Abortion -Immorality Thought Experiments | #153
S01:E153

Abortion -Immorality Thought Experiments | #153

•

Episode description

This week the Gwartney team talks about two different thought experiments brought up by Dr. Justin Clarke on Abortion. These thought experiments run through the first and second half of the show. The team then analyzes each of the arguments brought up by the experiment to see which one is better in comparison. The first thought experiment is Judith Jarvis Thomson's, A Defence of Abortion. The second one is Don Marquis's, Why Abortion is Immoral. Enjoy the show!

LInk:

https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm = Judith Jarvis Thomson's, A Defence of Abortion

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Marquis.pdf = Don Marquis's, Why Abortion is Immoral


Timeline: 

The Arguments- 1:45

Jarvis Thompson- 7:15

No Requirement to Val- 11:30

Brain 'EM- 15:00

Burden Changing Your Morality- 17:10

Abortion is Immoral?- 21:10

Deprived of a Valuable Future!- 26:35

When Does the Clock Start?- 30:00

Self Defense or No?- 35:10

Val the violinist pt. 2- 47:05


Quote of the Cast: I have a button, if I push it, you die. - Peter Jacobsen

The “Faith in Economics” podcast, produced by the Gwartney Institute at Ottawa University, explores the intersection of faith and economics as a means to aid human flourishing. In the episode, host Cole McRae converses with Dr. Russ McCullough, Dr. Justin Clark, and Dr. Peter Jacobson regarding recent developments in U.S. government efficiency efforts, particularly focusing on controversial figures like Elon Musk and initiatives like “Doge.” The panel discusses the idea of a “Doge dividend,” a proposed initiative where savings from government spending cuts would be returned to citizens in the form of checks, reminiscent of COVID stimulus checks, aiming to offer approximately $5,000 per American based on 20% of the budget cuts achieved.

The conversation emphasizes the need to restructure government expenditure and addresses the complexities of executing cuts responsibly, likening it to a surgical operation that inevitably removes some healthy aspects along with the waste. Dr. Jacobson and Dr. Clark express support for the dividend proposal, highlighting its potential to politically empower citizens and counter the narrative that tax cuts benefit only the wealthy. The economists advocate for a more significant percentage than 20% for dividends to encourage public awareness and engagement with government spending.

Diverse views regarding balancing the national budget and addressing the national debt also emerge. While Dr. Clark argues the importance of immediate compensation for spending cuts to bolster political will, Dr. Jacobson counters that the method whether through dividends or future tax cuts won’t ultimately impact debt responsibility. This lively discourse illustrates the nuanced relationship between government efficiency, fiscal policy, and citizen engagement, advocating for a systematic change that could reshape economic conditions while benefiting ordinary Americans through incentivized spending cuts. The episode concludes with reflections on the broader implications of the proposed Doge dividend amidst ongoing discussions about government deficits and accountability in spending.