“…the ‘conflict-of-rights’ and rights-based models of bodily autonomy are liable seriously to misrepresent both the nature of abortion decisions and the reasons why the availability of abortion is essential to women’s autonomy”.
- Catriona Mackenzie
Abortion and embodiment
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70 (1992): 136-155
The idea of abortion goes a lot deeper than just the thought of “killing” an embryo. Jacques Thiroux 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” (p. 255). The complicated idea of abortion relates with many other complicating issues such as sex, morals, and choices. Therefore, it is important to analyze these many issues to fully understand the ethical considerations that surround abortion dilemmas. Anti-abortionists easily find reasons to support the banning of abortion with the emphasis on abstinence and responsibility of unprotected sex, and religious value which leaves pro-abortionists to strictly contradict those reasons by emphasizing the positive, or better yet, the reasonable aspects of abortion. These aspects include obvious reasons such as rape, a mother’s natural instinct, the idea of murder, and the fact that the true issue of abortion is the outcome of the life of the embryo if it had not been terminated.
Specifically, the complicated idea of abortion relates with many other complicating issues such as sex, morals, and choices. In Australia, records state that there are an estimated 23% of all known pregnancies which have been terminated during the 1990 and deemed to be the reason why it is considered to be one of the most common surgical procedures in the nation involving 80,000 women annually (Better Health Channel 2007). In the same reference, Australia records a ratio of one abortion out of four pregnancies. This paper presents the two sides of the controversial issues of abortion by applying the philosophical stand of Immanuel Kant who believes in moral duty and the utilitarian principles of J. S. Mill who favors “the greatest good” explaining their respective theories in the process. Moreover, this paper provides an understanding why abortion is considered a moral problem and not merely a controversial topic. This is in relation to Catriona Mackenzie’s argument on the questions of responsibility.
Moral Duty vs. Utilitarianism
At the forefront of the rights and duties theory of ethical behavior are the writings of Immanuel Kant, who believed that a "right" implied the existence of some condition to which persons are entitled simply because they are human beings or citizens of a nation (DeGeorge 1990). Along with the existence of rights, Kant wrote, comes the existence of "duties." Kantian theory considers a person's rights as irreducible - that is, they are not to be traded or abridged at any time or in any fashion. According to this theory, there are two primary types of rights: legal rights and moral rights. Legal rights are those rights bestowed on persons through laws passed by the government. Moral rights, on the other hand, are those granted to every human being, regardless of the legal system by which they are governed. An action contains a moral value only when it is acted out from duty. Stratton-Lake (2000) states that engaging in actions from duty means “doing what is right just because it is right” (p. 11). Kant further believes that “no motive of inclination could confer moral value on any action done from it” (cited in Stratton-Lake 2000, p. 1). In other words, moral codes are exact. Duty or moral law no more than anything else functions as an authentically moral cause. 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 (Guevara 2000, p. 1). 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.
The right to live is the most obvious of the moral rights. To be noted here is one of the most critical features of rights - which they exist in a complementary relationship with obligations. In other words, not only do rights bestow on persons specific freedoms, but they also obligate those persons to allow others to exercise those freedoms as well. As such, the ethical dilemmas that is evident in the legality or the mere act of aborting a fetus when argued under the principles of Kant’s concept of moral duty favors the anti-abortionists who supports the legitimate rights of unborn children. Anti-abortionists often argue that freedom is experienced along with the duties and responsibilities of its consequences. In this case, the freedom to engage sexually and attend to one’s physical need comes with being liable of the end results of the act which is the possibility of conceiving a child.
Meanwhile, 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” (Levin 2004, p. 35). 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” (Levin 2004, p. 70). Taking J. S. Mill’s approach, utilitarian theory seeks to provide a quantitative method for making ethical decisions, using cost-benefit analysis as a basis for what to do and what not to do as pioneered by J.S. Mill.
Mill (cited in Crisp 1997) narrates that “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” (p. 95). 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” (cited in Crisp 1997, p. 96). Thus, he has put forward Bentham’s utilitarianism in which a “precise calculation” is a matter of a calculation between pain and pleasure. According to Velasquez (1982), utilitarianism is "a general term for any view that holds that actions and practices should be evaluated on the basis of the aggregate social benefits and the aggregate social costs associated with the actions or practices. In any given situation, the proper or 'right' action or practice is the one that will produce the greatest net benefits (or lowest net costs) for society as a whole." But an important point that should be taken into account is that in order for the action chosen to be truly utilitarian, it must provide the highest benefits for society as a whole, not for the person making the decision.
Why would a mother want to kill her own baby? Anti-abortionists frequently ask this question and the answers may vary following the common trend of death versus torture arguments, in that torture is worse than death. The obvious reasons in which utilitarianism applies to abortion are in cases such as rape. In any case, the victim, if she does become pregnant, should never be forced to have a child. There are also other cases where embryos innocently become victims of unknown incest, a drug- addictive mother, or even some type of known physical or mental defect. In these cases the unfortunate baby should not have to be faced with a life of physical and/or mental defects brought upon under uncontrollable circumstances. A mother who chooses abortion feels that if the child lives, he/she will not experience a well-deserved decent life. This could be due to financial problems, physical problems, or even because the mother knows she is not ready to care for another living human being.
Attempting to balance the competing rights of all parties in a dispute raises the problem of fairness or justice. Justice is concerned with "the comparative treatment given to the members of a group when benefits and burdens are distributed, when rules and laws are administered, when members of a group cooperate or compete with each other, and when people are punished for the wrongs they have done or compensated for the wrongs they have suffered" (Velasquez 1982, p. 75). Three primary forms of justice exist: distributive, retributive, and compensatory justice.
Distributive justice is concerned with how fairly the benefits and burdens of society are distributed among its citizens (Fuchsberg 1994). Benefits are defined as resources, goods, income, status and prestige, while burdens include tasks, responsibilities, and poorer living conditions. The basic principal of distributive justice is that individuals who are similar in all respects, relevant to the kind of treatment in question, should be given similar benefits and burdens in proportion to that similarity, even if they are dissimilar in other irrelevant respects (Velasquez 1982, p. 75). Retributive justice is a sub-category of distributive justice and relates to a single portion of society: the rule breakers. Specifically, this type of justice is concerned with how rule breakers are identified, what sanctions are applied to them, and the process by which these sanctions are applied. Let the punishment fit the crime is the bottom of this type of justice. Compensatory justice is another sub-category of distributive justice. However, as opposed to retributive justice, compensatory justice analyzes the fairness of compensation from the point of view of the victim. Its primary concern is whether or not the victim's compensation is proportional to the loss incurred (Velasquez 1982, p. 75).
This makes the controversies of abortion more complicated in which determining and assessing the moral consequences as well as the realistic considerations of the wrongness or rightness of the act continue to clash. Dealing with the issue calls for thorough investigation of the different types of abortion cases’ conditions, probabilities and facts along with cultural and value differences that uniquely characterize and highly influence specific societies and the people who are its citizens.
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”! Considering religion in this case, 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? It is 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.
On Mill, the approach of the issue is 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.
Moral Problems of Abortion
Ethics is, according to the Greek signification of the term, a science of customs or morals. Moreover, ethics belongs to the practical sciences. Its function is to show how human life as such must be fashioned to realize its purpose or end. Subsequently, it stands at the head of the practical sciences, embracing them all in a certain measure. This is because all arts ultimately serve a common purpose, which is the perfection of human life. Hence, the corresponding arts are subordinated, or included as its parts, to ethics, the theory of the art of life, (Paulsen and Thilly 1899).
This shows that major ethical theories are not precise, and enforcement of ethical actions relies on individual judgments. Even though individuals highly trained in the philosophy of ethics do not agree about the application of ethics (Jacob 1995, p. 54) since the distinction between ethical and unethical behavior is based on the cultural milieu and is a byproduct of social norms. Therefore it is extremely difficult to determine the ethicalness of a particular behavior mainly because it is grounded on the specific social and moral standards or norms of different communities or territories. 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 (Freeman and Mensch 1993, p. 2). It has always generated a clash, for example in politics, wherein policymakers 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. Abortion, along with other conditions or situations that present moral dilemmas, most often than not appear as a personal discretion as influenced by individual values and beliefs. Since values and moral considerations of a person cannot be fully separated nor distinguished, abortion is treated as not merely a controversial social issue but a more serious evaluation of moral standards.
This is made more complicated by the fact that everything changes including social and moral principles. Mintzburg (1983, p. 50) discusses the diversity and changing nature of social norms that derive from new economic and social situations. "Every society or culture contains a whole set of social norms, based on its particular history, religions, philosophies, and the nature of its people and the problems they have faced... While social norms may appear to remain stable being based on long traditions, in fact they are in a continual state of evaluation" (Nash 1981, p. 79). Thus, conflicting ethical decisions may also arise from conflicting sets of social norms within the same culture (Owen and Scherer 1993) thereby intensifying the complexity of intangible moral values and considerations of certain actions, and in this case, abortion.
In this light, an effective solution for ethical decision making must consider barriers to implementation besides understanding the nature of ethical behavior (Rappaport 1990). Many questions of implementation remain. Each of us has our own set of values and beliefs that we have evolved over the course of our lives through our education, experiences and upbringing. We all have our own ideas of what is right and what is wrong and these ideas can vary between individuals and cultures.
Our own and individual concept of what is right and what is wrong is the application of these values made more difficult by personal pressures. But self definition of the right thing to do when it comes to social responsibility is one of the most crucial questions that need to be addressed through one’s ability and capacity to balance personal interests with one’s duties as a community member can in order to justify the morality of a behavior. 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.
References
Better Health Channel Website 2007, Abortion in Australia. Retrieved June 13, 2007 from http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_in_Australia?OpenDocument
Crisp, R 1997, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism, Routledge, London.
DeGeorge, RT 1990, Business Ethics, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.
Freeman, A & Mensch, E 1993, The Politics of Virtue: Is Abortion Debatable? Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Fuchsberg, G 1994, “Visioning Missions Becomes Its Own Mission,” The Wall Street Journal, January 7, B-1.
Guevara, D 2000, Kant’s Theory of Moral Motivation, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Jacob, R 1995, “Corporate Reputations,” Fortune, March 6, 54-64.
Levin, M 2004, J. S. Mill on Civilization and Barbarism, Frank Cass, London.
Mintzberg, H 1983, Power In and Around Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Nash, L 1981, “Ethics Without The Sermon,” Harvard Business Review, 59, 79-90.
Owen, CL & Scherer, RF 1993, “Social Responsibility and Market Share,” Review of Business, 15.
Paulsen, F & Thilly, F 1899, A System of Ethics, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Rappaport, A 1990, “Let's Let Business Be Business,” New York Times Magazine, February 4, F13.
Stratton-Lake, P 2000, Kant, Duty and Moral Worth, Routledge, London.
Thiroux, J 2004, Ethics: Theory and Practice, 8th edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Velasques, MG 1982, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment