How Would Kant, Mill, Socrates, And More View The Topic Of Abortion?
"Life today is lived on slippery slopes. Which ones seize our attention and crystallize our fears? What moral outrages or absurdities, lurking at the bottom, stir our energies? How steep is the incline? Where can we throw up a railing, dig a trench, clear a landing, keep our footing?" (Steinfels, 1). Questions similar to these cause moral debates in areas such as abortion. Throughout the history of mankind, there were many questions that were answered ethically. Approaching the year 2007, a major ethical question involved whether mothers should be able to have abortions, in their residing state and/or country. In Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, Mill explains how the utilitarian candidate follows the principle that actions are right in proportion to how they promote happiness. A prominent philosopher known as Kant, believes that the categorical imperative demands that we work for the universal good without any regard for our own happiness. According to Socrates, the rules and laws of the state should be obeyed no matter what the circumstances are. Will there ever be a universal law dealing with abortion, that every person will agree with and abide by, or will more philosophers and idealists bring about more ideas concerning this issue, making it harder to come to create a concluding idea.
The Supreme Court made a decision of 5-4 to ban partial-birth abortion on April 18th, 2007. Some of the justices were happy with the end result; however, the others were distraught. Justice Kennedy said, "the act expresses respect for the dignity of human life" (Greenhouse, 1). According to Justice Kennedy, he believes that this act shows value for human life; on the other hand, when a child is born and placed in a foster home, the child will probably never have parents or live a normal life, which is taking away respect from a person's life. Justice Ginsburg had a different approach to the ban on partial-abortion. "Justice Ginsburg said that this approach was unrealistic and 'gravely mistaken.' She said that requiring 'piecemeal' litigation 'jeopardizes women's health and places doctors in an untenable position'" (Greenhouse, 1). Justice Ginsburg fully disagrees with the idea of banning parts of abortions. She is fighting for more rights of women and feels that this case is lowering women's rights. Justice Ginsburg showed more concern about the future. "In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg said the majority had provided only 'flimsy and transparent justifications' for upholding the law, which she noted 'saves not a single fetus from destruction' by banning a single method of abortion.'One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the court's 'moral concerns,' she said" (NY Times.com). Justice Ginsburg is expressing her fear that some people, and the other Justices might pursue on banning more abortion rights. She believes that banning a specific way to have an abortion still allows people to have abortions; therefore, will pro-life believers chase more bans or will they realize that the bans do not change anything, and make a decision to amend the law in favor of the rights of women.
When people are given the choice to do something, they are happy. Dealing with abortions, when people want to choose whether they want to go through the procedure or not, most people would be happy.
"It is ironic that the Republican party wants government
out of everyone's life when it comes to education, health
care, our environment (pollution causes health problems and more), retirement, but they want to dictate every aspect of a person's most personal decisions. They should stick with what they say and stay out of people's personal live too" (NY Times, 1).
This comment posted by Michael shows his ideas about how the government shouldn't be involved in people's personal lives. When the government is involved in people's lives, it threatens the GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle). According to Mill, since the government is setting a regulation for the public, which includes diminishing the rights of women, all people will be unhappy, especially women and rights activists. If a woman wanted to obtain an abortion and wasn't allowed, and the child was left at an adoption home, would that be better for the child's welfare? If Socrates were to look at this ban on the abortion method, he would agree with it. Socrates wouldn't have a problem with the ban, because he believes that laws are the key importance in every society. However, Socrates' beliefs about the laws can be questioned greatly, because there are many societies in the world who take advantage of making laws and create unjust rules for the people.
In Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he writes that people should do their duty and be good, no matter what they receive in return. Kant says, why should one be good unless they attain happiness in this life or else the promise of such in the after-life? As we have already seen, the categorical imperative commands us to be good irrespective of any pay-off. According to the categorical imperative, Kant shows that people have to do an action based on the morality of it, not the incentive. In the case of abortion, Kant would agree that women can not undergo this procedure because it is immoral and murder. Kant believes murder is wrong. A person has to ask themselves whether a fetus is a rational being. Then, the person has to ask whether they are using abortion as a means (a tool for achieving a goal)? If yes, can the person they are using rationally accept the usage of them. If yes, then it is morally permissible; however, if no, then it is immoral. Afterwards, the question arises whether the fetus is a rational being? However, a 3 year old is not rational, like a 3 month old fetus in a woman's stomach. To be rational, a fetus needs to have a nervous system to react; however, it does not, and this brings up the question of whether fetus's are rational because of the soul? Does the soul make a fetus rational? Yes, finally Kant agrees that abortions are wrong because fetus's have a soul; therefore, it is immoral to kill.
"I tell my children weekly, "Everyday we make decisions, and these decisions have consequences. Make sure you can live with the consequences." But, partial birth abortion is just....horrible, undescribable just murder" (NY Times, 1).
This quote posted by Marilyn shows the Kantian perspective dealing with partial birth abortion being immoral and "just murder". However, would it be also murder if a mother can't get an abortion and she has no money to feed the child or the necessities to give him/her shelter and clothes?
When I was reading the newspaper last week in school, I could not believe the Supreme Court's decision and then I realized that Supreme Court Justice Alito was nominated by Bush. My American History professor told my class a few weeks before that it's in the president's best interest to have a Judge that represents your ideals in the Supreme Court. Later last week, I was having a discussion with my classmates, and immediately, one of the girls jumped in and claimed that there was nothing wrong with the decision, and that she wouldn't get an abortion. The point of this issue is not the death of the fetus, per say. Are we to allow the government to pass laws that involves your body? Who is the government to decide what you can or cannot do to yourself? Not that I would be in this situation, but if the government comes in the way between medical decisions that affect my well-being, then what else can the government get itself involved in? Is the government going to set restrictions on the daily food choices that I make, in order to prevent any future "obesity epidemics"? If the government really cared about giving the fetus a chance at life, then instead of funding for insurances to cover abortions, why wouldn't the government fund Birth control methods?
If the woman can't afford to buy birth control pills, patches, or protection, but their insurance covers abortions, then the woman is going to go with the abortion, if it's their decision not to have the baby. If the government ran a program for low-cost/free birth control, then not only would abortion be unnecessary, but there wouldn't be a life involved to end in the first place. What if the woman was raped? Does the woman have to stop everything for the son/daughter of a rapist, which was an undesired circumstance? This topic's too touchy to discuss, seeing as how there are many reasons woman have for abortions. Let all medical decisions be made by those directly involved. Let all personal decisions be made only by those directly involved. In addition, many of the Justices' decisions were based on the belief that abortions are immoral, as it involves the ending of a potential life. Should we allow the Supreme Court to pass on laws that reflect upon their own personal opinions on what is or isn't moral? I never heard any of the justices saying that they wanted to ban abortions, because it can potentially harm the woman receiving it: or that they wanted to ban abortions because they decided on an alternative method that's safer and cheaper than abortions.
There are many different types of people in the world who share many separate
ideas and beliefs. It is hard for every person to attain happiness because nobody shares
the same ideas. The Utilitarians believed that if a certain action should occur, it should benefit most of the people and create happiness within them; however, with so many ideas for happiness it causes a lot of conflict. According to Kant, partial-abortion is not moral because fetus's have a soul. Also, Socrates would agree that partial-abortion is not the right thing to do because it is not following the law of the land. The ethical debate between being able to have a partial-abortion startled many people and families throughout the United States. Will there ever be a set idea that all the American people will agree on? Or is the GHP unattainable?
Works Cited Page
Bentham and Mill, The Classical Utilitarians. (Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 2003).
Greenhouse, Linda, IN REVERSAL OF COURSE, JUSTICES, 5-4, BACK BAN ON ABORTION METHOD. NY Times.com. April 19th, 2007.
Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.
Plato, Apology (Indianapolis: Hacket Pub. Co, 2002), All pages.
Wheaton, Sarah, Blogtalk: The Supreme Court and Abortion. NY Times.com. April 18th, 2007.
"Life today is lived on slippery slopes. Which ones seize our attention and crystallize our fears? What moral outrages or absurdities, lurking at the bottom, stir our energies? How steep is the incline? Where can we throw up a railing, dig a trench, clear a landing, keep our footing?" (Steinfels, 1). Questions similar to these cause moral debates in areas such as abortion. Throughout the history of mankind, there were many questions that were answered ethically. Approaching the year 2007, a major ethical question involved whether mothers should be able to have abortions, in their residing state and/or country. In Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, Mill explains how the utilitarian candidate follows the principle that actions are right in proportion to how they promote happiness. A prominent philosopher known as Kant, believes that the categorical imperative demands that we work for the universal good without any regard for our own happiness. According to Socrates, the rules and laws of the state should be obeyed no matter what the circumstances are. Will there ever be a universal law dealing with abortion, that every person will agree with and abide by, or will more philosophers and idealists bring about more ideas concerning this issue, making it harder to come to create a concluding idea.
The Supreme Court made a decision of 5-4 to ban partial-birth abortion on April 18th, 2007. Some of the justices were happy with the end result; however, the others were distraught. Justice Kennedy said, "the act expresses respect for the dignity of human life" (Greenhouse, 1). According to Justice Kennedy, he believes that this act shows value for human life; on the other hand, when a child is born and placed in a foster home, the child will probably never have parents or live a normal life, which is taking away respect from a person's life. Justice Ginsburg had a different approach to the ban on partial-abortion. "Justice Ginsburg said that this approach was unrealistic and 'gravely mistaken.' She said that requiring 'piecemeal' litigation 'jeopardizes women's health and places doctors in an untenable position'" (Greenhouse, 1). Justice Ginsburg fully disagrees with the idea of banning parts of abortions. She is fighting for more rights of women and feels that this case is lowering women's rights. Justice Ginsburg showed more concern about the future. "In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg said the majority had provided only 'flimsy and transparent justifications' for upholding the law, which she noted 'saves not a single fetus from destruction' by banning a single method of abortion.'One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the court's 'moral concerns,' she said" (NY Times.com). Justice Ginsburg is expressing her fear that some people, and the other Justices might pursue on banning more abortion rights. She believes that banning a specific way to have an abortion still allows people to have abortions; therefore, will pro-life believers chase more bans or will they realize that the bans do not change anything, and make a decision to amend the law in favor of the rights of women.
When people are given the choice to do something, they are happy. Dealing with abortions, when people want to choose whether they want to go through the procedure or not, most people would be happy.
"It is ironic that the Republican party wants government
out of everyone's life when it comes to education, health
care, our environment (pollution causes health problems and more), retirement, but they want to dictate every aspect of a person's most personal decisions. They should stick with what they say and stay out of people's personal live too" (NY Times, 1).
This comment posted by Michael shows his ideas about how the government shouldn't be involved in people's personal lives. When the government is involved in people's lives, it threatens the GHP (Greatest Happiness Principle). According to Mill, since the government is setting a regulation for the public, which includes diminishing the rights of women, all people will be unhappy, especially women and rights activists. If a woman wanted to obtain an abortion and wasn't allowed, and the child was left at an adoption home, would that be better for the child's welfare? If Socrates were to look at this ban on the abortion method, he would agree with it. Socrates wouldn't have a problem with the ban, because he believes that laws are the key importance in every society. However, Socrates' beliefs about the laws can be questioned greatly, because there are many societies in the world who take advantage of making laws and create unjust rules for the people.
In Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he writes that people should do their duty and be good, no matter what they receive in return. Kant says, why should one be good unless they attain happiness in this life or else the promise of such in the after-life? As we have already seen, the categorical imperative commands us to be good irrespective of any pay-off. According to the categorical imperative, Kant shows that people have to do an action based on the morality of it, not the incentive. In the case of abortion, Kant would agree that women can not undergo this procedure because it is immoral and murder. Kant believes murder is wrong. A person has to ask themselves whether a fetus is a rational being. Then, the person has to ask whether they are using abortion as a means (a tool for achieving a goal)? If yes, can the person they are using rationally accept the usage of them. If yes, then it is morally permissible; however, if no, then it is immoral. Afterwards, the question arises whether the fetus is a rational being? However, a 3 year old is not rational, like a 3 month old fetus in a woman's stomach. To be rational, a fetus needs to have a nervous system to react; however, it does not, and this brings up the question of whether fetus's are rational because of the soul? Does the soul make a fetus rational? Yes, finally Kant agrees that abortions are wrong because fetus's have a soul; therefore, it is immoral to kill.
"I tell my children weekly, "Everyday we make decisions, and these decisions have consequences. Make sure you can live with the consequences." But, partial birth abortion is just....horrible, undescribable just murder" (NY Times, 1).
This quote posted by Marilyn shows the Kantian perspective dealing with partial birth abortion being immoral and "just murder". However, would it be also murder if a mother can't get an abortion and she has no money to feed the child or the necessities to give him/her shelter and clothes?
When I was reading the newspaper last week in school, I could not believe the Supreme Court's decision and then I realized that Supreme Court Justice Alito was nominated by Bush. My American History professor told my class a few weeks before that it's in the president's best interest to have a Judge that represents your ideals in the Supreme Court. Later last week, I was having a discussion with my classmates, and immediately, one of the girls jumped in and claimed that there was nothing wrong with the decision, and that she wouldn't get an abortion. The point of this issue is not the death of the fetus, per say. Are we to allow the government to pass laws that involves your body? Who is the government to decide what you can or cannot do to yourself? Not that I would be in this situation, but if the government comes in the way between medical decisions that affect my well-being, then what else can the government get itself involved in? Is the government going to set restrictions on the daily food choices that I make, in order to prevent any future "obesity epidemics"? If the government really cared about giving the fetus a chance at life, then instead of funding for insurances to cover abortions, why wouldn't the government fund Birth control methods?
If the woman can't afford to buy birth control pills, patches, or protection, but their insurance covers abortions, then the woman is going to go with the abortion, if it's their decision not to have the baby. If the government ran a program for low-cost/free birth control, then not only would abortion be unnecessary, but there wouldn't be a life involved to end in the first place. What if the woman was raped? Does the woman have to stop everything for the son/daughter of a rapist, which was an undesired circumstance? This topic's too touchy to discuss, seeing as how there are many reasons woman have for abortions. Let all medical decisions be made by those directly involved. Let all personal decisions be made only by those directly involved. In addition, many of the Justices' decisions were based on the belief that abortions are immoral, as it involves the ending of a potential life. Should we allow the Supreme Court to pass on laws that reflect upon their own personal opinions on what is or isn't moral? I never heard any of the justices saying that they wanted to ban abortions, because it can potentially harm the woman receiving it: or that they wanted to ban abortions because they decided on an alternative method that's safer and cheaper than abortions.
There are many different types of people in the world who share many separate
ideas and beliefs. It is hard for every person to attain happiness because nobody shares
the same ideas. The Utilitarians believed that if a certain action should occur, it should benefit most of the people and create happiness within them; however, with so many ideas for happiness it causes a lot of conflict. According to Kant, partial-abortion is not moral because fetus's have a soul. Also, Socrates would agree that partial-abortion is not the right thing to do because it is not following the law of the land. The ethical debate between being able to have a partial-abortion startled many people and families throughout the United States. Will there ever be a set idea that all the American people will agree on? Or is the GHP unattainable?
Works Cited Page
Bentham and Mill, The Classical Utilitarians. (Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 2003).
Greenhouse, Linda, IN REVERSAL OF COURSE, JUSTICES, 5-4, BACK BAN ON ABORTION METHOD. NY Times.com. April 19th, 2007.
Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.
Plato, Apology (Indianapolis: Hacket Pub. Co, 2002), All pages.
Wheaton, Sarah, Blogtalk: The Supreme Court and Abortion. NY Times.com. April 18th, 2007.
