Ethics in Abortion
Introduction
This essay brings into light the classical human concern referred to as abortion. Prior to the discussion of the matter, it would be significant to showcase a factual statement on the matter at hand. conceives of abortion as “the premature termination of pregnancy – that is, termination prior to birth. A spontaneous abortion is the same thing as miscarriage, whereas an induced abortion is caused by the woman herself or by another, usually a medical doctor” (). This essay is going to dwell on the latter or “induced abortion”. Two objectives are aimed at. The first one is to provide a dual perspective through Immanuel Kant’s Moral Duty and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian perspective on what is the greatest good. Lastly, it is going to explicate why abortion is a moral problem.
Kant’s Moral Duty
An action contains a moral value only when it is acted out from duty. In the words of , engaging in actions from duty means “doing what is right just because it is right” (). Every society has its moral beliefs. Its members know which actions are right and wrong. Thus, their duty is to obey these codes of moral conduct. Kant further believes that “no motive of inclination could confer moral value on any action done from it” (). In other words, moral codes are exact. Duty or moral law no more than anything else functions as an authentically moral cause. Furthermore, Kant advocates that moral law, being the root of all moral obligations and standards, is grounded on reason, cleaving by itself to any empirical standard of action or motivation (). In essence, Kant is saying that rational individuals have a duty or a moral duty to follow. This moral duty refers to the laws or moral guidelines in society in which everyone is ought to obey. There is no need to question these moral laws as these are rationally instituted. These are the standards, and everyone is obliged to act them out.
J. S. Mill’s Utilitarian View on the Greatest Good
Jeremy Bentham is the pioneer of the principle of utilitarianism. This paradigm sees every single individual as the final adjudicator of her or his own happiness. Other individuals cannot impose upon her or him on what is deemed the righteous thing. Utilitarianism stresses on rationality, being the key toward social progress. The perceived gains from a certain course of deed should be resolved through a “precise calculation” (). John Stuart Mill has advanced Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, by focusing not only on the individual but including the majority of individuals. His notion of utilitarianism is such that “the greatest happiness of the greatest number by means of all individuals pursuing their own personal happiness” ().
According to Mill, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” ( ). That he attaches utility with morality is clear in this statement. Not to forget that within the utilitarian principle, as mentioned above, is a matter of rationality. Being rational is taking steps that are not detrimental to one’s condition. Furthermore, Mill asserts, “By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (). Thus, he has put forward utilitarianism in which a “precise calculation” is a matter of a calculation between pain and pleasure.
Kant and Mill on Abortion
This section now discusses abortion in the perspective of Kant and Mill. Their moral philosophies have been presented in the above paragraphs. Interestingly, in viewing the issue on hand, one is caught in the middle of two oppositional paradigms. The coin has two sides.
If one is going to ask Kant on his stand on abortion. Definitely, he is going to say a strong “no”! Consider religion in this case. To illustrate, the Catholic doctrine says that abortion is an immoral act, especially if it is an “induced” one. Among Catholic authorities, they consider that the nucleus of the cell of the developing fetus is in itself a human being already. How so? Because that portion of the cell is the soon to develop rationality (brain) of the soon to become child or human being. In addition, it is inscribed in the Ten Commandments that no one has the right to kill. Therefore, the woman has no right to intentionally terminate the fetus in her womb. Not only the woman, but all the other individuals involved too, such as the father of the child or the medical doctor who is going to perform the act, have nor right to kill the fetus.
Even without the religious doctrine as exemplified above, there is still the moral code of society that prohibits a human being from killing another, especially if it is intentionally done. The legal term for this is “murder”. Abortion is similarly an act of murder. Both actions can be construed as an act of killing or terminating the life of another.
It is therefore clear that abortion according to the moral laws is an immoral act for one to engage in. Simply put, abortion is a wrong act. The moral duty is for one to preserve life. The individual therefore is bound to obey such moral duty. The moral duty is to preserve life. If one acts in such a way that he or she preserves life, such as not aborting the baby, then he or she is said to be performing an act that has a moral value.
Now it is Mill’s turn. Mill would approach the issue through these succeeding questions. Would the persons involved be happy in aborting the baby? In the long run, assuming that no abortion took place, would the baby bring pleasure or pain to them? What if the mother or father still does not have the capacity to raise the baby? Would the baby be eventually happy?
Individuals are rational enough to realize whether an event will be favorable or unfavorable to their positions. The pleasure or the pain behind abortion justifies its act. Consider the case being the parents are in a state in which having a baby puts them in a disadvantage position in the course of time. Thus, there is no greatest good if they will not abort the baby. In the end, the event will just bring them pain, and not pleasure. Therefore, abortion, being a vehicle to attain the desired pleasure, is considered a moral act.
If carrying and raising the baby eventually will only bring pain in a sense that one is just going to be frustrated by not being able to nurture the baby well, might as well then abort the baby. Non-compliance to the function of being a good parent is a painful thing to do. Abortion then justifies the case. It is a moral act. Bear in mind that Mill prescribes a calculation between pain and pleasure. Individuals are left to calculate for their own pleasures and pain.
A dual perspective has been showcased in this portion of the essay. On the one hand, Kant invalidates the morality of the act. On the other extreme, Mill justifies it. Above all these things, there is more than just presenting which argument best justifies the morality or immorality of abortion. The next section is going to unfold the reasons on why it is a moral problem.
A Moral Problem
Abortion is more than just a controversial issue. It is a moral problem per se. It has always been difficult to come up with a sound ethical judgment on it. Through time and across societies, its two sides have been witnessed. Yet, abortion still haunts humanity.
Abortion is a moral problem because it is a moral dilemma in itself. It has always been difficult to make the people agree or disagree (). It has always generated a clash. In the light of politics, which is all about the allocation of public goods, it has always put policymakers in a dilemma. They have always found difficulty in institutionalizing a law about abortion. They have always had trouble in coming up with what moral duty, borrowing from Kant, their constituents are going to obey.
The role of the lawmaker or the policymaker is to create an orderly society by providing laws that will define how its members will righteously act. These laws have to be exact in such a way that no one is excluded. However, the society is not homogenously constituted. Every sector holds different values that are deemed true.
Especially today in which the world is living in a growing intricacy, morality likewise is in a growing complexity. Various institutions perceive abortion differently. It may be moral to a certain extent. But if one is going to weave it in a larger system, abortion may be dysfunctional in certain aspects of life. Human beings play different roles in life. Abortion may be necessary in the fulfillment of one’s various roles, e.g in career or profession. However, terminating another’s life, especially if an intentional one, is a different case.
Conclusion
What is controversial regarding abortion is when the individuals concerned would intentionally terminate the developing human being. A Kantian perspective would consider the act as immoral, based from the fact that abortion is immoral according to the governing moral laws. In the light of Mill, abortion is moral considering the scale of pleasure and pain on the part of the individuals involved. Above all, abortion is and has always been a moral problem, because it has always put one in a dilemma. There has always been a difficulty in creating a moral code about it for a heterogeneous group of individuals.
R
0 comments:
Post a Comment