Sanctity of Human Life Does a person have the right to kill another human life, at any stage of development? A city council debates over whether to sacrifice Bill, a man with no earthly attachments, to save five members of society. Two parents face the choice of using an embryonic stem cell treatment to reverse their son’s paralysis, or leave him paralyzed from the neck down. The mother wishes to employ the treatment while the stepfather is against the treatment because it kills an embryo. In both situations, sanctity of life compels one not to sacrifice an innocent human life, potential or existing, to improve the well-being of another. An embryo is potential human life; therefore, one cannot sacrifice it. Potential human life is present at the point of conception, when the egg and sperm join. Only nine months separate this embryo from being a developed human. Letting an embryo die to increase the well-being of the young man disregards the sanctity of human life. The young man still has potential; he is not dead. The embryo personifies the rawest potential in human life. Both are human lives that have inviolable potential. Kant’s categorical imperative is applicable here. The embryo is an end, not a means. It should be valued for its very existence; it is a significant life with equal standing alongside other lives. A universal law is moral only if applied to all persons. If one believes all should be honest, then he or she must be honest or that law is not universal. Universal application of the sanctity of life deems sacrificing one to save another as immoral, for then one is making an exception to that law. Thus, no form of human life is worthy of sacrifice. In the organ-harvesting dilemma, the sanctity of life prevents... ... middle of paper ... ...at endangers others. Works Cited Weston, Anthony. A 21st Century Ethical Tool Box. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 2008. Print. Pgs.127-144 Anthony Weston has taught ethics for 25 years and currently is a professor of ethics at Elon University. He has written numerous books regarding ethics and the employment of them. This book is a guide discovering ethics, their morality, and application. He utilizes vivid excerpts from renowned authors and philosophers to impart information effectively. While reading this book, one discovers new concepts about the world around one and oneself. Weston credits collaborative professors of similar studies, with helping produce this book in the beginning of the text. Information taken from Weston’s book was crucial for understanding ethics, especially the excerpt from Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics Morals.
Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Lecture Notes – Ethics. University of Alberta.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so-called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion.
Christian's Beliefs in the Sanctity of Life Christians believe in the sanctity of life. This means that God
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.
The argument for the moral rights of the unborn child against abortion still holds true because the child cannot be viewed as a virus that abortion presents a cure because the rights of a fetus is reserves in its identity as a member of the Homo sapien community. Therefore, any acts against an unborn child( or fetus), although presently legal, should be considered as morally unjust, which is equal to the act of murder because what is killed in an abortion is not simply, a housing of organ but a human being equal to any other. Furthermore, the idea of justifying an abortion, which essentially should be viewed as the forceful and unnatural death, of an unborn child based on the assumption that he or she cannot express thoughts, or desires therefore rendering their members to full moral rights . Thus, it negates the feeling of pain and hardships that are experience by a fetus as it is forcefully yank out the worm of his
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.
Marquis believes abortion to be extremely immoral. However he mentions that there are exceptions in rare but certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable. We can infer that these instances would include situations that would put the mother or child at serious risk by keeping the fetus. He is frustrated that this idea has received minimal support recently. As a result he wants to influence change in society in hopes of receiving the support and publicity this topic deserves. Marquis’ primary argument stems from the idea of killing in general. He explains it is immoral to kill an adult because it prematurely deprives the human of something they may have valued at the time they were killed, as well as something they may had valued in the future. Although the victim may not realize it at the time of their death, they certainly had a valuable future ahead of them to experience which has been cut short. We are the only ones who can decide what is valuable to them; in this case we value some things more than others, and this concept differs from person to person. For example, in the present I value the life I am given and the opportunity I have to earn my degree at Villanova University while also valuing my future as well knowing that I have a chance to be successful in the future. Although I have not succeeded yet, I still value that opportunity I have and the life I’m capable of achieving through earning a degree. Therefore, he connects this same theory to the life of a fetus. By killing the fetus the result is the same, we are depriving it of its futur...
One of multiple objectives, medicines most important of all should be to allow terminally ill people to decease with as much comfort, control, and dignity as possible. Various individuals feel that it is incorrect for others, irrespective of their health status, to ask their physician to end their lives; while others believe it is their moral right to be able to determine how and when they will pass. When physicians are asked to assist a patient through the process of death, they have multiple accountabilities that come along with that one question. Physician assisted suicide should be a legalized medical practice; therefore, America should start by educating terminal patients about their final options; deciding whether or not to help the patient die; and also, if they do decide to help, providing the lethal dose of medication that will end the patient's life.
Caplan, A., & Arp, R. (2014). The deliberately induced abortion of a human pregnancy is not justifiable. Contemporary debates in bioethics (pp. 122). Oxford, West Sussex: Wiley.
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
The. Print. The. O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics.
For example, a mother who opts to abort lives a life full of misery and guilt following her unethical action. The same issue is explored by Kant, where he argues that frequent abortions would make the human race extinct. Therefore, not irrational or good to the society. Lastly, they argue that abortion denies the fetus the right to life which is granted by the Human Rights Commission. Judith Thomson argument that a human embryo is a person indicates that he or she has the right to life, and no one has a right to terminate it (Baird & Stuart, 78). Therefore, abortion is unacceptable, irrational and immoral action to
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198. 2) Kant, Immanuel. ‘Morality and Rationality’ in [MPS] 410-429. 3) Rachel, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
With the start of human life unclear, relying on our intuition becomes ineffective; thus leaving that obligation up for debate. Should we grant a full set of moral rights to a fetus on their first trimester as we do a fully developed person of moral standing? The answer is yes. In accordance to Emmanuel Kant’s ethical theory, the act of abortion, in direct violation to the first and second formulation to the categorical imperative, is morally wrong. I defend the human value of a fetus from the moment of conception upon the following Kantian grounds: denying or removing another person’s future of a life cannot be (1) universalized nor (2) is it acting in a way that treats others as ends in themselves.