Key Moments
When Does Someone Gain the Right to Life? | Michael Tooley
Closer To TruthKey Moments
Personhood, and thus the right to life, is defined by psychological capacities like memory, not biological humanity, leading to controversial views on abortion and infanticide. This challenges traditional moral and legal frameworks by decoupling rights from biological existence.
Key Insights
Personhood, and consequently the right to life, is defined by the psychological capacity for memory, enabling the connection of experiences across time, rather than by mere consciousness or biological humanity.
Potentiality alone is insufficient to grant a right to life; Tooley uses thought experiments like an artificial womb for a sperm and egg, or a 'serum kitten,' to argue that mere potential for personhood doesn't confer moral status.
The common distinction between abortion and infanticide, often based on the 'breath of life' or birth, is philosophically flawed if the underlying criteria for personhood (like memory) are not met at that specific moment.
The debate around euthanasia, particularly concerning terminally ill patients or severely deformed newborns, hinges on the same philosophical question: what grants a right to life and what makes killing wrong?
The 'moral symmetry principle' suggests that the moral status of actively causing a death is not inherently different from passively allowing a death when one could intervene, challenging the common intuition in scenarios like the trolley problem.
Tooley advocates for a robust philosophical education from a young age, emphasizing critical thinking and exposure to controversial topics, to better equip individuals to form reasoned conclusions on complex ethical issues.
Defining personhood through memory and psychological continuity
Michael Tooley's controversial stance on personhood and the right to life is rooted in a neo-Lockean account, which posits that the crucial factor is not simply consciousness or biological humanity, but the psychological capacity for memory. This memory allows an entity to connect its experiences across different points in time, creating a continuous self. According to Tooley, it is this psychological continuity, facilitated by memory, that bestows personhood and, consequently, the right to life. This framework immediately distinguishes his view from common understandings that might equate personhood with being biologically human from conception or with the first breath. The implication is that an entity could be biologically human but not possess personhood, or potentially, an entity that is not biologically human could possess personhood if it exhibits the requisite psychological capacities.
Challenging traditional milestones for the right to life
Tooley directly challenges two common assertions about when the right to life begins: conception and the first breath. He argues that the 'first breath' milestone is arbitrary, as it does not necessarily correlate with any significant change in psychological capacities. If a baby born unable to breathe already possesses memories of its time in the womb, Tooley contends, it would have a right to life, rendering the act of breathing irrelevant to its moral status. Similarly, he critiques the 'conception' or 'potentiality' argument. He uses thought experiments, such as an artificial womb nurturing a sperm and egg into a baby, to suggest that potentiality alone does not confer a right to life. He argues it would not be wrong to turn off such a machine, implying that the potential for personhood is not the same as actual personhood with a corresponding right to life.
The 'serum kitten' and the limits of potentiality
Further illustrating the inadequacy of potentiality as the sole criterion for personhood, Tooley introduces the 'serum kitten' thought experiment. This scenario involves injecting a newborn kitten with a substance that would grant it the potential to develop human psychological capacities, including memory. Crucially, there is also an antidote that can counteract the initial injection, thereby destroying this potential. Tooley suggests that if one were to inject the kitten with the serum but not the antidote, the kitten would have the potential to become a person. However, the mere possession of this potential does not grant it the same moral status as an actual person with a right to life. This thought experiment, first published in 1976, highlights Tooley's argument that potentiality, by itself, is insufficient and that actual psychological capacities are the defining features.
The philosophical inconsistency in opposing infanticide but supporting abortion
A significant consequence of Tooley's framework is its direct challenge to the common societal and philosophical position that supports abortion while vehemently opposing infanticide. Many who permit abortion on grounds of bodily autonomy or other reasons still find infanticide abhorrent. Tooley argues that this stance often implicitly relies on an arbitrary distinction, such as the 'breath of life,' or a mystical notion of a 'magic moment' of birth. He posits that if the underlying criterion for a right to life is psychological capacity (like memory), then the transition from being in the womb to being born and breathing does not inherently introduce a new morally significant property. Therefore, the philosophical basis for permitting abortion but prohibiting infanticide, especially for non-religious individuals, appears inconsistent and requires a more robust justification than simply the event of birth.
Euthanasia and the moral status of ending life
Tooley extends his analysis to the complex issue of euthanasia, questioning what makes killing an organism morally wrong. He suggests that for a terminally ill person experiencing unbearable suffering and wishing to end their life, it is difficult to see why enabling that person to die would be morally problematic. He attributes the widespread opposition to euthanasia, particularly within institutions like the Catholic Church and the medical profession, to religious views or established norms rather than to a fundamental philosophical objection based on the definition of personhood and the right to life. Tooley implies that if the defining characteristic is the possession of psychological capacities, then a suffering individual who chooses to end their life, and who possesses those capacities, should not be denied that choice.
The moral symmetry principle and its implications
The discussion also touches upon the 'moral symmetry principle,' a concept that challenges the intuitive distinction between actively killing someone and passively letting someone die when one has the ability to intervene. Tooley suggests that, in many cases, the moral status of doing something that causes death is not inherently different from the moral status of failing to act when one could save a life. This principle is often explored through variations of the trolley problem. While many intuitively recoil at the idea of pulling a lever to divert a trolley and kill one person to save five, Tooley's perspective, when applied to the principle, suggests that the moral weight of the action (pulling the lever) versus inaction (allowing the five to die) might be more symmetrical than commonly perceived. The key takeaway is that inaction when action is possible carries significant moral responsibility.
Advocating for critical thinking and philosophical education
Reflecting on the societal challenges posed by these complex ethical issues, Tooley emphasizes the critical need for improved philosophical education. He argues that many individuals hold deeply ingrained beliefs without understanding their philosophical underpinnings, often due to educational systems that fail to foster critical thinking. He advocates for early exposure to controversial topics, encouraging young people to examine arguments for and against various actions and to arrive at their own reasoned conclusions. Tooley suggests that minimizing the undue influence of religion on education is crucial for nurturing thoughtful, critical citizens capable of navigating complex moral landscapes. The goal is to enable individuals to think philosophically and critically about crucial issues, rather than simply accepting received wisdom.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Organizations
●Concepts
●People Referenced
Key Philosophical Stances on Personhood and Life
Practical takeaways from this episode
Do This
Avoid This
Common Questions
Michael Tooley defines a person using a neo-Lockean account, where personhood requires not just consciousness, but also the capacity for memory to connect experiences across different times. This memory is crucial for establishing an entity's right to life.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
The philosopher whose arguments on personhood, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are discussed.
His account of personhood is referenced as the basis for the neo-Lockean account discussed by Tooley.
A former student of Michael Tooley involved in the 'philosophy for children' movement.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 46 summaries
23 minCan Critical Thinking Be Taught? | Saul Perlmutter
40 minAsk Me Anything with Susan Schneider & Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Can AI Think Without Feeling? (Part 2)
21 minWhen Does the Multiverse Become Science? | Saul Perlmutter
27 minIs Mathematics Discovered or Invented? | Stephen Wolfram
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free