The Case for Personal Space. Final

The Case for Personal Space. Final - The Case for Personal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The Case for Personal Space All across the world people are dying – people that lack certain life essential such as food, shelter and clothing. If it is in our ability to give aid to these people should we not do it without hesitation? Singer deals with this dilemma by explaining the difference in moral significance between our material satisfaction and the right for these unprivileged people to live. Thomson deals with abortion in a similar manner by explaining what the right to life entails and how far its influence extends over certain rights. The right to life versus the right to control our bodies, and the right to life versus the right to use our money, I will argue, are separate issues with no moral difference - the validity of one establishes that of the other; they are entwined within the realm of our personal space. Singer bases his argument that it is immoral to go to the movies on some important premises: suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad; if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then we ought morally to do it; the right to spend our money the way we choose is not of comparable moral significance to the right to life. If I am to argue that it is not okay for the right to life to invade my personal space, the space that gives me the right to buy new clothes for purely superficial reasons, then I would have to assume Singer’s latter premise false – the right to spend our money the way we choose would be of comparable moral significance to the right to life. Thomson argues that the right to life, morally, is not more important than the right for us to control our bodies. Thomson’s premise gives that a fetus is a person, and attempts to fight for the moral right to abortion. Her argument is supported by the thought experiment concerning the famous violinist, where a famous violinist has been connected to your kidneys and will use them to live for 9 months, lest he die at your decision to unplug him. The violinist is comparable to a to live for 9 months, lest he die at your decision to unplug him....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/27/2008 for the course PHIL 140g taught by Professor Kwon during the Spring '07 term at USC.

Page1 / 6

The Case for Personal Space. Final - The Case for Personal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online