Thanks for these reflections—I think I generally agree with the points where you’ve expanded on Thorn’s lack of nuance. However, I think where MacAskill mentions reproductive rights in WWOTF it not only lacks force, but seems completely out of the blue: it’s not backed up by the reasoning he’s been using up until that point, and is never expanded on afterwards. This means it comes across as lacking conviction and seems to be a throwaway statement.
My assumption here is that the book, written for a broadly left-wing audience, was basically aiming to reassure the reader that the author was on their side and then move on as quickly as possible. The current contemporary progressive view on the subject—that conception/contraception/abortion is entirely a personal choice, and that it is inappropriate to apply any moral pressure to women about them—is one that assigns essentially zero value to future lives. So expanding further on the subject could only raise the question that, even if you don’t think abortion should be literally illegal, that people should have to explicitly take into account the welfare of the child (and other future people) into account when deciding. The longtermist’s support for abortion is inherently going to be a contingent, fact-specific one - and as that would not be a comforting thought for the target audience, the book instead moves on swiftly.
I agree that it’s not well embedded into the book. However, I’m not sure it has to be.
In most of Western Europe, abortion is not a significant political issue. For example, polling consistently finds around 86% of people in the UK think that “Women should have the right to an abortion” and only around 5% of people think that they shouldn’t. Given that the readers of WWOTF likely hold even more progressive views, it may be sufficient to make a brief mention of the topic and move on.
It is possible to interpret the book’s emphasis on the value of future people as implying that abortion is morally wrong. But, this line of reasoning could also be applied to other issues, such as assisted suicide, which is not mentioned in the book. Should we then criticise MacAskill for potentially emboldening people who oppose assisted suicide (in such situations)? Even though the right to assisted suicide is lacking in much of Europe, it seems fine to set it aside as it’s not central to the book. Similarly, it seems fine not to spend too much time on the topic of abortion rights.
It’s possible that the book has a political blindspot and fails to anticipate how the book would be read by some people (although I haven’t seen any evidence outside of Philosophy Tube). I encourage pointing this out, but I dislike being borderline hostile towards someone over it.
Thanks for these reflections—I think I generally agree with the points where you’ve expanded on Thorn’s lack of nuance. However, I think where MacAskill mentions reproductive rights in WWOTF it not only lacks force, but seems completely out of the blue: it’s not backed up by the reasoning he’s been using up until that point, and is never expanded on afterwards. This means it comes across as lacking conviction and seems to be a throwaway statement.
My assumption here is that the book, written for a broadly left-wing audience, was basically aiming to reassure the reader that the author was on their side and then move on as quickly as possible. The current contemporary progressive view on the subject—that conception/contraception/abortion is entirely a personal choice, and that it is inappropriate to apply any moral pressure to women about them—is one that assigns essentially zero value to future lives. So expanding further on the subject could only raise the question that, even if you don’t think abortion should be literally illegal, that people should have to explicitly take into account the welfare of the child (and other future people) into account when deciding. The longtermist’s support for abortion is inherently going to be a contingent, fact-specific one - and as that would not be a comforting thought for the target audience, the book instead moves on swiftly.
I agree that it’s not well embedded into the book. However, I’m not sure it has to be.
In most of Western Europe, abortion is not a significant political issue. For example, polling consistently finds around 86% of people in the UK think that “Women should have the right to an abortion” and only around 5% of people think that they shouldn’t. Given that the readers of WWOTF likely hold even more progressive views, it may be sufficient to make a brief mention of the topic and move on.
It is possible to interpret the book’s emphasis on the value of future people as implying that abortion is morally wrong. But, this line of reasoning could also be applied to other issues, such as assisted suicide, which is not mentioned in the book. Should we then criticise MacAskill for potentially emboldening people who oppose assisted suicide (in such situations)? Even though the right to assisted suicide is lacking in much of Europe, it seems fine to set it aside as it’s not central to the book. Similarly, it seems fine not to spend too much time on the topic of abortion rights.
It’s possible that the book has a political blindspot and fails to anticipate how the book would be read by some people (although I haven’t seen any evidence outside of Philosophy Tube). I encourage pointing this out, but I dislike being borderline hostile towards someone over it.