John Westwig
David Denby
Intro to Ethics
15 December 2017
The Fundamental Problem of a Right to Life
Abortion remains one of the flagship intractable problems in modern ethical theory. Numerous philosophers have attempted to apply existing theories to the moral question of abortion, and have used their results to invent and refine new theories. Mary Warren and Don Marquis, ethical philosophers and writers, embody the views of the two conflicting approaches. Warren takes a highly permissive stance on abortion, arguing that abortion should be permitted at any point during pregnancy, while Marquis claims that abortion, in general, is wrong, barring exceptional circumstances. The two approaches bifurcate due to one critical assumption; who exactly has a right to life?
I will explore what it means to have a “right to life”, and use my findings to evaluate both Marquis’ arguments in his essay, “Why Abortion Is Immoral” and Warren’s arguments in her essay, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. I will consider some potentially conflicting extensional results on both moral theories, and critique the authors’ responses to each.
It must be clarified that abortion, in the ethical sense, refers to “normal” abortion, that is, free of contexts such as …show more content…
A right to life means that the entity in question must not lose their life through any intentional action of a moral agent. However, like all sweeping claims, there are exceptions; cases in which the “human” aspect of a fundamental human right is up for debate. One could make a strong argument from a Kantian viewpoint that genocidal world leaders ought to be killed for their severe crimes against society. The Utilitarian might argue that the severely mentally disabled lack a right to life. Defining the circumstances in which one has a right to life, therefore, is both difficult and
David Denby
Intro to Ethics
15 December 2017
The Fundamental Problem of a Right to Life
Abortion remains one of the flagship intractable problems in modern ethical theory. Numerous philosophers have attempted to apply existing theories to the moral question of abortion, and have used their results to invent and refine new theories. Mary Warren and Don Marquis, ethical philosophers and writers, embody the views of the two conflicting approaches. Warren takes a highly permissive stance on abortion, arguing that abortion should be permitted at any point during pregnancy, while Marquis claims that abortion, in general, is wrong, barring exceptional circumstances. The two approaches bifurcate due to one critical assumption; who exactly has a right to life?
I will explore what it means to have a “right to life”, and use my findings to evaluate both Marquis’ arguments in his essay, “Why Abortion Is Immoral” and Warren’s arguments in her essay, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”. I will consider some potentially conflicting extensional results on both moral theories, and critique the authors’ responses to each.
It must be clarified that abortion, in the ethical sense, refers to “normal” abortion, that is, free of contexts such as …show more content…
A right to life means that the entity in question must not lose their life through any intentional action of a moral agent. However, like all sweeping claims, there are exceptions; cases in which the “human” aspect of a fundamental human right is up for debate. One could make a strong argument from a Kantian viewpoint that genocidal world leaders ought to be killed for their severe crimes against society. The Utilitarian might argue that the severely mentally disabled lack a right to life. Defining the circumstances in which one has a right to life, therefore, is both difficult and