking a functioning, consciousness-making brain, and so at least early abortion is wrong. Yes, there are differences here, but they don't seem to matter. For more on that, see Thinking Critically About Abortion at www.AbortionArguments.com 

Thank you!

A longer response: Response to Katie Yoder’s “Salon Piece Says ‘Pro-Choice Ethics’ Prove Abortion Isn’t Murder.”

• Evaluating Elliot Crozat's "An Evaluation of 'Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking'"
• A Response to Clinton Wilcox's "Nobis and Dudley Miss the Mark Completely on Defending Abortion"
• FYI: here are some earlier replies to some critiques from Wilcox: 1, 2. 
• Nobis and Dudley on Abortion by an anonymous "Brandon" (I don't think we can know who this person is?). We didn't write up a response to this one: is there anything worthy of responding to here?

What does anyone think of these responses? Please share any thoughts in the comments!

Contrary to some responses, our argument does not depend on thinking these various cases are "equivalent" or "exactly the same" or that there are no interesting differences among them: it does, however, depend on the idea of "brain birth" and being "brain alive," the lesser-known counterpart to brain death and being brain dead. For more on these concepts, see this 1990 LA Times article: "Is ‘brain birth’ the beginning of human life? Or conception? Science can’t draw the line, but only provide more evidence to ponder."

Here is an explanation of the argument, or one interpretation of the argument:

1. Organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible.
2. If organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are morally permissible, then it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains.
3. If it’s permissible to end the lives of biologically human organisms without functioning, consciousness-making brains, then early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.
4. Therefore, early abortions, of fetuses without functioning, consciousness-making brains are morally permissible.

To respond, here’s what one could do, regarding each premise:

1. Argue that organ donation procedures and the treatment of anencephalic newborns are not morally permissible, for whatever reason(s): e.g., these are human, these are human organisms, these are human beings; there is always some chance of recovery, etc.
2. Argue that a different generalization, or none, at all, is suggested by the cases in (1). Explain why that's a better generalization to draw than what we propose. 
3. Identify a relevant difference such that (3) is false and justify the relevance of that difference: e.g., clearly, fetuses and the organ donation and anencephalic newborn cases are different: fetuses typically have a type of “potential” that the other cases don’t; fetuses, if “left alone,” so to speak will continue living, etc., but how is that relevant? Why would that make killing them wrong? Real, developed answers are needed, and the answer that “because they are human organisms” isn’t going to cut it, at least not for those who accept (1).

Here is also some further discussion of whether embryos and beginning fetuses are or can be "innocent" (and non-innocent too!): 

@nathan.nobis What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not? Inspired by @dankprolifememes #abortion #prochoice #prolife #innocence #guilt #criticalthinking #philosophy #ethics ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not innocent? #abortion #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #bioethics #prochoice #prolife #innocent #innocence ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

The Always More Podcast: When Does "Life" Begin?

On The Always More Podcast, they discuss my article 'When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life"':

Kevin Drum's "Liberals really suck at defending abortion":

 From Kevin Drum's post "Liberals really suck at defending abortion":

 Conservatives talk endlessly about how abortion snuffs out a human life. That's the whole magilla. But if you read only among liberals, you might not even know this is an issue. We simply don't talk about it.

Why? I don't know how it polls or what effect it has on most people, but it has to be addressed if we want to win the war for public opinion. There are just too many people who care about this and need to hear simple, convincing arguments that a fetus isn't a human life in any reasonable sense of the term. We're cowards if we aren't willing to take that on.

"When does life begin?" The "Always More" podcast

 Some discussion of my Salon article here on "when does life begin?" from the "Always More" podcast

@alwaysmorepodcast “When does life begin” according to Dr. Nathan Nobis. Part 1. #abortion #womensrights #deconstruction #faith ♬ Pieces (Solo Piano Version) - Danilo Stankovic

@alwaysmorepodcast "When does life begin" according to Dr. Nathan Nobis. Part 2 #abortion #womensrights #deconstruction #faith ♬ Pieces (Solo Piano Version) - Danilo Stankovic

On The Always More Podcast, they discuss my article 'When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life"':

 

Are embryos and beginning fetuses "innocent"?

'. . calling fetuses "innocent" assumes that they are persons: "innocence" implies the potential for guilt, and that's only true of persons. Nobody would refer to human eggs or tissue as "innocent," because nobody thinks these things are persons.' [update: this is from our AWARD WINNING essay!] 

Further discussion here on what kinds of things can be "innocent":

@nathan.nobis What is it to be "innocent"? A dialogue inspired by @dankprolifememes #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #innocent #innocence #bioethics #innocenthumanlife ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis What is it to be "innocent"? What if something is neither innocent nor not innocent? #abortion #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #bioethics #prochoice #prolife #innocent #innocence ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

To be "innocent" something must (A) be able to do wrong and not do it or (B) to not have done anything wrong?

What's the better definition? Why?

Is there a better definition?

— Nathan Nobis . com (@NathanNobis) November 23, 2022

"Fetuses are human, so abortion is wrong."

Some quick notes on common arguments that result from what ordinary people say about these issues. 

1.      Fetuses are human.

2.      All humans are prima facie wrong to kill.

3.      So, abortion – killing fetuses – is prima facie wrong.

This argument disambiguates in at least two ways:

 

4.      Fetuses are biologically human organisms. (True).

5.      All biologically human organisms are prima facie wrong to kill. (Why think that?)

6.      So, abortion – killing fetuses – is prima facie wrong.

 

7.      Fetuses are human beings, i.e., feeling, perceiving, biologically human organisms. (False, if this means all fetuses, especially beginning ones).

8.      All human beings, i.e., feeling, perceiving, biologically human organisms are prima facie wrong to kill. (True)

9.      So, abortion – killing fetuses – is prima facie wrong.

 

 

Two logically invalid arguments: the premises do not lead to the conclusion due to using ‘human’ in two different meanings, or an “equivocation” on ‘human’:

 

10.  Fetuses are [merely] biologically human organisms. (True).

11.  All human beings, i.e., feeling, perceiving, biologically human organisms are prima facie wrong to kill. (True).

12.  So, abortion – killing fetuses – is prima facie wrong.

 

13.  Fetuses are human beings, i.e., feeling, perceiving, biologically human organisms. (False, if this means all fetuses, especially beginning ones).

14.  All [merely] biologically human organisms are prima facie wrong to kill. (Why think that?)

15.  So, abortion – killing fetuses – is prima facie wrong. 

On whether embryos and fetuses are "human," "humans, "human beings," "human organisms," whether each is "a human," a common anti-abortion concern:

• Are fetuses "human beings"? Biological versus psychological definitions
• Abortion and Ethics 101: An Introductory Overview
• Robert George: "Fetuses are human beings; all human beings are equal in dignity & worth; so abortion is wrong." Good or bad argument?
• "Fetuses are human, so abortion is wrong": what do you mean "human"?
• I’m a philosophy professor. The argument for making abortion illegal is illogical (at Salon)
• When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life" (at Salon)
• Are embryos and beginning fetuses "innocent"?