Abortion Issue according to Two Doctrines: Kants Deontological and Mils Utilitarian - Essay Example

Abortion Issue School Abortion Issue Ethical doctrines elaborated by multiple philosophers frequently suggest absolutely opposite methods of resolution of moral dilemmas and often don’t make it easier to decide which way of solving problems is the most moral. Kantian deontological ethics and categorical imperative in particular proposes absolutely different resolutions of moral dilemmas than Mill’s utilitarian doctrine. Thus the issue whether abortion is moral or not is also would be resolved differently if to consider these two doctrines as guidelines for the case. The predicate of the entire case of abortion is the syllogism which asserts that all persons have a right to live; so, as far as a fetus is a person, it also has a right to live, just like any other human being. If to presuppose that the ethical case, which is going to be analyzed further, has the claim that a fetus is a person as the main predicate, then the positions of both of the philosophers - Mill and Kant - would be quite clear. Kant would absolutely agree that abortion must be legally forbidden, as it is an act of murder, which is bad, according to categorical imperative; when Mill would argue on the matter, because his principle of utilitarianism is based on consideration of specific circumstances and the consequences an action may lead to, so probably his position in the case would more depend on each and every case of abortion. Kant’s moral doctrine, called Deontology, is precisely described in his “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”. His main claim about moral actions is based on strong rules of ethics and morality – categorical imperative – which must discern the actions that are intrinsically either good or bad. There are no relative cases in Kant’s moral doctrine, because the rules must be followed regardless circumstances and possible outcomes of any decision made; action in this ethical theory appears to be more crucial than the consequences it may lead to. That is why Kantian position is probably the most clear one among other ethical doctrines: there are good and bad actions and they are easily discernible, because they are good or bad in their nature, therefore a person should act in accordance with what is considered to be good and try to avoid acting immorally (Kant, 1964). Regarding the abortion dilemma, here we should adhere to the point that killing a person is a bad action, probably the worst thing to do, according to Kantian Deontology. If a fetus is a person, killing it through abortion beyond dispute is an immoral action, because it has intrinsically immoral roots. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that a fetus is the person that can’t protect itself and completely depends on another human being, abortion appears to be an extremely atrocious kind of murder. According to Kant, such act as murder shouldn’t be committed under any circumstances ever, because it violates any rules of morality and doing it is unfair towards another person; especially if this person is a weaker vessel which a fetus is. Mill’s position on the matter of abortion is less strict and more relative and flexible than the Kantian one. Mill’s Utilitarian doctrine is based on the Greatest Happiness Principle, which claims that people should correlate their actions and decisions with their own utility (Mill, 2001); however, they should also don’t make any harm to other people, trying to reduce the overall quantity of unhappiness in the world. The fact that a fetus is a person and has a right to live seems to make the resolution of the abortion issue similar to the Kantian one, because killing a person can’t bring much happiness to normal people. However, if to pay closer attention to different circumstances that make women bent on abortion, it turns out that in some cases abortion can be a moral resolution of a case. For example, if an expectant mother figures out that her future child is having some terrible disease, passed through genetic inheritance, having abortion would be the most moral decision in this case, even though the fetus is a potential human being that already possesses a right to live. Still, if to imagine that the child is born, what would its life be like? In addition, what would the lives of the child’s parents be like? The outcomes of the decision to leave such child are absolutely obvious and can be predicted from the very beginning, once the woman figures out that her child is ill. She realizes that she will be responsible for an untreatably ill human and will have to dedicate the rest of her life to the child, taking care of it. Moreover, she also makes her decision based on the understanding that the life of her child would be not easy and happy at all. Thus it turns out that her decision is led by realization that abortion in this case would obviously bring more happiness to her and would eliminate her child’s pain and bane. Even though the decision to have abortion would mean taking away a life of a person, if to measure it from the point of view of its outcomes, it turns out that abortion is a moral action. The point of the entire Mill’s doctrine is in justifying of moral actions by the principle of the greatest happiness. However, if a woman decides to have an abortion and this action is not justified by any happiness but her own, selfish one, her action would be immoral, because in this case she kills a human being, a person, without any crucial reasons, bringing unhappiness to another living human being that a fetus is. Hence the two doctrines, Kant’s Deontological one and Mil’s utilitarian one have different points of view on the problem of abortion. Kant would doubtlessly consider abortion as a mean and immoral action, because it violates the categorical imperative that claims that killing a person is a radical evil, regardless the circumstances of each and every abortion accident. However, Mill would pay more attention to specific circumstances and evaluate his decision based on whether an abortion would bring or not any happiness to the mother-to-be, or whether it would or would not reduce any other person’s happiness. Therefore the two approaches to the issue are evidently opposite: the Kantian one is more strict and clear, when Mill’s is more relative and vague. References Mill. J.S. (2001). Utilitarianism. Batoche Books, Kitchener. Retrieved from: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/utilitarianism.pdf Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. Read More