Suppose there exists a country, referred to in this paper as Country X, where women are believed to be the inferior sex. As a result, women are not afforded the rights and freedoms their male counterparts enjoy. For instance, they have no control over the social, political, or economic sectors of their lives and receive a very limited education. A female resident of Country X finds herself pregnant with a healthy female fetus that she intends to abort, her reason being that she does not wish her daughter to have a life marked by such severe oppression. Drawing on the views of Rosalind Hursthouse regarding virtue ethics and abortion, and applying her ideas to the aforementioned scenario, we can assess how virtue theory would deliberate this particular moral problem. Hursthouse's theory, in application to this scenario, should stand up to criticism without weakening its application to morals. Abortion, when considered with the “right attitude” and carried out for good reason given the circumstances, can be the morally right action to take.
Virtue ethics, as defined by Hursthouse, connects the idea of a right action to that of a virtuous agent. An action is right iff a virtuous agent, one who is aware of and practices the virtues, would perform it in that context. She clarifies what is meant by “virtues”, describing them as characteristics one needs in order to live a good, or “flourishing”, life. (249) In reference to abortion specifically, she claims the virtuousness or viciousness of the act in any case must be determined through the asking of three questions. First, what are the influencing facts (of both biological and emotional nature), and does the woman have the “right attitude” towards them? Next, what sort of life is ...
... middle of paper ...
...le standard of living, and invocation of wisdom and benevolence. Although her action is the morally right one to to take, that is not to say abortion is an act without inequities. Hursthouse refers to this injustice as a “moral failing”. (262) In this case, it would be attributed to the society of Country X, which has allowed for the killing of a human fetus to be morally preferable to its birth.
Works Cited
Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Theory and Abortion.” Ethical Theory: A Concise Anthology. Ed. Heimir Geirsson and Margaret R. Holmgren. Broadview Press: Mississauga, ON, 2000, pp. 247-267. Print.
Warriner, Jennifer. PHIL 120W: Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. 18 Nov. 2013. Class lecture.
Warriner, Jennifer. PHIL 120W: Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. 20 Nov. 2013. Class lecture.
In this paper I will discuss Don Marquis’s essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” and Judith Jarvis Thomson’s objections to Marquis’ argument against abortion.
Imagine…the birth of a human being into the world. 9 months of endless anticipation leading to someone’s first chance at seeing the world for the first time. While some enjoy the result of a pregnancy, leading to a new human being entering life, some are not so fond, or just can’t be in such a situation. Abortion is the supposed “cure” to this problem and is, for the most part, done safely. However, one of the factors stopping someone from committing an abortion is the consideration of moral status on the child.
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
In this paper I will be arguing in favor of Judith Jarvis Thomson view point on abortion. I am defending the use abortion and only in the first trimester. I will consider Don Marquis objections of the practice but ultimately side with Thomson.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
We can begin to see the error in this view by considering Thomson’s comparison of the right to life with the right to vote. Thomson fails to advert the fact that some rights vary with respect to place, circumstances, maturity, ability and other factors, while other rights do not. We recognize that one's right to life does not vary with place as does one’s right to vote…. But to have the right to life is have moral status at all (Lee and George 17).
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
Abortion is an important and rather popular topic in the philosophical world. On one side of the argument, pro choice, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is permissible because the pregnancy might not have been voluntary or the mother’s life is at risk if she continues on with the pregnancy. On the opposing side of the argument, Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it takes away all the potential things a fetus could value in their future life. In this paper, I will argue against Don Marquis view of abortion. I will begin by explaining that Marquis does not take into consideration the effect the pregnancy may have on the mother, and I will talk about how Thomson does take the mother into consideration. Next, I will criticize
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
In the essay “On Mortality,” Joan Didion poses the question, “What is “right” and what is “wrong”?” (182) In today’s society, people do not usually consider the question at hand before they take action, because morality has become a topic that can scarcely be defined. For example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines mortality as “the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.” The brings up the fact that everyone has their own opinion of right and wrong. This difference of opinion on what is moral causes many disputes such as in the topic of abortion. Some people believe that it is a woman’s prerogative to choose whether or not to have a child, while many others believe it is “morally” wrong. On the other hand, there are moderates who disagree with the idea or the morality of abortion, but agree that there are certain circumstances that should give the woman the option. Since abortion is essentially the killing of an unborn child, why are women who abort not convicted as murderers; just as women who kill their children f...
It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the right to life is the most important and sacred right possessed by human beings. With this being said, it comes as no surprise that there are few issues that are more contentious than abortion. Some consider the process of abortion as immoral and consisting of the deprivation of one’s right to life. Others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see abortion as a liberty and a simple exercise of the right to the freedom of choice.
Abortion may appear ethical or unethical depending on various viewpoints and circumstances. The fetus is considered a person and bringing it to term may be unethical as the act is considered as murder. In some situations, the mother may require to terminate a pregnancy for her bodily autonomy (Johnston, 2003). In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to having a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precaution to ensure avoiding conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her choice of abortion; it...
In my argumentative coursework I am arguing that abortion is wrong and not to be mistaken with 'Abortion should be made illegal.' I will explain later why I have made this statement. Abortion is the termination of an unborn child in its mother's womb for up to twenty four weeks of the pregnancy or in special circumstances e.g. Disability diagnosis a termination right up until the mother goes in to labour. I think the above definition is an easier and less harsh way of saying that abortion is the murdering of a human being. There are several reasons why abortion is legal and several reasons why it shouldn?t be.
In Aristotle point of view abortion would be considered morality wrong because he believes everyone has a person and we were designed for a purpose. Virtue of Ethics “can evaluate the morality of behavior by examining the moral character that such behavior produces” (Velasquez 488). According to Smith abortion is wrong because it promotes a moral character ‘characterized by careless, irresponsibility, dishonesty, and lack of principles” (Velasquez 488). This theory emphasizes that everyone should take responsibility for their actions and that our choices defined our character. I tend to agree with this we are all responsible for our actions and those actions tend to have consequences that tend to affect us personality. This view reminds me of the view of adultery cover in this chapter someone who commits adultery also says a lot about their character because it shows that we cannot trust on this person because they just can keep their word or because they are your seeking pleasure without really considering the consequences and who they can affect.