Description
Book SynopsisThe abortion debate has returned. More than forty years have passed since the landmark decision Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. But the abortion debate continues to rage among ethicists and the influencers of society in politics, government, and the arts. Dave Sterrett’s Aborting Aristotle examines these essential differences philosophically, while investigating the naturalistic worldview about humanity that is frequently held by many of the scholarly defenders of abortion. Each year 44 million babies are killed from intentional abortion around the world. 1.29 million babies are aborted right here in the United States. These are not just merely cold statistics: These are human beings . . . real babies. Sterrett reveals the unreasonableness of abortion and argues against abortion even in the difficult circumstances. In the ancient world, infanticide was defended by Plato and Aristotle. Christians who believed in the sacredness of human life stopped infanticide and intellectually argued against the practice. Peter Singer, professor of ethics at Princeton, hopes the time has come for atheists to reassess the morality of infanticide “without assuming the Christian moral framework that has, for so long, prevented any fundamental reassessment” [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, UK; 1993), 173.] Dave Sterrett takes on Peter Singer, along with other scholarly defenders of abortion, including David Boonin, Michael Tooley, and Judith Jarvis Thomson. Although he is against Aristotle’s teaching in favor of abortion, Sterrett argues that Aristotle had much good in his metaphysical and logical teachings that Western education has forgotten. Sterrett draws upon current scientific knowledge of the human embryo to provide reasons for a restoration of the Aristotelian scholastic philosophical tradition that could help ethicists become more open-minded about the dignity and personhood of unborn human beings.
Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. ARISTOTLE & THOMAS JEFFERSON 3. METAPHYSICS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE ETHICAL DEBATE ON ABORTION. 4. DENYING THE METAPHYSICS OF PERSONS IS SELF-REFUTING. 5. LACKING EPISTEMOLOGICAL PRECISENESS CONCERNING HUMAN BEINGS DOES NOT DISPROVE THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE ONTOLOGICALLY. 6. NATURALISTIC MATERIALISM IS NOT THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR REALITY 7. THE TERMS “SANCTITY” AND “NATURAL THEOLOGY” SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE DISMISSED IN PHILOSOPHY OR LAW BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIVINE. God is the best explanation for a first efficient cause. God is the best explanation for a necessary entity. God is the best explanation for moral realism. 8. ARISTOTLE’S ANCIENT CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE IS STILL RELEVANT AND COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE. 9. ALL HUMANS ARE PERSONS. 10. All HUMAN PERSONS ARE SOMEONE FOR WHOM THEY ARE AND NOT SOMEONE FOR WHAT THEY DO. 11. CONCLUSION: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES There can be a greater purpose in some suffering encountered in life. Humans are responsible for what they could have prevented. Racism is wrong. Animals should be treated with respect. A fetus is an individual member of the species homo sapiens. Philosophers’ ethical stance of abortion is frequently rooted in their metaphysical beliefs. Those in favor of abortion frequently emphasize hypotheticals, while defenders of life use Aristotlean logic with premises about real life. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Index
