Ethics and Emergence: The Facts of the Case
Philip Lorish, PhD(c), University of Virginia
Jeffrey P. Bishop, MD, PhD, Saint Louis University
Daniel E. Hall, MD, MDiv, University of Pittsburgh
James Mumford, DPhil, University of Virginia
Moderator: Ryan Antiel, MD, University of Pennsylvania
In his recently published Ethics at the Beginning of Life: A Phenomenological Critique (Oxford University Press, 2013), James Mumford poses a question intended to provoke: of what importance could a phenomenology of human emergence be for the ongoing debate regarding the treatment of pre-natal life? Two lines of though animate the chapters that constitute the heart of the book. In the first, Mumford forwards what he calls “an immanent philosophical critique of beginning-of-life ethics” that attempts to show that the over-heated categories utilized to frame policy debates regarding the treatment of embryonic life – what Mumford calls “the newone” – actually fail to describe the manner in which new life appears with any degree of adequacy. This argument, then, is as suggestive as it is provocative: what would it take, Mumford asks, for our political debates regarding abortion to respond to the actual facts of human emergence? The second line of though forwards what Mumford calls “an alternative basis for human rights,” Mumford draws upon Patristic sources and the phenomenon of “recognition” to argue against a capacities-based approach to the ascription of human rights. “The corollary of humans bearing the divine image,” Mumford tells us, “is that the newone too shares this exceptional status.”
In response to this book, this panel aims to take up these two lines of thought. It will begin with an introduction of the book to present the argument to the members of the audience unfamiliar with Mumford’s work. The second panelist will respond to Mumford’s phenomenology of emergence. The next panelist will engage his theological alternative basis for human rights. Finally, before opening the floor for discussion, Dr. Mumford will respond to the presentations with a set of remarks.
Jeffrey P. Bishop, MD, PhD, Saint Louis University
Daniel E. Hall, MD, MDiv, University of Pittsburgh
James Mumford, DPhil, University of Virginia
Moderator: Ryan Antiel, MD, University of Pennsylvania
In his recently published Ethics at the Beginning of Life: A Phenomenological Critique (Oxford University Press, 2013), James Mumford poses a question intended to provoke: of what importance could a phenomenology of human emergence be for the ongoing debate regarding the treatment of pre-natal life? Two lines of though animate the chapters that constitute the heart of the book. In the first, Mumford forwards what he calls “an immanent philosophical critique of beginning-of-life ethics” that attempts to show that the over-heated categories utilized to frame policy debates regarding the treatment of embryonic life – what Mumford calls “the newone” – actually fail to describe the manner in which new life appears with any degree of adequacy. This argument, then, is as suggestive as it is provocative: what would it take, Mumford asks, for our political debates regarding abortion to respond to the actual facts of human emergence? The second line of though forwards what Mumford calls “an alternative basis for human rights,” Mumford draws upon Patristic sources and the phenomenon of “recognition” to argue against a capacities-based approach to the ascription of human rights. “The corollary of humans bearing the divine image,” Mumford tells us, “is that the newone too shares this exceptional status.”
In response to this book, this panel aims to take up these two lines of thought. It will begin with an introduction of the book to present the argument to the members of the audience unfamiliar with Mumford’s work. The second panelist will respond to Mumford’s phenomenology of emergence. The next panelist will engage his theological alternative basis for human rights. Finally, before opening the floor for discussion, Dr. Mumford will respond to the presentations with a set of remarks.