Philosophy - Two parts short assignment

PART B Please response to these two original posts below. When responding to these posts, please either expand the thought, add additional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why. Remember that we are after reasons and arguments, and not simply the statement of opinions.

Original Post 1 “In what way are most pregnancies disanalogous to the violinist case? How might this disanalogy weaken Thomson’s argument?”

The violinist case is special because you are kidnapped and attached to the violinist against your will. This is similar to being raped, so you have the right to refuse to help him. However, most pregnancies are voluntary. They may not be expected and desirable, but the two people involving in sexual intercourse must have some idea of how unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. Hence, they are responsible for the life of the fetus and it can be morally wrong to take away the fetus’ right to life. This disanalogy might weaken Thomson’s argument because most pregnancies are similar to having an arrangement/contrast with the violinist beforehand. In this case, it is morally right to be attached to the violinist, since you agree to it. Thompson’s argument seems to be applied well only in extreme cases. However, most of the time, we should be responsible for the consequences of our actions.

Original Post 2 “What is self-determination? Do we have a right to self- determination? How might the idea that self-determination has a special value enable us to limit, in a principled way, the demands made upon us by morality? Is this limitation principled?”

Self-determination is an important concept regarding humans beings’ need to be free to determine their own lives. This view gives one the right to free-will and the autonomy to choose how and to whom to exhibit generosity to our best ability. However, this idea is viewed as being morally wrong and cowardly in the eyes of utilitarians such as, Peter Singer, who believes that everyone has a moral obligation to maximize others’ pleasures while minimizing their pain. However, one must take into account that if we were all morally obligated to help others and solve abject suffering, such as global poverty, then there would be no problems in the world and there would be no special value and feeling associated with helping others, since it would be our inescapable duty. If generosity were to merely become a another duty for humans to simply oblige by, then there would be no incentive or emotional bond associated with helping others; it would just become another tedious job. It’s safe to say that the act of going out of one’s way to assist another buried in their troubles makes one feel special and pure from within. And that feeling only comes about through one’s self-determination or freedom to help another when they can. Limiting one’s free-will to oblige by some invisible force compelling people to perform good deeds defeats the whole purpose of performing those good deeds, which is to evaluate people’s behaviors and actions against others, so as to determine if they’re truly worthy of generosity as well. Therefore, the view of people like Judith

Thomson, who believes that we don’t have any moral obligation to help others, and if we do so, it’s due to our desire to exercise our free-will of going out of our way to assist others, coincides with the true fundamental nature of self-determination.