Altman And Brison On Abortion

1. What key premise of the pro-life argument does Thomson criticize as false?  Explain her argument.

        In Thomson’s pro-life argument, the key premise she describes as false is “that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception” (47). In the eyes of Thomson, abortion is morally impermissible.  She does explain how most agree that the fetus is a human well before birth with evidence supporting on how by the tenth weeks of development, it already has a face, arms, legs, fingers, toes and even internal organs along with brain activity being detectable. Though she states this, the sees the premise as false and this is not the point of her argument. She is not “arguing for the right to secure the death of the unborn child” (66), but for the right of the woman’s choice to control her body.  She sways her argument in using real life

situations from the violinist to the tiny house situation. If abortion is morally permissible, why is it that the child conceived from rape has less or a right to life than the child who was not conceived from rape? Thomson states that it is most definitely not a woman’s moral duty to spend nine months in bed but nor is it her moral obligation to be able to turn around and take the life of another. She feels that it is more immoral to be selfish in the sense that the mother will not carry this child for nine months and then put the child up for adoption because she does not want to endure the pain herself of being separated. She cannot fathom how a mother can find it to be a better option to just take the life rather than put herself in that emotional distress in watching someone else take ‘her’ child. All in all, Thomson feels as though abortion is morally impermissible stating that the mother has a greater right to control her body than the fetus has the right to life.

2.

Identify and contrast the relevant freedoms central to the dispute between Altman and Brison.

       Both Altman and Brison write their opposing sides of pornography. Pornography is defined as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words that also includes women dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities; enjoying pain or humiliation or rape; being tied up … injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior; bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual” (Brison, 378-379).
Altman would argue that one’s sexual autonomy entails a moral right to porn, even depictions of sexual violence and that is the price we pay for sexual autonomy. According to Altman, sexual autonomy is that “individuals ought to have a broad liberty to define and enact their own sexuality” (387). He uses sexual autonomy to defend his case saying that person are “agents who have the broad right to decide for themselves on how to live their lives” (388). This right overrides the degrading and violent part of porn because adults need this as part of their sexual

identity.
On the other hand, Brison would argue against Altman as to there is no moral right to watch (violent and degrading) porn held by producers or consumers. It harmful to both the participants and the nonparticipants. To those involved in the pornography, it is harmful to their autonomy, coercion and dissociation. To those not involved, but still partake in the matter, it is showing that it is morally right for this casual dehumanization and influencing this behavior on men and young boys who use it as well. Brison’s conclusion is that there is no moral right to porn. If there is no moral right, then there is no reason to support the legal right to pornography.  

3. Briefly explain Kant’s criticism of consequentialism.  What, according to Kant, makes an action a morally worthy action?

Consequentialism is a type of moral theory according to which consequences of actions are all that matter in determining the rightness and wrongness of actions. Immanuel Kant is a Deontologist and a strong believer in the normative ethic of Deontology; the study of the nature of duty and obligation. Kant criticized the idea of consequentialism by saying that the morality of an action cannot depend on the consequences, because the consequences of an action are completely out of the hands of our control.
According to Kant, what makes an action a morally worthy action would be to have that action performed only out of duty with the absence of any other incentives. He believes that our morals come from our direct power inside of us. “The moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect” (Disputed Moral Issues, 48-49). Kant has his or specific moral requirements that were derived from a fundamental moral principle called the categorical imperative. One of these categorical imperatives is called the Humanity formation. Humanity formation is “an action is right if and only if (and because) the action treats persons (including oneself) as ends in themselves and not as mere means” (Disputed Moral Issues, 16). Treating people as ends in themselves in a positive requirement to say that said person has a special worth or value that allows us to regard them in a positive way. Using this positive requirement, it allows us to treat people equally, which is the moral ‘Golden Rule’.

4.  List the four factors identified by Elliot that account for the widespread epidemic of psychopathology. Using one of the normative moral theories we have studied, identify and explain a moral problem with this trend.

There is not just one factor that explains many different disorders. “Different mental disorders occur in different populations, under different conditions, for different reasons” (3).  There are four factors identified by Elliot that account for the widespread epidemic of psychopathology or mental illness. These factors are the ascending biomedical model that is used in order to understand and explain psychological distress that is based on using facts and values; the paradoxical success of the biomedical model in treating mental illness; the user movement or advocacy groups; and the commercial movement.
One of the normative theories we have studied that relates to this issue is consequentialism. Consequentialism is the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences; consequences of actions are all that matter in determining the rightness and wrongness of actions. Using the four factors identified by Elliot, the commercial movement, it must sell the psychoactive medications and sell psychopathology to the patient and/or consumer of this product. Without the patient being fully convinced that they have this condition whether it is a physical illness or mental illness, there is not sale for pharmaceutical companies. They are not only selling these ideals on the commercials as seen on TV. They go far beyond with these companies donating to patient support and advocacy groups and sponsoring events to promote public awareness. The moral issue behind these pharmaceutical groups is they are a business wanting to convince people that they have certain diseases so they will buy these drugs even when they could possibly have nothing wrong with them. Far too many children today are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD from a young age and are told to take these drugs that unnecessary to put in their bodies. This is immoral to not just recognize that some children just naturally have more energy than others. Allowing them some more time to go outside, adventure, and not sit inside all day could naturally help instead of filling their young bodies with theses avoidable medications.