Deontological and utilitarian arguments for abortion

Overview[ edit ] Moral science may refer to the consideration of what is best for, and how to maximize the flourishing of, either particular individuals [2] or all conscious creatures. The dictum can be set aside for a deeper, albeit programmatic, neurobiological perspective on what reasoning and problem-solving are, how social navigation works, how evaluation is accomplished by nervous systems, and how mammalian brains make decisions. Quine advocated naturalizing epistemology by looking to natural sciences like psychology for a full explanation of knowledge.

Deontological and utilitarian arguments for abortion

Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligenceperseverance and pleasurefail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears not to be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, this seems to make the situation ethically worse.

He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good: Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.

He defines respect as "the concept of a worth which thwarts my self-love". Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.

Kant argued that the only absolutely good thing is a good will, and so the single determining factor of whether an action is morally right is the will, or motive of the person doing it. If they are acting on a bad maxim, e. For a lie always harms another; if not some human being, then it nevertheless does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right [Rechtsquelle] All practical principles of right must contain rigorous truth This is because such exceptions would destroy the universality on account of which alone they bear the name of principles.

If God commands people not to work on Sabbaththen people act rightly if they do not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that they do not do so. If they do not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action is not truly speaking "right", even though the actual physical action performed is the same.

One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal, whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

For instance, Kamm argues that we believe it would be impermissible to kill one person to harvest his organs in order to save the lives of five others.

Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yet, we think it is morally permissible to divert a runaway trolley that would otherwise kill five innocent and immobile people onto a side track where one innocent and immobile person will be killed.

Kamm believes the Principle of Permissible Harm explains the moral difference between these and other cases, and more importantly expresses a constraint telling us exactly when we may not act to bring about good ends—such as in the organ harvesting case.

InKamm published a book that presents new theory that incorporates aspects of her "Principle of Permissible Harm", the "Doctrine of Productive Purity". Attempts have been made to reconcile deontology with virtue-based ethics and consequentialism.

Port Manteaux Word Maker

King develops a hierarchy of principles to link his meta-ethics, which are more inclined towards consequentialism, with the deontological conclusions he presents in his book.Dec 21,  · The one topic that we discussed in class that everyone had something to say about was abortion.

A ethicist coming from a deontological standpoint would certainly say that abortions are wrong, for two main reasons: it is the duty of a parent to care for their child, not abort it and that we should treat everyone as an ends in themselves, not . Abortion A) Explain how a Utilitarian might respond to the issue of abortion Utilitarianism is a teleological theory basing the goodness of an action by its presumed consequences.

The aim is ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’ and Utilitarian’s base the ‘goodness’ of an action on human experience. The history of Western ethics Ancient civilizations to the end of the 19th century The ancient Middle East and Asia.

The first ethical precepts must have been passed down by word of mouth from parents and elders, but as societies learned to use the written word, they began to set down their ethical beliefs. These records constitute the first historical evidence of the origins of ethics.

Other deontological arguments in regards to abortion have to do with different religions.

Deontological and utilitarian arguments for abortion

In Christianity, the belief is that a life starts at the moment of conception and because of that, abortion isn’t condoned under any circumstances (English, ). At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous.

It certainly can be a surprising claim. And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand. In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.

Ethics Theories: Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics - Christian Research Institute