Case Analysis : ' The Case Of Sandel ' Essay
Don Marquis: the argument in this case can be determined to standard consequentialism. It is consequentialists because Marquis argues that what makes abortion wrong is stripping the victim of its future, because it has a future like ours (Marquis 85-87). It is standard because he clarifies that these morally permissible cases will be “rare” (Marquis 90), thus establishing that in general he does not allow moral options.
Michael Sandel: In the case of Sandel, the most appropriate framework within which we can interpret his work is virtue ethics. Sandel proposes that genetic enhancement is wrong because it represents the triumph of willfulness over giftedness (Sandel 127) and the loss of the virtue traits of humility, responsibility and solidarity (Sandel 127).
Sue and Hector Badeau: Sue and Hector represent a complex case; they are not philosophers, and do not fit cleanly into any categorization of such. Viewing them as virtue ethicists can be supported by their own justification of their actions: “... for better or worse, we / act” (Macfarquhar 147-148). One can also substantiate the view that they are consequentialists in that ”...they wanted to help as many children as they could, but if they tried to help too many then they would do harm” (Macfarquhar 160) and “[they] never made any distinction between these unofficial children and the official ones” (Macfarquhar 161), which alludes to the increase in overall happiness at the expense of virtuose traits of individuals,…