Paradox Vault
A living archive of contradiction and insight.

Violinist (Thought Experiment)

THOUGHT_EXPERIMENT ethics

A Defense of Abortion' is a moral philosophy essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the right to life does not include, entail, or imply the right to use someone else's body to survive and that induced abortion is therefore morally permissible.

Metadata

  • Slug: 00691-violinist-thought-experiment
  • Type: THOUGHT_EXPERIMENT
  • Tags: ethics
  • Sources: 1
Back to Vault

Axioms

  • Assume the rules of the domain apply uniformly.
  • Assume the observer’s criteria remain fixed.
  • Assume classification boundaries stay consistent.
  • Assume the model describes the real case.
  • Assume repeated steps do not change the outcome.
  • Assume no hidden variables are introduced midstream.

Contradictions

  • Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions
  • A global rule conflicts with a local judgment
  • A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise
  • Changing the framing reverses the outcome
  • Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step

Prompts

  • Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
  • What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
  • Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
  • What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?

Notes

Sources

Overview

“A Defense of Abortion” is a moral philosophy essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the right to life does not include, entail, or imply the right to use someone else’s body to survive and that induced abortion is therefore morally permissible.

Tension

  • Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions.
  • A global rule conflicts with a local judgment.
  • A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise.
  • Changing the framing reverses the outcome.
  • Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step.

Why It Matters

This entry tests how a stable rule-set can yield unstable conclusions under certain assumptions.

Prompts

  • Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
  • What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
  • Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
  • What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?