Logic as the Universal
The solutions I came up with in all three cases, although seemingly strong in one favor, had an underlying moderate position. Each solution to the case was deduced by carefully examining both sides of the argument. Furthermore, I evaluated the logic behind both perspectives and came up with the more compelling and rational settlement.
In all three case studies, I used the principle of reasoning that implies the following: a) Logical argument, which includes supplying empirical evidence in support of one’s position. b) Logical consistency, which involves avoiding fallacies and making sure that one’s argument follows smoothly from one point to the next until it arrives at a logical conclusion. c) A certain detachment from feelings; this springs from reasoning’s formality which forces one to consider the truth and validity of what the individual and others are thinking and saying. d) A common means by which differences in feelings, opinions, and thoughts can be arbitrated. (Thiroux, p 157) This principle of reasoning and the methods it implies is what I adhered to when considering solutions to the cases.
For example, in the "Abortion" Case, I had the following reasons for my argument: a) All human life is very precious, including that which is yet unborn. b)Human life begins at conception. c) Women do not have absolute rights over their own bodies when those bodies contain another life. d) Personal emotion, such as gender preference, should not determine the life or death of a potential being.
In addition to the principle of reasoning, I also applied the Value of Life Principle to the "Abortion" Case. The Value of Life Principle proposes that no life should be ended without very strong ju...
... middle of paper ...
...what a utilitarian believes. The foremost moral obligation one has is to do what is right with sufficient and compelling reason with the appropriate exceptions; that is what I practice no matter how uncertain, contradictory, or indirect that may appear to be.
An interesting revelation, or perhaps conflict, I came across when preparing my Case Studies Dossier was the issue of whether my proofs in any of the cases were truly objective. The reason I considered this issue was due to the fact that if one’s own personal principles are consistent with those used to defend a case, does that make your proof biased. The conclusion I came to was the following: what is logical is universal and can be applied to all things. Each case maintained a consistency with regards to logic and therefore my proofs were unbiased even though they were based on my personal philosophies.
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s, “The Wrong of Abortion” is a contentious composition that argues the choice of abortion is objectively unethical. Throughout their composition, Lee and George use credibility and reason to appeal the immorality of abortions. The use of these two methods of persuasion are effective and compels the reader to consider the ethical significance. Lee and George construct their argument by disputing different theories that would justify abortions. They challenge the ontological and evaluation theories of the fetus, as well as the unintentional killing theory. This article was obtained through Google, in the form of a PDF file that is associated with Iowa State University.
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.
(3) Adam, Elga (2007) “Reflection and Disagreement” Princeton University Copyright the Authors Journal compilation, Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Pg. 478 – 502.
In the US, 89% of abortions are performed during the first trimester of a woman 's pregnancy. Approximately 115,000 abortions are done per day in the US and at least 25 and younger women have a 50% of having an abortion. This paper will reflect on the moral status of abortion, a fetus having value to life, alternative options instead of abortion and rape being an exception. The conservative point feels a fetus should be given full moral status. They should be given full moral status because in the early weeks of development they are developing major organs. A fetus should be given the right to continue to fully develop so that they have the opportunity to contribute to society. If an abortion occurs, it does not give a fetus the opportunity
The sources used by the author dictated the conversation that could be issued. The difference stances and opinions gave the author a broader viewpoint to discuss the issue on. With the aid of sources and references, many being used above, she gave the reader a different view point of the problem, debating the reader to determine whether it truly is something that cannot be controlled or is something that can easily be avoided based on freewill.
The first topic to discuss is the logical appeal of the argument. According to the proponents for the issue of part...
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
Many people are familiar with the term abortion and its popular controversy in society today. Anyone who is familiar with the term should also be familiar with the two groups that form the controversy of abortion: pro-life and pro-choice. The article I chose is written by Terry O’Neill and is titled, “Legal Abortion Can Be a Lifeline”. The article was published on January 22, 2013, to U.S. News. It argues that abortion saves lives rather than taking them. O’Neill’s claim “abortion is a lifeline” rests upon the questionable assumption that a baby inside a womb is not considered life.
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.
Abortion is the process of terminating a pregnancy by removing the embryo or fetus before birth. Since abortion became legal in the United States in 1973 after the Roe v. Wade trials, there has been many disputes and debates on whether or not the practice of abortion is ethical or not. While many people believe that a woman should have the right to her own body and be able to terminate her pregnancy if she desires to do so, others argue that it is murder. There are many arguments for and against abortion. My points in this paper for the PROs of abortions are #1, Abortions Procedures and #2, women’s rights. I will talk about how abortion being legal offers a safe abortion procedure, and how and why it is a woman 's right to choose what is best
In our society, there are many ethical dilemmas that we are faced with that are virtually impossible to solve. One of the most difficult and controversial issues that we are faced with is abortion. There are many strong arguments both for and against the right to have an abortion which are so complicated that it becomes impossible to resolve. The complexity of this issue lies in the different aspects of the argument. The essence of a person, rights, and who is entitled to these rights, are a few of the many aspects which are very difficult to define. There are also issues of what circumstances would justify abortion. Because the issue of abortion is virtually impossible to solve, all one can hope to do is understand the different aspects of the argument so that if he or she is faced with that issue in their own lives, they would be able to make educated and thoughtful decisions in dealing with it.
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.”
A strategy of decision making that stood out to me when taking this class is when we talked about Segal and Spaeth’s attitudinal model. We talked about this model in terms of the Supreme Court Justices and how they resolve cases on the basis of facts and their attitudes. I found it the most interesting because it is perhaps the one I agree with the most. In legal 250 one of the things we talked about is that judges and their decisions could be based on how their mornings went or how close it is to lunch. From this, we discussed that the ideological views of the judge and his policy preferences can have more effect on his decision making than the law. In Judges and Judging it is also important to note that we learned that judges decisions are
Abortion is one of America’s most controversial subjects. The participants in this debate have fixed beliefs on the matter at hand. On one side of the debate are people who believe in pro- choice. They argue that choice of a woman is more important than an unborn fetus. They point out that an unborn child is not on the same level of importance as the mother. Also, the pro-life group declares that choice is the sole purpose behind their argument. They believe that if a woman cannot chose to abolish a pregnancy, then she looses one of her basic human rights. The other side of the debate is the pro-life group. Their main concern is that the fetus is a person; therefore, having the same human rights as the mother. As a result, when states pass laws that enable abortions, these states are legalizing murder. When considering an individual’s ethics and values, killing is morally wrong. Therefore, the termination of unborn children is wrong, as well. Abortion, the unethical expulsion of an embryo or fetus, in order to purposely end a pregnancy, should be forbidden because human life begins at conception, economics is not a justification for abortion, and an unwanted child does not justify abortion.
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.