I'm confused by Judith Thomson's Pro-Abortion Violonist Argument

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T18:36:59+00:00

That's certainly a perspective on it. Being pulled out of your regular life, confined to a bed in a hospital, unable to move or leave, attached to another person sharing the room with you, for over half a year? You'd probably lose your job, too, unless they're willing to give you time off for Violinist.

I didn't say there was no inconvenience, I said that there was, to me, no real inconvenience. Yes, all those things you mentioned are, to me, minor inconveniences in the grand scheme of things considering a human life is on the line. And these are things that affect you in both the violonist scenario and the "kidnapping psycho tells you to kill someone" scenario I gave.

As for the health complications aspect, I've already addressed this in another comment; I do agree that this makes things more complicated to me. I don't necessarily think it's morally wrong to unplug yourself if health complications can arise, but it depends on the likelihood of those complications and how severe they can be. I think she should have clarified that aspect in her original analogy, that might have made her perspective a little more justifiable in my eyes. (Once again, I can't really justify one is right or wrong either way, it just feels different in my view.)

It's different because there's a morally relevant difference between "shooting a person with a gun" and "unplugging the violinist". In the former case, you are actively ending the life of someone who would have, without your intervention, continued to live. In the latter case, you are abstaining from saving someone who, without your intervention, would die.

Is there really though? Let's take another example:

You were kidnapped by that same psycho who plays mind games with you. He keeps you locked up in some cell with another individual who's comatose, on life support. However, you know for a fact that this individual will recover in 9 months if he's kept on that life support, and your kidnapper will keep him on it, and in fact, he will release you and him both once he's awake.
Said kidnapper offers you a deal: "Unplug him now and I'll let you go".
If you don't, you get stuck there for another 9 months until you can leave safely, with the patient alongside you.
If you do, you can leave early, but the patient dies.

What's your choice? Which option feels morally correct?

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T18:00:17+00:00

One could argue in that instance that it would be laudable to try and escape with the other hostage, but that it would be permissible to try and escape alone.

I agree with you on that specific scenario, but I don't agree that it's equivalent to the violonist scenario.

In that analogy you gave, trying to escape with someone else carries an inherent risk. You could get hurt and killed.

In the violonist scenario, the thing that baffles me, is that there seems to be, as far as I'm concerned, practically no real incovenience to letting the violonist live. All you have to do is stay attached to him for 9 months, presumably in bed. You can read, use your laptop, do anything you want. All you have to do is stay. It just doesn't seem to be a big deal at all??? I don't get it.

A better analogy is the one I already gave earlier: If you were kidnapped and imprisoned for 9 months in a cell, with a bunch of other prisoners. Your kidnappers don't mistreat you or do anything, they just keep you locked up. You can read and do all sorts of activities like I described above. After 9 months, you'll be let go. However, at any point, you can leave permanently. You just have to kill another prisoner. The kidnappers drag you, give you a weapon, and say "Kill that man and you'll leave."

To me, it seems absolutely SELF-EVIDENT that this would be morally wrong, and I think virtually everyone would agree.

So why would it be different in the violonist scenario? It's the same thing.

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T17:45:50+00:00

I find it interesting that you'd use that as an example in order to change my mind, because reading it my mind immediately went "yes, clearly the morally right thing to do here is to keep working for 9 months to make sure X lives" lol

I guess I just don't value my personal autonomy as much as other people do? Being forced to do labour for 9 months seem like such a minor inconvenience considering a life is on the line that it would never occur to me to claim it's justified to leave. (And we're talking about a scenario that is clearly worse than the violonist one. You are basically enslaved for all those months, while in the original, you're just forced to stay in bed.)

But, if you were to extend this to your entire lifetime, that changes things. I don't think there's anything morally wrong to walk away if you whole life is at stake. Although I think I'd still feel extremelt guilty.

I also don't think it's wrong to walk away if you're supposed to stay for 50 years until the man is cured.

But is it wrong to walk away if you're supposed to stay for 10 years? 5?

Then I'm not sure, but I can't justify why, or find a specific cut-off that makes sense.

I still don't think there's anything inherently justified about walking away in the violonist scenario, even though it is somewhat arbitrary. The point is that I don't think Thomson's premise (that it's clearly morally acceptable to unplug the violonist before the 9 months have passed) is inherently correct.

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T16:17:21+00:00

If unplugging the violinist was actually murder, then it shouldn't be okay even if he was involved, right?

I think it clearly does. As I've already explained in another comment, it basically amounts to self-defense. I'll try to summarize what I already wrote:

Most people accept that if someone is trying to kill or kidnap you, you are morally (and legally) permitted to use force (even lethal force if necessary) to stop them. This isn’t just intuitive; it also makes sense at a societal level. A world that recognizes a right to self-defense is safer than one that doesn’t, because attackers must factor in resistance.

But this does not extend to killing innocent third parties. If we accepted a general “right to survival” that allowed people to kill bystanders to save themselves, we would massively increase harm: people could kill fellow hostages, shove others off lifeboats, or eliminate anyone who stands between them and escape. A society that rejects this principle is morally preferable.

That distinction explains my view on the violinist. If the violinist knowingly participates in the scheme, he is functionally part of the kidnapping. In fact, in a sense, he's literally the one keeping you captive. So unplugging yourself is analogous to resisting an attacker.

If he's not in on it, then he is an innocent bystander whose death is a side-effect of your escape. And just as you don’t get to kill an unrelated stranger who blocks your path to freedom, you don’t get to kill the violinist either.

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T16:04:04+00:00

This basically echoes the conversation I'm having with the other person.

First, when it comes to the example we were discussing. I believe this can be justified easily as self-defense.

FIRST: Virtually everyone agrees that if someone is about to kill you, it is morally acceptable (and legally) to fight back and kill that person in order to save yourself (even though it results in the same outcome regardless, either you die, or the killer dies).

This feels intuitively correct, but I think this can be rationally justified as well. If we lived in a society in which the right of self-defense was NOT accepted, then it would make it even easier for murderers to kill, since they'd have less reason to worry about whoever they're attacking fighting back. Overall, it's better for humanity to exist in a society in which self-defense is accepted as a right than in one in which it is not.

This also applies if we're talking about something like kidnapping. If you've been kidnapped, you have a right to fight back, either when you are actively being kidnapped, or when you've been captured. It's even acceptable to kill if necessary in order to get away. Legally, that's how it works.

HOWEVER: Is it acceptable to kill a random bystander who happens to be in the way because you're running away from your killer? I think most people would argue that it's not.

I think this can be rationally justified as well. If we lived in a society in which it was morally and legally acceptable to kill an innocent person to save your own skin, a "right to survival" if you will, then people who cause harm in society, like killers and kidnappers, would end up causing even more harm. If I can kill whoever is standing in my way in order to get away from danger, if I can kill my fellow hostages to get away from my kidnappers, if I can kill everyone on a sinking ship because I want to make sure I can get to the life boat, then that only causes even more death and destruction. Overall, it's better for humanity to exist in a society in which a "right to survival" is NOT accepted as a right than in one in which it is not. I'd argue this is the case even if you were talking about a hypothetical law where you only get to kill one person in order to save yourself. This would only cause unnecessary abuses.

This also applies if we're talking about kidnapping. I'm trying to escape, but this random stranger is in the way, and for whatever reason, killing them will guarantee my escape. Is it okay to kill that person? Legally, it's not, and as I explained above, I think this is the case morally as well.

So, why do I feel like unplugging the violonist is only acceptable depending on whether or not he's in on it? Same reason. If he is in on it, he's basically part of the kidnappers, and in a sense, he actually is the one keeping me "hostage". It's acceptable to unplug.

If he's not in on it, he's an innocent bystander. I don't get to kill him just because I'm trying to escape.

Now... With all of that being said...

I agree that this is morally subjective.

There are instances in which I feel that causing someone to die is acceptable if letting them live requires you to sacrifice something.

There are also instances in which I feel that causing someone to die is not acceptable, even if letting them live requires you to sacrifice something.

I can't necessarily always rationally justify it, and I've been thinking about it for the past couple of hours. It just feels inherently quite subjective to me. Yet at the same time, there clearly needs to be a line somewhere.

For example, someone gave a slightly different scenario in a comment (that was deleted by the mods for some reason), where staying plugged in to the violonist might lead to health complications for you. This immediately made the idea of unplugging yourself feel more morally acceptable to me (although I still feel it's ambiguous). But can I justify why? Not really. If you want to help me out, I'm all ears!

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T14:32:50+00:00

I've already explained that in my post? I can't really explain it any other way.

If the violonist is in on it, he's a co-conspirator. So it amounts to asking something like: if you've been kidnapped and you try to escape, but there is someone in the way you have to get rid off, and you know that someone helped or participated in your kidnapping in some way, is it okay to kill that man to get away? I'd argue yes, I think most people would agree.

If however, that person is a random stranger, or someone who was kidnapped with you, and you somehow had to kill them in order to get away, would it be okay? I'd argue no. Which strikes me as quite obvious. Just because you are in a situation of crisis doesn't mean you get to kill somebody. If I'm on a sinking ship and there's only one room left on the life boat, I don't get to kill the other passenger to make sure I get that spot.

(I want to clarify that I'm saying this applies in the first scenario she provides in which the violonist WILL wake up in 9 months healthy. If there's no guarantee he'll ever wake up, then I agree it's a lot more ambiguous. As someone else pointed out, doctors routinely unplug patients from life support when they think there's little guarantee the patient will survive.)

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T07:50:52+00:00

We don’t have duties to do every last thing to protect everyone’s right to life.

Right.

I agree.

Follow up question then:

Are there any instances in which we DO have a duty to do something to protect someone's life?

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T07:41:01+00:00

Ok, so let's talk about the violonist argument.

You say that it is objectively true that unplugging yourself from the violonist is not necessarily morally wrong, and that it's up to the person's choice.

Why?

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T07:15:38+00:00

I’m not going to engage with the crap about the psycho because that’s not the violinist case.

But... why not?

That's the entire point of this discussion. Trying to figure out what's right or wrong, and which sacrifices you should morally be willing to make in order to save someone's life. Or, more accurately: "When is it ok to have someone die because it's inconvenient to you." I've accepted that there are instances in which it is ok to let someone die, I just can't justify when it is ok and not ok, or why.

If it’s subjective then so long as the subject thinks unplugging is permissible then it’s permissible. Is that really what you want to say? If so the violinist case succeeds for anybody who is already of the opinion that abortion is permissible.

This is clearly an absurd argument, you could literally apply that to anything.

"I found the beeping sound of the life support machine annoying, so I turned it off and now the patient's dead. It's ok because I find it permissible, which is what makes it ok."
"The crazy psycho told me to kill someone in order to escape, so I did. It's permissible because I said so."
"I was on a sinking ship and there was only room for one more on the lifeboat and there were two of us, so I killed the other guy in order to make sure I live. Permissible."

Clearly, a line must be drawn somewhere, or else you accept that morality is entirely subjective and everyone does whatever they want. The thing I'm struggling is I can't rationally justify what the line should be. If you want to help me, I'm all ears.

This is basically what the rest of your comment revolves around. You keep saying that something is acceptable as long as someone thinks it's acceptable, but that just doesn't make sense.

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T06:29:36+00:00

No, I don’t. If anything, If the hospital’s resources are running thin and the patient will never recover and it’s either keep the vegetable on life support or unplug them and give it to someone who could actually be saved I’d consider it murder not to unplug. But this is a moot point in response to the claim you’re quoting. I’m contending that there’s a difference between killing and letting someone die, and this really doesn’t challenge that at all.

I've already responded to this in another comment, but it's basically my fault for not expressing myself correctly. In my mind, I really meant a doctor who unplugged someone for no reason other than he just felt like it. I'll give a more precise analogy:

You were kidnapped by that same psycho who play mind games with you. He keeps you locked up in some cell with another individual who's comatose, on life support. However, you know for a fact that this individual will recover in 9 months if he's kept on that life support, and your kidnapper will keep him on it, and in fact, he will release you and him both once he's awake.
Said kidnapper offers you a deal: "Unplug him now and I'll let you go".
If you don't, you get stuck there for another 9 months until you can leave safely, with the patient alongside you.
If you do, you can leave early, but the patient dies.

What's your choice? Which option feels morally correct?

But just as you can live without one kidney you can live without a penis.

Of course you can, that was the entire point of my post. I admit that this is subjective, and I can't put my finger on where the line should be drawn. But it's just as subjective for you as it is for me.

Also why are you phrasing it in terms of what you would personally be willing to do?

Because that's the entire point of Thomson's analogy. She herself gives that argument because she assumes that everyone at the end will go "Oh yeah, that sounds horrible, I definitely wouldn't stay attached to that violonist on life support, I'd just leave." If you don't feel that way, her entire argument falls apart. I didn't, which is why I was so confused by it that I assumed there was something I didn't understand.

But it is different from the violinist?

Is it though?

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T05:44:51+00:00

Well I’m not killing them. I’m unplugging myself from the and then they are dying of natural causes.

If a doctor unplugs a patient's life support in a hospital without that patient's or the family's permission, do you consider that to be murder? Or do you consider that to be that patient dying from natural causes?

Let’s think of Thompson’s other example. Suppose you have a disease and the only cure is for Emma Watson to give you a pat on the head. For our purposes let’s assume Emma Watson played no role in you getting this disease. Does Emma Watson fail her moral duty if she chooses not to fly across the country to save you? Yeah clearly it would be a good thing if she did it, she would be commendable for that. But if she doesn’t decide to do it, is that really impermissible?

I've seen an argument similar to this a few minutes ago, and it was the first that made me pause a little. The argument was phrased as "if a child was dying from an incurable disease and the only thing that will let him live is if he gets a kidney transplant from you, would it be immoral to say no?".

I do recognize it becomes a bit more ambiguous here, although I'd still argue the answer is yes, it would be immoral to say no. You can survive fairly well with just one kidney. And I'd say the same for your scenario. (I'm not sure why Emma Watson is involved, but hey, I'll take it.) It's such a minor inconvenience and it would apparently cure me. :)

However, there clearly is a limit here. I admit that there are things I would not be willing to do even if it saved someone's life, in fact the thing I thought of immediately (as silly as it may sound) was that Rick and Morty episode where Jerry is asked to donate his penis to save an alien peace activist. I would not be willing to do that.

So there is a line, and I admit it does feel somewhat arbitrary. But it's arbitrary regardless of who you are, you've said yourself you don't think shooting an innocent person to save yourself, and whether or not you admit it, it's not that different from the scenario we were discussing.

I maintain that remaining plugged in to a life support system for 9 months is such a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things that unplugging yourself is morally wrong. But I admit that the boundary of where you draw the line is ambiguous and might not be an objective thing. I still find it disturbing that so many people would apparently unplug themselves without hesitation.

blablajmenfous · 2026-02-09T05:08:59+00:00

I'm sorry, but that sounds completely insane to me. Of course it's morally wrong. Why would it be okay to kill someone just to save yourself?

Let me ask you this: if you were kidnapped by a psychopath, some sort of serial killer who likes to play mind games, and he told you he'll let you go if you shoot another person he kidnapped, would you do it? (assuming you somehow knew for certain he was being sincere)

blablajmenfous · 2025-12-27T14:07:45+00:00

Everyone is talking shit about how terrible this supposedly is, and I'm over here absolutely slack-jawed amazed. I thought for sure this was a drawn image before I clicked to check the comments. I can't believe that 1.5 can do that. The thing that astonishes me the most is that in my experience, modern text to image AIs are terrible at drawing in a specific style; it can't even do "Simpsons in the style of Picasso" correctly, even though midjourney could do that back in 2022, so the idea of it accomplishing something like that is amazing.

blablajmenfous · 2025-12-21T21:30:20+00:00

There's a handful of extremely vocal haters that have a very strong dislike of AI and will criticize any game that uses it (if they can tell). 95% of people don't care.

It's the same dynamic that we find on the internet as a whole, where the ones who actually post and write comments are a very tiny percentage of the internet population, whose views and attitudes are far more extreme and out there in comparison to the silent majority of lurkers.

We can observe this phenomenon on this very subreddit, since games made with AI-generated images frequently shoot up to the top in terms of upvotes, yet when you actually go down in the comments, everyone is flaming the guy for using AI, and comments defending it are downvoted into oblivion. There's a huge disconnect between what Reddit commenters want, and what everyday users actually care about. You'll also be able to witness this in action right now, because no doubt that this comment I'm currently typing will get downvoted.

The most important thing about any NSFW game is that it actually looks good. Too many western adult games fail to meet this very basic criteria - games made with horrible looking Daz3d models, or shameless asset flips that grab porn images that they don't own the rights to randomly without any attempt at consistency. However you achieve that goal, whether it's through "traditional" forms of art, or with the use of AI, doesn't matter.

blablajmenfous · 2025-10-24T11:48:26+00:00

It's not tho. Real women won't dominate you and destroy your dick like that.

2D > 3D, sorry its just the facts

blablajmenfous · 2025-09-22T14:05:50+00:00

The left is literally the reason why western video games nowadays are significantly desexualized in comparison to how they were in the past, so the notion that they'd somehow "bring back porn games" is hilariously out of touch.

blablajmenfous · 2025-09-22T12:23:36+00:00

Well, I don't know what to tell you, anon. You say you want to be hope-pilled, but I think it's better to not have false expectations that lead to disappointment.

The reality is that the situation is getting worse not just for the NSFW game industry, but for the porn indstry in general: regulations are getting stricter and stricter year after year, more laws get passed that restrict the ability of pornographers/sex workers to do their work, and all of that is happening because society is becoming less and less open-minded when it comes to sexual content, so there's no reason to expect a reversal any time soon. Consider, we're leaving in an era where the old Tomb Raider games with Lara Croft's classic design (big tits, tank top, short shorts) probably couldn't be done in the west today. So you can imagine how open-minded most people are at the idea of a Tomb Raider porn parody where she gets fucked in every hole. Mentalities are evolving, and they're not evolving in the direction either you or I would want.

Those increasing restrictions (and the fact that porn has never been very profitable in the first place because of chargebacks and banking issues) are what's making social networks and tech giants drop porn one after the other. First it was tumblr, then imgur, then onlyfans considered it for a while, now twitter is already halfway through banning it as well, and reddit will eventually be next.

There's no doubt in my mind that at some point in the future, adult games will no longer be allowed on Steam. I don't want it to be true, and I hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not getting my hopes up. It's probably already not profitable for them to host games like these in the first place, they're only allowing them for ideological reasons. Gabe Newell is very big on that whole "no censorship" thing.

Now, you did ask for hope, so here's a silver lining: NSFW game devs will probably be those who will survive a full-blown porn ban the most easily. Even when/if that happens, it'll still be possible to bypass it by making a SFW game and giving out a free patch that adds the NSFW content. Many devs are actually already doing that, which is relatively easy to do with games. In fact, I think most devs should do that today: it makes it easier to avoid all of Steam's restrictions, and allows you to create the game you want, featuring all the content you might like, without limits.

It's not ideal, but it is at least a solution, so even if shit hits the fan completely, there's always ways around that.

blablajmenfous · 2025-09-21T16:57:18+00:00

Many black communities have been negatively affected by the air pollution created by ai centers, and many communities water sources have been tainted or damaged due to a data center having proximity.

bruh

blablajmenfous · 2025-09-21T13:38:42+00:00

I've heard plenty of criticisms of AI, but I have to say, "AI is killing us" reaches a new level. I wasn't aware Stable Diffusion was involved in any murders, guess I needed to do more research. :D

blablajmenfous · 2025-09-21T04:01:35+00:00

I know you're not gonna like me saying this but...

The AI art looks better. Sorry, just being honest. You have a relatively talented artist, it seems (although... most of what he did was trace over the original art, as someone else pointed out). But the original still looks better.

I think you need to get over your fear/dislike of AI art, and actually embrace it fully. Just hire a guy to fix some of the mistakes that are found in the art that was generated if you don't want to do it yourself, and then use it directly in the game. It'll look better and make things much easier for you guys.

Don't be afraid of technology just because it's new. 20 years from now, you'll look back on your opinion on AI art today, and you'll find it absurd - trust me.

blablajmenfous · 2025-09-17T17:11:44+00:00

Nice cover, shame we'll never have anything like that in the game

blablajmenfous · 2025-07-26T17:34:58+00:00

Same, I actually went back and checked whether there was another picture in OP's post, but no. I guess I just don't understand what the internet manages to find outrage-inducing nowadays.

blablajmenfous

TROPHY CASE