The Moral Rightness Of The Suggestion To Sterilize Women - Case Study Example

Ethical Arguments Many problems existing in the society hinder its overall welfare and happiness, posing the challenges for human beings, while decision-making process related to solving these problems might be rather difficult, for many issues faced by modern communities imply a wide range of peculiarities that are to be counted. Human beings are generally characterized by reason and intelligence, as Immanuel Kant’s theoretical framework implies, therefore, an issue of ethics and morality arises. Many optimal decisions that are highly rational and well-designed tend to have flaws in moral aspect, while morally acceptable decisions often lack logic in design with the cost exceeding the value of the initial goal. In the current paper, the decision for the following problem will be considered: a considerable number of defective children is born worldwide annually, while practice shows that there are certain risk groups of women with the increased probability of giving birth to a child with congenital defects. These are, of course, HIV-positive women, for they can transmit HIV to their children, marginalized groups such as drug and alcohol addicts, and prostitutes engaging in multiple unsafe sexual contacts and face rather frequent cases of unplanned pregnancy. Birth of defective children imposes numerous difficulties of the society: 1) these children are often abandoned by their mothers (especially when they are heavily disabled), 2) responsibility for care falls on the government, i.e. the state that, in its turn, collects taxes from the population to provide financial aid to orphanages for disturbed children. Moreover, congenital defects often lead to life-long disability with the individual being unable to be useful for the society and being permanently supported by the state. The suggested solution to be discussed is sterilizing women belonging to the groups of risk, making the procedure either obligatory or optional and presupposing certain financial encouragement, as it was described in the book of Michael Sandel. Firstly, it would be reasonable to clarify the aspects of morality in decisions Kant and Mills imply in their theoretical frameworks. Involving many participants, effects and outcomes, the suggestion of sterilization is complex and requires careful analysis both of its rationality and of moral acceptance in order to be confirmed as right or wrong. Kant and Mill have differing views of definition of moral actions. Kant’s categorical imperative based on permissibility of an action regardless of the results in case it is dictated to an individual by their innate morality (Swartzell). Thereby, Kant’s ethical argument implies that the decision on moral acceptability of an action should depend on the agent’s self-imposed moral laws that rely on rationality, yet are rather subjective. The formula of categorical imperative – “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Walford 421) – shows that the agent’s moral action is determined by the self-imposed maxima, which can be applied universally. Jankowiak interprets Kant’s definition of moral actions in the following way: “To act morally, then, is to form one’s intentions on the basis of the very idea of a universal principle of action”. However, despite being based on rationality and one’s self-legislation and thus rather subjective, though using people as means for achieving the goal or restricting their freedom in a way is forbidden. However, the argument suggested by Kant is rather controversial and – what is even more important – subjective, as it encourages basing one’s decision on moral acceptability of actions mainly on inner imperatives and perceptions, though projecting an individual maxima on the universal law. On the other hand, Mill defines moral good as maximum general happiness (Jones 338). His view of moral actions in based on multiplication of general welfare and happiness and maximizing utility. Thereby, deciding on wrongness or rightness of an action depends greatly on social context and social rules and becomes the function of the action’s consequences (Ridge 54), which are required to be the best among the possible ones. Therefore, Mills turns to focus on the outcomes rather than on sentiments and rights of particular people. Considering the two possible variants of sterilization – coercive or obligatory sterilization and optional sterilization – it is necessary to define the motive and the expected consequences: the action would be motivated by the need to minimize the number of fertile women belonging to birth defect risk groups with the expected outcome to me minimization of defective newborns. Thereby, as Kant’s theory is too subjective, depriving these women of the opportunity to have children might depend solely on the inner autonomous reason of the legislator starting such policy. On the other hand, if this decision is made based only on an individual’s subjective maxima, it might seem morally right until we understand that it could not be universalized without breach of other people’s freedom. For example, if a father reasons that it would be better to sterilize his drug-addicted daughter, in Kant’s framework he should be motivated by his good will and belief in rationality of such approach. As Kant doesn’t consider consequences (the daughter won’t give birth to a defective child, whose existence would be painful for him/herself and a burden for the relatives), sterilization could be considered immoral due to two reasons: the father encroached on the daughters freedom (though Kant considered all people’s freedom and rights to have equal weight) and the maxima of his action cannot be applied to the entire society in its initial form. Optional sterilization viewed from Kant’s perspective would be acceptable, as it involves no coercion and might be one of the maxims of the legislator. The issue of sterilization concerns a great number of people and presupposes significance of the outcomes; thus, to my thinking, Kant’s evaluative tactics is too subjective. On the other hand, if we judge the decision from the perspective of general happiness as an ultimate moral good (according to Mill), it becomes possible to evaluate the outcome. The advantage and therefore moral permissibility of sterilization lies in the fact that its outcome will minimize ‘pain’ and maximize general happiness, because less deficient children will be born due to actual elimination of the largest risk groups. Secondly, the state will be released from the responsibility for this children and provision of social and financial assistance for them and their families (this will result in resource saving). Furthermore, if sterilization is optional and involves payments for women, its moral rightness is enhanced by the facts that women will receive money and become ‘happier’ and that there will be no infringement of their freedom (as they would come for sterilization on the voluntary basis). This type of solution can be considered morally acceptable from Kant’s perspective as well. On the other hand, noncompulsory sterilization will definitely reduce the number of women deciding to do it and thus the general effect on the society’s welfare will be considerably impaired. It could be assumed that consequentialists like Mills would define this action as immoral, as it would not bring the best possible result. Viewing the option of sterilization from the perspective of people’s equal value and freedom, one can see several essential moral flaws and side effects of it. Firstly, if sterilized by coercion, women will have no further chance to raise offspring even if they improve their lives and withdraw from the mentioned groups of risk. Thus, their rights and good will be infringed by the social rules. Secondly, the issue of optional paid sterilization was discussed by Michael Sandel, who raised ethical concerns concerning penetration of market values into ethical norms of non-market domains of life. Thereby, there is a concern whether it is ethical to trade the woman’s ability to procreate for a certain sum of money even if the woman belongs to a marginalized social group. However, one more argument supporting moral wrongness of sterilization policy is probably based on Mill’s definition of moral action. Sterilization of these risk groups can be considered immoral, for the result of such action will not bring the best results. It would be logical to assume that – in order to get the minimum possible number of defective children – it is necessary to sterilize all risk groups, but risk groups include obese women, women with certain ethnical background, and women with improper eating habits. Even more – there is a very small risk of congenital defects in every mother-baby pair. Nevertheless, sterilizing all these groups would be impossible and unreasonable because the population would decrease dramatically in that case, and freedom of a great number of people would be impaired (according to Kant). Having analyzed the arguments Kant and Mill could provide for the suggested solution, one can state that the supportive argumentation for both types of sterilization is present in Mill’s theoretical framework, because it is oriented on the general good and is guided by the quality of outcomes. On the other hand, it turns out that both theories would possibly consider optional paid sterilization morally right from the viewpoint of freedom preservation. However, it would be inefficient in terms of result, and the result is better in case of compulsory sterilization. The conclusion on the moral rightness of the suggestion to sterilize women with the highest risk of children’s birth defects can made in compliance with Mill’s theory, for it is more objective in the motivations of actions. It becomes logical that sterilizing HIV-positive women, marginalized groups such as drug and alcohol addicts, and prostitutes is rather morally acceptable than immoral, because this will make a greater number of people happier that non-doing this. There will be no child victims of such mothers, who would face life-long suffering; mothers and relatives will be released from the burden of taking care of such children; the government and taxpayers will spend less money on social welfare for such families; there will be less disabled or defective abandoned children, for such women are likelier to leave them right after birth. On the other hand, the moral obstacle posed by inability to have children in case these women improve their lives can be overcome via adopting children. Therefore, the body of argumentation makes this solution rather morally permissible. Works Cited Jankowiak, Tim “Immanuel Kant.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002. Web. 30 June 2015. Jones, Hardy. “Mills Argument for the Principle of Utility.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. 38, No. 3 (Mar., 1978), pp. 338-354. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107004 Web. 30 June 2015. Ridge, Michael. "Mills Intentions And Motives." Utilitas 14.1 (2002): 54. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 June 2015. Sandel, Michael J. What Money Cant Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; Reprint edition, 2013. Swartzell, Kimberly Sue on September 16, 2012 “Kant vs. Mill.” PennState, 2012. http://www.psu.edu/dept/LAOnline/blogs/LASCapstone/2012/09/kant-vs-mill.html Web. 30 June 2015. Walford, David. (Ed.) Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Read More