Section A: Applied Ethics 1. Q: Should Baby Theresa have been killed so that her organs could be used to save other children? Why or why not? State a position on this controversial case, and offer at least 2 reasons in support of your view. A: Despite great internal controversy, I believe that Baby Theresa’s organs should have been harvested even though it cost her her life. This is because of the fact that she had been deemed mentally impaired due to anencephaly, implying that she would never obtain satisfactory physical or mental functioning. One way to understand my point of view is to look at the dilemma from a Utilitarianism standpoint. Baby Theresa has no use for her organs due to the fact that the signals in her brain are too damaged to relay information to and from her organs. However, there are other children who need transplants for treatable medical conditions and will die without them. As a result, instead of sacrificing the lives of numerous other children who had potential for a fulfilling life, the decision was made to harvest her organs. Another way to understand is to realize that Baby Theresa was not simply used as a mere means to solely benefit others. This was her only opportunity to make a significant contribution to humanity, so instead of letting it go to waste, the doctors and parents made a justifiable choice. Looking at it from a scientific perspective, she had no mental capacity to make decisions for herself or to express her autonomy. The responsibility was placed upon the parents and the doctors to do so, and collectively. In the end, they managed to avoid a slippery slope fallacy by making this decision, but sparked great controversy doing it. Many claimed that it was an act against God to inte... ... middle of paper ... ...e "truth" about a particular subject matter and that it does not follow from the fact that there is a disagreement about what the truth is (The Cultural Differences Argument, 2014). People disagree about the right answer to a question, but it doesn’t explain that there are no right answers to that question. Maybe there are no right answers to moral questions, but the mere fact people disagree about the answers to moral questions doesn’t show this. What is right for a society is determined by whatever its moral code says is right, not what is universally accepted by society as a whole. As a result, numerous interpretations of this argument are floating around in the world of philosophy. If we cannot conclusively develop a universal understanding of the argument, because of our conflicting views, the argument will never develop into an objectively understood concept.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
Thomson’s main idea is to show why Pro-Life Activists are wrong in their beliefs. She also wants to show that even if the fetus inside a women’s body had the right to life (as argued by Pro – Lifers), this right does not entail the fetus to have whatever it needs to survive – including usage of the woman’s body to stay alive.
But in another one of her arguments, Jarvis says that it seems like it is not morally permissible to kill a child. Take one of her thought experiments, called the violinist case; You wake up in a hospital with a famous violinist attached to your kidneys, and he needs use of your kidneys for nine months. (1) Every person has a right to life. (2) The violinist is a person. (3) Therefore the violinist has a right to life. (C) It is impermissible to unplug the violinist. This is an analogy towards rape. The violinist is the baby and the music society is the
...nstitute and took up a role as a domestic worker and was a dedicated reader until her death in 1983. This, opposition of sterilization would say, shows that even those deemed as "feebleminded" can actually be productive members of society and should not lose their rights to an arbitrary line drawn by society's "best".
Moral relativism maintains that objective moral truth does not exist, and there need not be any contradiction in saying a single action is both moral and immoral depending on the relative vantage point of the judge. Moral relativism, by denying the existence of any absolute moral truths, both allows for differing moral opinions to exist and withholds assent to any moral position even if universally or nearly universally shared. Strictly speaking, moral relativism and only evaluates an action’s moral worth in the context of a particular group or perspective. The basic logical formulation for the moral relativist position states that different societies have empirically different moral codes that govern each respective society, and because there does not exist an objective moral standard of judgment, no society’s moral code possesses any special status or maintains any moral superiority over any other society’s moral code. The moral relativist concludes that cultures cannot evaluate or criticize other cultural perspectives in the absence of any objective standard of morality, essentially leveling all moral systems and limiting their scope to within a given society.
Many arguments in the abortion debate assume that the morality of abortion depends upon the moral status of the foetus. While I regard the moral status of the foetus as important, it is not the central issue that determines the moral justifiability of abortion. The foetus may be awarded a level of moral status, nevertheless, such status does not result in the prescription of a set moral judgement. As with many morally significant issues, there are competing interests and a variety of possible outcomes that need to be considered when making a moral judgement on abortion. While we need to determine the moral status of the foetus in order to establish the type of entity we are dealing with, it does not, however, exist in a moral vacuum. There are other key issues requiring attention, such as the moral status and interests of the pregnant woman who may desire an abortion, and importantly, the likely consequences of aborting or not aborting a particular foetus. Furthermore, I assert that moral status should be awarded as a matter of degree, based upon the capacities of sentience and self-consciousness an entity possesses. In a bid to reach a coherent conclusion on the issue, the moral status of both foetus and woman, along with the likely results of aborting a particular foetus, must be considered together. Given the multiple facets requiring consideration, I assert that utilitarianism (Mill 1863) offers a coherent framework for weighing and comparing the inputs across a variety of situations, which can determine whether it is ever morally justifiable to have an abortion.
Abortion is a considered a sensitive topic in society; as a result it is not frequently mentioned or discussed. However; Marquis has decided to voice his opinion on the matter.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, in "A Defense of Abortion", argues that even if we grant that fetuses have a fundamental right to life, in many cases the rights of the mother override the rights of a fetus. For the sake of argument, Thomson grants the initial contention that the fetus has a right to life at the moment of conception. However, Thomson explains, it is not self-evident that the fetus's right to life will always outweigh the mother's right to determine what goes on in her body. Thomson also contends that just because a woman voluntarily had intercourse, it does not follow that the fetus acquires special rights against the mother. Therefore, abortion is permissible even if the mother knows the risks of having sex. She makes her points with the following illustration. Imagine that you wake up one morning and find that you have been kidnapped, taken to a hospital, and a famous violist has been attached to your circulatory system. You are told that the violinist was ill and you were selected to be the host, in which the violinist will recover in nine months, but will die if disconnected from you before then. Clearly, Thomson argues, you are not morally required to continue being the host. In her essay she answers the question: what is the standard one has to have in order to be granted a right to life? She reflects on two prospects whether the right to life is being given the bare minimum to sustain life or ir the right to life is merely the right not to be killed. Thomson states that if the violinist has more of a right to life then you do, then someone should make you stay hooked up to the violinist with no exceptions. If not, then you should be free to go at a...
The permissibility of abortion has been a crucial topic for debates for many years. People have yet to agree upon a stance on whether abortion is morally just. This country is divided into two groups, believers in a woman’s choice to have an abortion and those who stand for the fetus’s right to live. More commonly these stances are labeled as pro-choice and pro-life. The traditional argument for each side is based upon whether a fetus has a right to life. Complications occur because the qualifications of what gives something a right to life is not agreed upon. The pro-choice argument asserts that only people, not fetuses, have a right to life. The pro-life argument claims that fetuses are human beings and therefore they have a right to life. Philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, rejects this traditional reasoning because the right of the mother is not brought into consideration. Thomson prepares two theses to explain her reasoning for being pro-choice; “A right to life does not entail the right to use your body to stay alive” and “In the majority of cases it is not morally required that you carry a fetus to term.”
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
Another basic argument she claims is that the mother also has a right to decide what happens in and to her body but the fetus 's right to live outweighs the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body. Therefore, Thomson opposes abortion and claims that a fetus may not be killed unjustly and an abortion may not be performed. Whether the unborn person uses of its mother’s body, because the un-born person has a right to live and use its mother’s body, abortion is unjust killing per Thomson.
Thomson’s argument is presented in three components. The first section deals with the now famous violinist thought experiment. This experiment presents a situation in which you wake up one morning and discover you have been kidnapped and hooked up to an ailing violinist so that his body would have the use of your kidneys for the next nine months. The intuitive and instinctive reaction to this situation is that you have no moral duty to remain hooked up to the violinist, and more, that he (or the people who kidnapped you) does not have the right to demand the use of your body for this period. From a deontological point of view, it can be seen that in a conflict between the right of life of the fetus and the right to bodily integrity of the mother, the mother’s rights will trump those of the fetus. Thomson distills this by saying “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”.
The issue that this essay is dedicated to assist to this never ending battle of abortion. This essay will be written from the point of a pro-abortion utilitarian however I must also consider the argument against abortion to get a full understanding of how serious this issue is, the against argument is of a deontological stand-point. First while I argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that I is always permissible. It allows for and supports our sense, for an example, that Ms Judith Jarvis Thompson states in her A Defence of Abortion, “a sick and frightened teenaged school girl who is pregnant due to being raped may choose abortion and it should be morally permissible however choosing to terminate your pregnancy when you are
Everyday, innocent, harmless fetuses that could soon be laughing children are being cruelly destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the fetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece-by-piece from the uterus by suction with a vacuum aspirator. Another form consists of bringing the fetus feet first into the birth canal, puncturing its skull with a sharp instrument and sucking out the brain tissue. The remains of the fetus or embryo, as the case may be, are put into plastic buckets and then sent to a dumpster where these precious bones and limbs are disposed. However, how and when an abortion takes place are of little significance to pro- abortionists and other defenders of abortion. Even former abortion practitioners have a new view on abortion. These changes of heart were caused by psychological, religious and scientific reasons. One doctor, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, performed 60,000 abortions and supervised 10,000. Scientific evidence and the use of an ultrasound convinced him he was promoting and participating what he now calls “the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States.” Other doctors refuse to perform legal abortions, saying they should save lives rather than destroy them.