rsrevision.com/applied ethics

KS3: Yr7-9 | KS4: GCSE | KS5: A level
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions

Ethical responses to abortion

small logo

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is teleological, concerned with ends or outcomes. Utilitarians would ask whether having an abortion brings about the greatest good. Having an abortion because of financial pressures, other family members' needs, education, work - any of these reasons may be justified by the hedonic calculus.

Utilitarianism challenged traditional views that abortion was an 'evil' act, arguing instead that the end justifies the means. Utilitarianism generally supports a pro-choice position, and Mill strongly believed in individual sovereignty:

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”

However, the pro-choice movement argument that a woman has the right to choose is not supported by classical utilitarianism. The concept of absolute rights is compatible with deontological ethics such as Kant or Natural Law, but not utilitarianism. Mill can be seen as arguing for rule utilitarianism, saying we should give freedom of choice to all people. Rule utilitarianism says that we should make rules that bring about the greatest good. I don't think this is Mill's point, however. Either way, a utilitarian response should accept that it may in some circumstances be right to deny a woman the right to choose to have an abortion if doing so would bring about the greatest good.

Kant's Ethical Theory

The best place to start with Kant is to take a maxim and universalise it. If it is a self-contradiction or a contradiction of the will, you have a duty (perfect or imperfect) not to act according to that maxim.

The maxim "You should have an abortion" becomes a self-contradictory universal maxim "Everyone should have abortions". It couldn't possibly work, as there would be no people to have abortions.

Choose a different maxim, such as "People who have been raped should have abortions" and you no longer have a self-contradiction. However, this must be a contradiction of the will. Would you want to make a law of nature that ended pregnancy naturally if it arose out of rape? At first we might think this would be a perfectly desirable state of affairs - people who have been raped would almost certainly prefer not to be pregnant. However, if I willed such a law of nature, I might be willing myself out of existence, as there are undoubtedly rational agents who have been born as a result of rape. I couldn't will a universal law of nature that would have prevented my own existence.

Could Kant's theory ever support abortion? It seems that even in the case of a threat to the mother's life, it would be 'using humanity merely as a means to an end' to have an abortion.

A lot hinges on the status of the foetus. Does the foetus count as 'humanity'? For Kantians, it should. This does not depend on whether the foetus has brain activity - clearly even an infant isn't capable of the sort of rationality that following the categorical imperative requires. However, at some stage, if allowed to live, the foetus and infant will be able to imagine different universal laws, and ask whether they could will them to be laws of nature. It would be contrary to the will to universalise a law that would have prevented me from being born.

There are potential exceptions. For example, Natural Law holds that abortion in ectopic pregnancies is wrong. In ectopic pregnancies, the foetus will not survive, but Natural Law sees abortion as an evil act even in this case, even though it may save the mother's life. Could a Kantian will that abortions happened naturally in ectopic pregnancies? Yes, because such a law could not have prevented that agent from being born. There are no rational agents alive after ectopic prenancies, so it wouldn't be contrary to their will to have a law of nature that prematurely ended ectopic pregnancies.

A further potential exception would be foetuses with severe learning disabilities. If there were mental illnesses that prevented a person from imagining maxims as universal laws, it could never be contrary to the will to will that these pregnancies naturally terminated before birth. You wouldn't be willing a law that would have prevented you from being born, as the mere willing of it means that the law would not have applied to you.

Natural Law

Natural Law asks what our design or purpose is as humans. One of the primary precepts is to protect and preserve the innocent. This alone leads to a secondary precept 'Do not abort.'

Secondary precepts are absolute deontological principles - there are no exceptions. Many Catholics say that this takes the pressure off people faced with difficult decisions, such as a woman whose pregnancy is threatening her life. Abortion is not an option. Imagine a different issue. A transplant surgeon needs a dozen organs to save the lives of 12 people. He sees a healthy man who has all of these organs. A utilitarian calculation says the greater good would be served by secretly killing this man and saving the other 12 people with his organs. Natural Law says that killing an innocent person is not an option, so you don't have to even consider it.

There are no exceptions, but it may appear as though there are because of double effect. Imagine an ectopic prenancy - the foetus is growing in the fallopian tube, and both the mother and foetus will die. Abortion is an evil act, and therefore not an option. However, removing a fallopian tube, with the secondary effect that the pregnancy ends, is not an evil act. When carrying out an act with two (or double) effects, you ask whether the second effect is proportionate. In this case it is. In other words, it is unethical to abort an ectopic pregnancy (which would leave the woman able to have another child), but ethical to remove an ovary (which, in cases where a woman has one working ovary, would leave her unable to have future children).

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics grew out of a tradition that viewed abortion as an evil act. Fletcher said we should not get rid of rules - they are a useful guide in most situations. However, the only thing good in itself is love, and we may be required to 'push our principles aside and do the right thing'. The Church of England's position, that abortion is evil but may be the 'lesser of two evils' is consistent with a situationist approach. If a woman has been raped, abortion may be an act of love.

Although being very closely linked to utilitarianism, situation ethics should give quite different results. It doesn't see pleasure as good in itself. However, both Singer's utilitarianism and Fletcher's situation ethics say you should act in the 'best interests' of those affected. The real question is what counts as being in someone's best interests. This is where a Christian ethics will include the idea that God created us, instructed us to reproduce etc. Seen in this light, Situation Ethics will start from the belief that it is generally in our interests to create families, nurturing and educating our children. However, in exceptional circumstances the situation might demand a different, loving response. Abortion would be an exception in extreme circumstances, not a method of birth control (as it has become in some countries).

In an exam, it would be helpful to consider case studies. For example, where a foetus has a serious disability and the parents are worried that they would be unable to bring up the child financially, or that doing so might take time away from their other children, it may be a compassionate response to abort the foetus to take away such a great burden.

Virtue Ethics

It is always a more difficult to apply Virtue Ethics, as it is concerned with the sort of people we should be. What would a kind, temperate, courageous person do? This is not at all clear. Watch Vera Drake or The Cider House Rules and you will see compassionate, courageous people performing abortions to help others. There must equally be kind, noble, courageous people campaigning against abortion. Again, the status of the foetus is key here. Would a courageous person let someone kill a foetus? Well, if the foetus wasn't a person yet, then yes they might. If the foetus was a person, it would surely be more courageous to prevent their being killed.

Put a different way, virtue ethicists see justice as a cardinal virtue. If justice includes the foetus, abortion is wrong. However, in the UK, America and most other countries, the foetus does not have the rights of a person, and justice doesn't include them in this way. As with many ethical responses, the status of the foetus affects the response you give.

About Us | Site Map | Contact Us | ©2015 rsrevision.com