Peter Singer and Immanuel Kant - Essay Example

PETER SINGER AND IMMANUEL KANT According to Peter Singer, we must not act so as to sacrifice a major interest for a minor interest. Singer is an Australian moral philosopher whose approach and ethical view is from a preference utilitarian perspective. This principle argues for equal consideration of interests. It does not dictate equal treatment of all interests, in the belief that different interests guarantee different treatment (Singer 26). Human beings, therefore, give significant interests priority over minor interests. Apart from justifying different treatment for different interests, this principle calls for different treatment of the same interest where diminishing marginal utility is a factor. This philosophy of Singer requires the concept of impartiality while comparing interests. Singer asserts that a person’s interests must always be weighed according to the person’s existing properties. The major interests in human beings are those that satisfy the basic need for food and shelter, develop one’s abilities, avoid pain, and enjoy warm personal relationships and those that allow a person to pursue his or her project without interference. These major interests entitle a person to equal consideration in the capacity of happiness and suffering. Singer’s approach favors a model of life where he measures the minor interest from their wrongness of frustrating the goals of life. Singer argues that eating of animals and using them for scientific research is morally indefensible (Singer 48). From his perspective, like human beings, animals have interests and are, therefore, sentient. More so, since animals have interests, they are entitled to moral consideration. Every genuine interest should be treated with the same weight, regardless of whether it is an animal or human being. He describes eating animals as an unnecessary imposition of pain and suffering upon animals. Human beings satisfy their dietary preferences by inflicting such pain on animals, but beyond that, no good comes of it. This gets based on the fact that even heavy consumption of meat poses serious health dangers to human beings. Singer views the use of animals in a scientific experiment as a morally defensible act in the fact that it produces knowledge and in particular medical research. Since medical research produces cures for diseases, there are more goods to be balanced against the pain and suffering of animals. This benefit is much better than the human satisfaction obtained from meat consumption. Singer’s view is based on moral reasoning based on a cost-benefit analysis. Singer’s view on euthanasia and abortion are consistent with his general ethical principles. Singer categorizes euthanasia into non-voluntary, voluntary and involuntary. Singer only consents to voluntary euthanasia in the fact that there are no other interests to be weighed against the interest of a person. In Singer’s view, abortion is wrong in that it is the killing of an innocent human life. This argument is deductively valid in that a fetus becomes a human being from the point of conception (Singer 98). Although Singer finds this argument flawed from the fact that child development is a gradual process, the validity still lies in the fact that life as a journey starts at the point where life begins; conception. Singer states that the arguments for or against abortion should be based on a utilitarian perspective. This perspective compares the interests of a woman against the interest of the fetus. He believes that any interest sought to be gained or avoided; despite all the harm or benefits caused corresponds directly to a person’s satisfaction or frustration. He argues that, at around eighteen weeks, a fetus has no ability to experience sensations like satisfaction or frustration which is a prerequisite to having any interests (Singer 63). Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, nothing can be weighed against a woman’s interest to have an abortion. As a result, abortion is morally permissible. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher whose approach was based on the fact that human perception shapes natural laws, and this is the basis of morality. His approach and perspective on moral views has had a significant influence on subsequent philosophers. According to Kant, reason sets a sound base for morality. The views on abortion between Kant and that of utilitarians are quite different. In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant articulates and defends the supremacy of moral conduct. Kantian philosophy renders abortion to be morally problematic and impermissible. Kant argues that every human being was at one time a fetus. Abortion thus fails the generalizability test and is, therefore, immoral (Kant 34). Kant goes on to insist that one who supports abortion as a morally permissible action, should also consent to the idea of he or she having been aborted under normal conditions. Since no one will agree the idea of being aborted under normal conditions, no one will accept abortion as a normally permissible conduct (Kant 56). In conclusion, from a Kantian approach, no human being would consent to the idea of being aborted while a fetus, and it will, therefore, be irrational for the same people to think that abortion is morally permissible. Utilitarianism is the belief that actions are morally right if they are of benefit or bring happiness to the community. Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. According to this theory, the morality of an action gets perceived on how much happiness its outcome provides. Utilitarians are in favor of the concept of greater good in analyzing their views on abortion. Utilitarianism in the hedonistic view would allow for the abortion of the fetus. Utilitarianism is mostly pro choice, where individuals get to choose what brings them the most happiness. In their opinion, if a woman aims at achieving the greatest happiness, then she will not want to bear a child to a life full of suffering. Moreover, if abortion gets done early enough when the fetus has not developed the capacity to feel pain, yet the mother is very much alive, she could seriously suffer as a result of bearing the child. Therefore, a utilitarian perspective on abortion could be on analyzing if it is a decent or bad thing. Utilitarianism appears to equate the morality of an action on the community or nation, and not on the act of the one undergoing or affected by the abortion. If an abortion benefits a nation like bringing happiness to the parents, then utilitarians would support it. Having an abortion as a result of financial needs, work, education, or family needs would get justified as it gets perceived it would bring pleasure to the affected. However, they would be against it if it brought damage to the community such as bringing the death of a mother. A utilitarian response in some circumstances may deny a woman the right to turn to abortion if the outcome of the pregnancy would be for the greater good or betterment. Utilitarianism would not allow the abortion to occur if it is to bring much more misery than before. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Wilder Publications, 2008. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Read More