6 Comments
User's avatar
Neonomos's avatar

The moral universe is made up of existing conscious beings and “reasonably certain to exist” conscious beings, like unborn fetuses. I don’t find the threshold issue in abortion that counterintuitive. Otherwise, beings would have a sliding scale of moral worth (based on what exactly?). There is a point where a bunch of grains of sand become a pile and there is a point where a bunch of neural connections become a conscious mind (or is reasonably certain to become one) that gives that being moral standing.

Expand full comment
Bentham's Bulldog's avatar

Probability is in the mind -- all beings either will or won't exist. The utilitarian account says that future well-being matters just as much as current well-being.

Expand full comment
Neonomos's avatar

So does the hypothetical child I could have matter as much as an unborn fetus? If so, would my failure to have that child be the moral equivalent of murder?

Expand full comment
Bentham's Bulldog's avatar

Yes; no.

Expand full comment
Neonomos's avatar

So if they both have the same moral worth, and late-term abortion and childlessness both lead to those beings' non-existence, then what is the moral difference between late-term abortion (or even murder) and childlessness?

Expand full comment
Bentham's Bulldog's avatar

Well, presumably a late-term abortion causes suffering. Also, legally we have to draw the line somewhere. But I agree, the gulf is not as big as people think. I defend this more here. https://benthams.substack.com/p/longtermism-is-correct-part-1

Expand full comment