The following lecture abstract has been provided by Professor Weatherson:
It's wrong to do things that might harm another person. Unless there's a very good reason to run this risk, such actions are reckless, and recklessness is immoral. Is it similarly wrong to harm something that might be a person, or that might be morally equivalent to a person? If so, we get a very quick argument for the immorality of meat eating and of abortion. I'm going to push back against this style of argument. The most natural way to formulate the argument uses a principle that can't be coherently believed. And the purported analogy between types of risks doesn't hold up once we look at other ways in which an action could be flawed should some unlikely philosophical theory turn out to be true.
For more information please call 734.615.6449