(2) does complicate things, and while I favor expanding abortion rights, I’m not sure I’d think of them as a facet of the “expanding circle” in the same way as I do the expansion of civil rights for certain groups.
This seems like a quite backwards way of describing the situation. The abortion case is very similar to canonical expanding circle cases, like the end of slavery, prohibition of spousal rape, or animal rights:
In each case one group (slave owners, husbands, abortionists, omnivores) were systematically acting in a way that advantaged themselves (forcing slaves to production of cotton, raping wives for sex, killing fetuses to avoid pregnancy, killing animals for meat) at high cost (brutality and loss of freedom, sexual abuse, death, torture and death) of another group (black people, wives, fetuses, animals).
In each case the dominant group justified their conduct partly by arguing that the other group didn’t really count as people, perhaps because they lacked certain mental capacities.
In each case the dominant group justified their conduct partly by arguing that the other group had reduced or no ability to feel pain.
In each case the dominant group justified their conduct partly by arguing that they had an inherent right to act in this way, even if it hurt the other group.
In each case the dominant group argued that it was fine for others to avoid taking this action, but it was wrong for such conscientious objectors to prohibit them.
In each case the victimised group lacked formal representation in government.
In each case the scale of the issue was very large, and one could reasonably believe ending it was the most important issue in the world.
The abortion case is very similar to the standard expanding circle cases, and contrary to many western people’s views. The fact that we have not seen a similar expanding moral circle for unborn children is either a big problem with the expanding circle theory (if we take it as a positive description of human values) or with our current legal and social system (if we take the theory as normative prescription for who we *should* care about).
I don’t think we disagree here, but I can see how that section was ambiguous. I think many people would think of “expanding abortion rights” as part of “the expanding circle” (people having more freedom and fewer restrictions, as long as you take it for granted that fetuses don’t “count”). Of course, there are multiple ways to argue that fetuses might “count” (as ensoulled entities, as potential future people, as living creatures, etc.), so one could also look at expanded abortion rights as a case of “the narrowing circle”.
As you outlined, those on the side of the “narrowing circle” have a better case if you consider the literal meaning of “expanding circle” (more beings are in the moral domain, full stop), as well as the parallels between abortion rights and, say, animal rights.
But I think there’s a difference in that certain rights which feel “fundamental” are in play on either side (I think there are important differences between “the right to eat meat” and “the right not to bring human life into the world for which you will be held responsible”). In the less literal sense of “expanding circle”, which turns into something more like “the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice”, there are perspectives from which expanded abortion rights bend the universe either toward or away from justice.
Anyway, to clarify, I don’t think it’s obvious whether abortion rights expand or narrow the circle in the way that I normally hear “expanding circle” used, though they do narrow it by the literal “who gets considered” definition.
--
More crudely: Some people think of early-term fetuses as being morally akin to a plant or an amoeba, and if Peter Singer is among them (I don’t know whether he is), I’m not sure that plants/amoebas entering the moral domain would qualify as “expanding the circle” from his point of view.
The only time he uses the expression in his essay “The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle”:
At the end of the nineteenth century WH Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle… includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world’.
I’m not sure whether abortion, or at least early-term abortion, qualifies as “the dealings of man with the animal world” in the same way as factory farming.
That said, I haven’t read Singer’s full book on the expanding circle concept, so there are probably nuances and details in his complete definition that I’m not aware of.
This seems like a quite backwards way of describing the situation. The abortion case is very similar to canonical expanding circle cases, like the end of slavery, prohibition of spousal rape, or animal rights:
In each case one group (slave owners, husbands, abortionists, omnivores) were systematically acting in a way that advantaged themselves (forcing slaves to production of cotton, raping wives for sex, killing fetuses to avoid pregnancy, killing animals for meat) at high cost (brutality and loss of freedom, sexual abuse, death, torture and death) of another group (black people, wives, fetuses, animals).
In each case the dominant group justified their conduct partly by arguing that the other group didn’t really count as people, perhaps because they lacked certain mental capacities.
In each case the dominant group justified their conduct partly by arguing that the other group had reduced or no ability to feel pain.
In each case the dominant group justified their conduct partly by arguing that they had an inherent right to act in this way, even if it hurt the other group.
In each case the dominant group argued that it was fine for others to avoid taking this action, but it was wrong for such conscientious objectors to prohibit them.
In each case the victimised group lacked formal representation in government.
In each case the scale of the issue was very large, and one could reasonably believe ending it was the most important issue in the world.
The abortion case is very similar to the standard expanding circle cases, and contrary to many western people’s views. The fact that we have not seen a similar expanding moral circle for unborn children is either a big problem with the expanding circle theory (if we take it as a positive description of human values) or with our current legal and social system (if we take the theory as normative prescription for who we *should* care about).
I don’t think we disagree here, but I can see how that section was ambiguous. I think many people would think of “expanding abortion rights” as part of “the expanding circle” (people having more freedom and fewer restrictions, as long as you take it for granted that fetuses don’t “count”). Of course, there are multiple ways to argue that fetuses might “count” (as ensoulled entities, as potential future people, as living creatures, etc.), so one could also look at expanded abortion rights as a case of “the narrowing circle”.
As you outlined, those on the side of the “narrowing circle” have a better case if you consider the literal meaning of “expanding circle” (more beings are in the moral domain, full stop), as well as the parallels between abortion rights and, say, animal rights.
But I think there’s a difference in that certain rights which feel “fundamental” are in play on either side (I think there are important differences between “the right to eat meat” and “the right not to bring human life into the world for which you will be held responsible”). In the less literal sense of “expanding circle”, which turns into something more like “the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice”, there are perspectives from which expanded abortion rights bend the universe either toward or away from justice.
Anyway, to clarify, I don’t think it’s obvious whether abortion rights expand or narrow the circle in the way that I normally hear “expanding circle” used, though they do narrow it by the literal “who gets considered” definition.
--
More crudely: Some people think of early-term fetuses as being morally akin to a plant or an amoeba, and if Peter Singer is among them (I don’t know whether he is), I’m not sure that plants/amoebas entering the moral domain would qualify as “expanding the circle” from his point of view.
The only time he uses the expression in his essay “The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle”:
I’m not sure whether abortion, or at least early-term abortion, qualifies as “the dealings of man with the animal world” in the same way as factory farming.
That said, I haven’t read Singer’s full book on the expanding circle concept, so there are probably nuances and details in his complete definition that I’m not aware of.