This week, we spoke about Kant and
his formulation of good will. A large portion of the class period was spent
trying to differentiate between subjective principle and objective principle,
as well as its overall relation to morality. Subjective principle relates to
real life and our actions. As humans, therefore imperfect by nature, we are
generally unable, unwilling, or both to meet the objective principle, which is
morally right. That is, it meets the categorical imperative, and follows the
moral law and duty. When our subjective principle is not aligned with the
objective principle, we are indeed acting immorally. Although, for the most
part, we were able to agree upon this idea, we were not able to make as clear
of a distinction with the categorical imperative. We only had time to describe
two of the three of the formulations that compose the categorical
imperative. The categorical imperative
encompasses all that is implied by the moral law, plus more. According to the
categorical imperative, we must not only act upon our duties, but also in a way
that involves seeing and acting as a role model. Our actions must be based upon
what we ought to do; given the same
situation, anyone else should follow what would do the same as you.
The
controversy is encountered when we introduce the idea of a situation in which
you have two duties, which are antiparallel. For example, a common
controversial topic such as abortion requires one to act upon one of two moral
opinions. One natural moral duty is to preserve human life. It also follows the
moral law to not commit murder, because if it were rational to commit murder,
everyone would kill each other. Therefore, one must distinguish when a fetus
can be defined as a human. If we consider consciousness the basis of life, then
a fetus is not a human until it is born. However, I believe that a fetus must
be considered as a human, because unlike a person in a permanent vegetative
state, a fetus has unlimited potential. Getting an abortion simply because two
people were irresponsible or lazy is not moral in any sense. Human potential
and human life is too great to be manipulated as if it were something trivial. Unless
a life is threatened by a pregnancy, abortion violates moral laws.
I agree with the idea that a fetus should be considered a human due to its potential. I'm not sure if we know if a fetus does not exhibit consciousness as you stated, but if that is true, I do not think that fact justifies abortion. Justifying abortion on the belief that they are not human yet seems very wrong to me due to the potential it possesses alone. However, I do not agree with your opinion that abortion due to irresponsible or lazy behavior is immoral. If a young lady gets pregnant due to irresponsible sex and cannot support the baby, I believe abortion would be moral. Though it was bad behavior that resulted in the baby, it would also be irresponsible to try and support a baby that could not be supported.Also, I know it was used as an example in class, but I do not like contrasting abortion and a pulling the plug. This is simple because we can never know if a vegetative state is truly permanent.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWill, I agree with your stance on the duty to protect life in all forms. However, I think for the sake of the class we should prove it from a "Kantian" perspective. If we refer back to the Categorical Imperative, the first rule states, "Act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law." If we apply this rule to the act of abortion, one could not help but think the act of abortion would be a direct violation of universal law. For a moment, let us assume that the act of abortion is morally acceptable. If the act of abortion becomes morally acceptable, then the world could see a substantial decrease in population. If every couple in the world decided to have an abortion, then the human race would cease to exist. Granted this is the most extreme situation imaginable, however from a Kantian perspective, it would technically align with the objective and subjective principles. There is most definitely a whole in one's reasoning if a morally acceptable action could potentially lead to human extinction. Granted, the point I am trying to make relies on an unrealistic situation that would never happen, however it is something to ponder.
ReplyDelete*sorry Will, I had to make a small correction