Deck 43: Judith Jarvis Thomson

Question 1

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-On what premise does most opposition to abortion rest, according to Thomson? What does Thomson think of this premise? What role does it play in her argument?

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Describe Thomson's violinist case. What verdict does she give on this case? What implications does she think it has for the debate about abortion?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Explain the different accounts of the right to life that Thomson discusses. Which does she ultimately decide is correct? Do you find her account plausible? Why or why not?

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-What is a Good Samaritan, according to Thomson? What relevance does the notion have to her argument concerning abortion?

Question 5

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-What is the point of the case of the violinist? What does Thomson conclude from the case? Do you agree with her? Why or why not?

Question 6

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-What is the right to life, according to Thomson? Under what circumstances does Thomson think it is permissible to kill someone who has a right to life? Do you find her account plausible?

Question 7

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-What is Thomson's final verdict on abortion? In what cases does she believe it is morally permissible? Do you agree with her? Defend your answer.

Question 8

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-According to Thomson, most opposition to abortion relies on:

A) religious arguments.
B) the premise that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
C) the premise that killing is always wrong.
D) an appeal to emotion.

Question 9

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-On Thomson's view, if a human being has any just, prior claim to anything at all, he has a just, prior claim to his own:

A) child.
B) thoughts.
C) body
D) wealth.

Question 10

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that directly killing an innocent person:

A) is always morally impermissible.
B) is permissible only in cases of self-defense.
C) is permissible only where this is required to save the life of someone else.
D) none of the above.

Question 11

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that:

A) you should face a legal fine if you didn't.
B) you would be a bad person if you didn't.
C) he has a right to use your kidneys.
D) he has a duty to repay you.

Question 12

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-In Thomson's view, the right to life amounts to:

A) the right to the bare minimum one needs for continued life.
B) the right not to be killed.
C) the right not to be killed unjustly.
D) none of the above.

Question 13

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that abortion is unjust in cases where:

A) the fetus is sentient.
B) the pregnancy does not require large sacrifices.
C) the fetus has been granted a right to the use of the mother's body.
D) the mother voluntarily had sex.

Question 14

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson's case of the burglar is intended to make a point about:

A) whether the mother grants a fetus the right to use her body.
B) the threat of rape.
C) the costs of pregnancy.
D) what the right to life amounts to.

Question 15

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that if the violinist only needed to be hooked up to your kidneys for an hour:

A) it would be unjust to unhook yourself from him.
B) to unhook yourself from him would violate his right to life.
C) it would be indecent to unhook yourself from him.
D) all of the above.

Question 16

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-In Thomson's view, we are morally required to be:

A) Minimally Decent Samaritans, but not Good Samaritans.
B) Good Samaritans, but not Splendid Samaritans.
C) Splendid Samaritans.
D) none of the above.

Question 17

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that having an abortion in the seventh month simply to avoid postponing a trip abroad would be:

A) unjust.
B) indecent, and morally prohibited.
C) indecent, but morally permissible.
D) morally unproblematic.

Question 18

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-According to Thomson, the law:

A) requires both men and women to be Minimally Decent Samaritans.
B) does not require men to be Minimally Decent Samaritans, but requires pregnant women to be Good Samaritans.
C) ought to require everyone to be Good Samaritans.
D) ought not to require anyone to be Minimally Decent Samaritans.

Question 19

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that a woman gives the fetus the right to the use of her body in any case in which:

A) she gets pregnant.
B) she voluntarily has sex.
C) she voluntarily has sex without protection.
D) none of the above.

Question 20

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson believes that the fetus becomes a person well before birth.

Question 21

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that the right to life amounts to the right not to be killed.

Question 22

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-According to Thomson, abortion is unjust in cases where the fetus has a right to the use of the mother's body

Question 23

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson argues that no one is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them.

Question 24

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-According to Thomson, if one grants that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then it follows that abortion is always wrong.

Question 25

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson claims that in cases of abortion, the mother has the right to secure the death of the fetus.

Question 26

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Most opponents of abortion claim that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants this claim, and asks whether it follows that abortion is morally wrong. Opponents of abortion typically argue that it does follow, because every person has a right to life, and it is wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life. In response, Thomson asks us to consider a thought experiment. You wake up one morning and have been hooked up to a famous violinist, so that your kidneys extract poisons from his blood. You are told that if you unhook yourself from the violinist he will die, but if you do not unhook then you will be confined to bed for nine months until the violinist recovers. Thomson claims that you are not obligated to remain in bed for nine months; it is permissible for you to unhook yourself from the violinist. But if this is so, then the claim that is always wrong to intentionally kill the bearer of a right to life cannot be correct.
According to Thomson, the right to life is not a right not to be killed, but only a right not to be killed unjustly. In the case of the violinist, Thomson claims that unplugging the violinist is not unjust because the violinist has no right to the use of your body. In general, Thomson claims, "no person is morally required to make large sacrifices to sustain the life of another who has no right to demand them." This naturally leads to the following question: Under what circumstances does a mother grant a fetus the right to the use of her body? Thomson acknowledges that the issue is complicated, but suggests that in cases where precautions against pregnancy are taken, the mother does not grant the fetus the right to the use of her body, and thus aborting the fetus would not constitute an unjust killing. Thomson concludes that although there might be some cases in which abortion is "indecent," it is often morally permissible.
-Thomson argues that we are not morally required to be Good Samaritans to one another.