Question

Explain the meaning and significance of the quotation. Summarize it within the context of the author's broader argument (etc.) and indicate how it functions within this course (i.e., when set alongside other readings or ideas); be as specific as you can. Do not merely restate the quotation in your own words

"I should think, myself, that Minimally Decent Samaritan laws would be one thing, Good Samaritan laws quite another, and in fact highly improper." (Thomson)( this if for a Religion course)

Answer 1

The quote was uttered by Judy Jarvis Thomson, an American moral philosopher. She wrote a paper on the 'Defence of Abortion'. It is one of the most widely printed essays in contemporary philosophy.

"I should think, myself, that Minimally Decent Samaritan laws would be one thing, Good Samaritan laws quite another, and in fact highly improper."

This particular quote is used in conjunction with an example of a good vs normal. As in, she says none of us should be forced to be good samaritans. She says that it is important for us to have the basic decency requirements but is not important for us to be good or very good people. It is a choice is what her primary argument is. She also points out why it is not necessary to put the well being of someone else in front of one's own. She also says how that 'someone' is not in a position to demand or bargain their well being.

Judy says that no one is required to make sacrifices in order to save someone else. She also says that being a good Samaritan is a choice whereas being a 'Minimally Decent Samaritan' as she puts it, is a necessity. She brings in the concept of an unconscious violinist who has a kidney ailment whose condition can be cured only by you. This is where she brings in the concept of consent. She says that if you consent to help him cure his condition you are a good Samaritan. But if you choose not to, it is your right, even if it causes his death. This is a highly controversial stand when it comes to matters of abortion and has led to arguments of grand nature.

Though Judy often uses the term 'morally permissible' to define the right to abortion, she does include in her argument that the woman carrying the fetus should be a 'Minimally Decent Samaritan' and all standard procedures should be followed prior to any decision involving the termination of the fetus. This essentially points out that someone should not be denied abortion just because the law says so, for each case is unique in its circumstances and details. This shows that the author is not for completely permissible abortions without any concerns. She also points out the importance of considering a fetus as a fetus and not a human being in the early stages of pregnancy. She says that as the baby grows, it is indeed a human being and that's when there's more need to analyze the need for an abortion.

Judy 's examples have been highly criticized and acclaimed due to the nature of them. The points that she brings to the table are 'the need for choices' and 'the need for consent'. Both of which are valid and need to be pondered upon prior to any revision and caveats in abortion laws.