I donât think we disagree here, but I can see how that section was ambiguous. I think many people would think of âexpanding abortion rightsâ as part of âthe expanding circleâ (people having more freedom and fewer restrictions, as long as you take it for granted that fetuses donât âcountâ). Of course, there are multiple ways to argue that fetuses might âcountâ (as ensoulled entities, as potential future people, as living creatures, etc.), so one could also look at expanded abortion rights as a case of âthe narrowing circleâ.
As you outlined, those on the side of the ânarrowing circleâ have a better case if you consider the literal meaning of âexpanding circleâ (more beings are in the moral domain, full stop), as well as the parallels between abortion rights and, say, animal rights.
But I think thereâs a difference in that certain rights which feel âfundamentalâ are in play on either side (I think there are important differences between âthe right to eat meatâ and âthe right not to bring human life into the world for which you will be held responsibleâ). In the less literal sense of âexpanding circleâ, which turns into something more like âthe moral arc of the universe bends towards justiceâ, there are perspectives from which expanded abortion rights bend the universe either toward or away from justice.
Anyway, to clarify, I donât think itâs obvious whether abortion rights expand or narrow the circle in the way that I normally hear âexpanding circleâ used, though they do narrow it by the literal âwho gets consideredâ 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 donât know whether he is), Iâm not sure that plants/âamoebas entering the moral domain would qualify as âexpanding the circleâ from his point of view.
The only time he uses the expression in his essay âThe Drowning Child and the Expanding Circleâ:
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 âsoon 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 worldâ.
Iâm not sure whether abortion, or at least early-term abortion, qualifies as âthe dealings of man with the animal worldâ in the same way as factory farming.
That said, I havenât read Singerâs full book on the expanding circle concept, so there are probably nuances and details in his complete definition that Iâm not aware of.
I donât think we disagree here, but I can see how that section was ambiguous. I think many people would think of âexpanding abortion rightsâ as part of âthe expanding circleâ (people having more freedom and fewer restrictions, as long as you take it for granted that fetuses donât âcountâ). Of course, there are multiple ways to argue that fetuses might âcountâ (as ensoulled entities, as potential future people, as living creatures, etc.), so one could also look at expanded abortion rights as a case of âthe narrowing circleâ.
As you outlined, those on the side of the ânarrowing circleâ have a better case if you consider the literal meaning of âexpanding circleâ (more beings are in the moral domain, full stop), as well as the parallels between abortion rights and, say, animal rights.
But I think thereâs a difference in that certain rights which feel âfundamentalâ are in play on either side (I think there are important differences between âthe right to eat meatâ and âthe right not to bring human life into the world for which you will be held responsibleâ). In the less literal sense of âexpanding circleâ, which turns into something more like âthe moral arc of the universe bends towards justiceâ, there are perspectives from which expanded abortion rights bend the universe either toward or away from justice.
Anyway, to clarify, I donât think itâs obvious whether abortion rights expand or narrow the circle in the way that I normally hear âexpanding circleâ used, though they do narrow it by the literal âwho gets consideredâ 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 donât know whether he is), Iâm not sure that plants/âamoebas entering the moral domain would qualify as âexpanding the circleâ from his point of view.
The only time he uses the expression in his essay âThe Drowning Child and the Expanding Circleâ:
Iâm not sure whether abortion, or at least early-term abortion, qualifies as âthe dealings of man with the animal worldâ in the same way as factory farming.
That said, I havenât read Singerâs full book on the expanding circle concept, so there are probably nuances and details in his complete definition that Iâm not aware of.