An Unexamined Morality is Not Worth Living

Disclaimer: This was written for my ethics class and abortion was an assigned topic; I scored 98% and due to a curve, 102% was the final grade.
P.S. I took my title name from good old Socrates.

           

              In our country comprised of different religions, ethnicities, philosophies, and opinions the discussion of the morality of abortion is a topic of much controversy. Abortion, the intentional termination of a human pregnancy within the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy, is a passionate debate for most individuals as they attempt to define what is wrong and right for themselves and society as a whole (Paper Topic). By applying various approaches from medical ethics to one’s faith, the beliefs of abortion seem to be a never-ending clash. Another approach worth contemplating is an ethical one, applying the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. By exercising Kant’s ‘is ought’ distinction and the act utilitarianism sacrifice for humanity, one can remove themselves from the exhausted debate and perhaps find a refreshed perspective on this sensitive subject. If morality is based on the good will of one’s inclinations, as Kant demonstrates in his philosophy, then a woman ought to find abortion morally right. And in Mill’s philosophy, where the morality of an actor is based on the consequences she produces, then a woman can conclude abortion to be an ethical choice as well. Both philosophies are two separate ideas that greatly contradict on how to distinguish one’s morality, by actor or by the action, but by examining the Kantian ethical theory and act utilitarianism I will show how together they engage with the issue of abortion.

            The Kantian ethical theory deals with deriving one’s knowledge from reason and how we intrinsically know what it means to be ‘good’. The basis of morality comes from our own goodwill which will be ‘good’ without qualifications (RN, Oct.24). Likewise, a woman intrinsically knows what she believes is ‘good’ and does not need to justify her choices. Just as a wife intrinsically knows not to cheat on her husband, a woman may also intrinsically know that having an abortion is not right. However, since every individual reasons differently and encompasses their own goodwill, a woman may intrinsically feel different about the topic of abortion, and likewise perhaps this is why some women cheat. Kant places a lot of focus on the morality of the actor allowing women the right to choose what they find moral and immoral, but at the same time making it harder to construct an unconditional set of commands to govern society with especially concerning the topic of abortion.

            Nevertheless, when a woman finds abortion to be ‘good’ and if she possesses good inclinations, then her act is good without qualifications. Good inclinations, in my own opinion, means she doesn’t see abortion as murder and her purpose is to be responsible before having a child she may not be ready for on more levels than one. Bad inclinations could involve not thinking the decision through carefully, using abortion as birth control, or perhaps my favorite, not wanting to get fat. In class, we discussed a scenario of house sitting for a neighbor. During this discussion, it was noted that each student in the classroom knew how to be a good neighbor, thanks to apriori, knowledge derived from reason (LN Oct. 30th). In this scenario, the good neighbor turned up the heat in the house the day before his neighbor’s return only to accidently burn the house down from an unknown electrical problem. Even though it was the ‘good neighbor’ who essentially burned down the house, because he was acting in accordance with his duty and goodwill, he ought to not be found at fault (RN Oct. 31st). Likewise, a woman, who is acting in accordance to her own duty, ought to not be found immoral by committing an act when her intentions are good. If her intention isn’t to terminate a potential human being but instead to avoid a situation she isn’t emotionally and financially equipped for, then one may find abortion a morally praiseworthy action.

            In act utilitarianism, the principle of utility defines an action as ‘good’ if it produces pleasure and ‘bad’ if it produces pain (RN, Oct. 30th). When discussing abortion, one may argue how the procedure itself produces pain, emotionally and physically, and also produces pleasure for the woman may live her life without the responsibility of that baby.  While both sides may be true, when a woman chooses abortion it must mean that the amount of her pleasure, or her happiness, surpasses her pain. Therefore, the morality of her action is good. In addition, one must also address the public utility: how does having or not having this child affect the society? The public is not negatively affected by her choice of having an abortion, but could be if she chose to keep the child. The mother may have to be on welfare, or depend on the friends and family for support or not provide the best childhood experience for her child.

            With that being stated, a woman having an abortion is an example of sacrificing oneself for the common good, which is a very prominent maxim in Mill’s philosophy. By enduring an abortion, she is minimizing the pain, burden, and stress she may be placing on society if she is truly not ready to care for a child. Another example of this could be splunking or exploring caves when the adventure suddenly becomes life threatening as water begins to fill the cave. If an individual gets stuck trying to squeeze through the only hole to freedom, it would only be expected to attach dynamite to said person and to sacrifice that person to save everyone else. Similarly, a woman is following this principle when a she chooses to have an abortion; she is producing more pleasure for the community around her therefore, her act is good (RN Oct 30th).  

            Another aspect of utilitarianism that is worth concentrating on is quality versus quantity. When a woman faces the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy, I would only hope that one of the key factors she considers is the quality of life she and her child would potentially have. Mill believes both quality and quantity must be considered when assessing the consequences of an action. If the woman decides to have the child, will her life have the same quality as it did previously? Furthermore, what will be the quality of the child’s life? Will her child receive the nourishment, attention, love and care it needs? And when concerning quantity, I must note how I completely understand how the gift of life in a child’s eyes is the greatest joy for a mother and that choosing abortion is denying oneself of that joy. However, I believe the constant struggle of day-to-day tasks are painful and can bleed into the lives of others developing into a never-ending cycle of lower quality. Will it become the social norm to not escape teenage pregnancy, with parents adopting their children’s children as their own? Within this cycle, there are a lot of messy emotional ties that lead me to believe the act of abortion is good because of the quantity and quality of pain that can be produced if one does choose life. And according to Mill, we should choose the greatest pleasure, not the greatest pain. Alas, only the woman who is facing this crossroads can determine which pleasure, or which pain, is superior to the rest.

            It is the case that abortion exists and many people struggle with the morality of its existence. What ‘ought’ be the case? After applying Kant’s and Mill’s theories to the issue of abortion, I would conclude that abortion ought to exist and should be accepted into a new set of norms. This would be Kant’s normative claim on “how one ought to aim” on the basis of morality I discussed earlier. If it is our duty to follow the categorical imperative, the moral law of how ‘one ought to act,’ and when we intrinsically know abortion is a good act with good intentions, then we should will abortion to be available to all who find themselves considering it. By willing this maxim, a rule or principle, to become actualized, it would then become a universal law; a law applied to all women across the nation (LN Oct. 23rd). This law would give women the right to have an abortion and still secure the rights of the women who choose not to. In addition, if we engage in Mill’s theory, we can further conclude that because the consequences produced by abortion maximizes the greatest amount of good for the public, abortion is moral as well.

            Most opinions of abortion can be easily distorted by our culture defining for us what is wrong and right opposed to each individual having the power to think and choose for themselves. Since the issue of abortion can be debated from an infinite amount of perspectives with various approaches, our society as a whole may never come to an agreeable set of norms. Yet, I find value in engaging the Kantian ethical theory and act utilitarianism to show how morality can be distinguished based off the actor’s good inclinations and consequences of one’s action.