Comparing Kant And Aristotle's Theories On Abortion

Abortion

When it comes to abortion Kant’s position is better than Aristotle’s and should be used. Kant believed in Deontology; a duty theory. This theory stated that actions must be done because we know it is our duty. The duty would be to do the right thing even if it is contrary to our inclinations. Kant thought that more often than not our moral duty went against our personal desires because we are unable to separate emotion from reason. Abortion is a perfect example of this. Many abortions take place because the mothers feel as if having the child would ruin their lives. By doing this they are putting their morals aside to prevent an innocent child from what they think would be ruining their lives. Morality comes from doing your duty and

Kant understood our struggle of doing what we want to do and doing what we should do. So, in order to help determine the path that should be chosen; Kant developed the Categorical Imperative. This practice allows us to use autonomy, which he believed to be the best way for us to make decisions and follow through with our moral duties. Also, being able to us autonomy and think for ourselves increases the chances of the right decision being made. As humans, if we are being told what to do, it is our first instinct to do the complete opposite. Kant’s process allows us to put our emotions aside and focus on what we are actually about to do.
The Categorical Imperative consists of three concepts. These concepts were developed with the assumption that those who are using them, are rational adults. The reason we need these guide lines, is to be able to separate emotion from reason. When a woman becomes pregnant she is filled with many emotions. Some may be good, some may be bad, either way these emotions can cloud judgment. Our sensuous nature inhibits us from doing so on our own. Therefore all good Kantians must go through this method. Before moving through any of the stages you must identify a maxim. A maxim is what you are thinking about doing and why. The first concept, is the Universal Principle. This states that you should only act in agreeance with that maxim if it can become a universal law at the same time. For example, would we be ok with others fulling the maxim. The second is the Respect Principle. This principle states that you should always treat others on our behalf or those of another as an ends-in-themselves and never a means-to-an-end. Treating people as an end-in-themselves means they are respected as a human being. Treating people as a means-to-an-end, means they are an object there to serve another. By having an abortion you would be treating that child as a means-to-an-end. As if he/she is there only to serve you and if you see he/she as being unfit then you can just end his/her life. That child is a human being and should be respected as a human being and treated as an end-in-themselves.
Using the Categorical Imperative is the best way to deal with abortion. It was created to determine what is morally right, instead of letting someone make a decision clouded by emotions. This concept consists of a series of six steps that the maxim must comply with. The first step is to determine the maxim behind the action. For example, you are considering having an abortion because you feel as if having a baby at this point in your life would prevent you from doing what you want to do. So, the maxim for this scenario would be having an abortion to continue living out your life the way you planned it would be. The next step is to determine if this could be a universal law. Making this a universal law would mean that, not only does it apply to you, but to everyone. The third step is to ask yourself if you are willing to live in a world where the maxim is a universal law, valid for all people. Would it be acceptable for everyone to have an abortion? When asking yourself this, you must leave out the consequences. Consequences are out of our control, therefore cannot be used in the decision making process. On the fourth step you must ask yourself would this maxim treat others as beings worthy of dignity and respect. By fulfilling this duty, would you be treating others as you would want to be treated if you were on the opposite side of the situation? If you were the baby how would you feel if your mother was going to abort you? The fifth step is to determine if this maxim conflicts with an already existing duty. An example of this would be contradicting our duties to not lie, cheat, or steal. Step number six is to determine your duty. If your maxim fails any of the following steps then you should refrain from doing it, if it passes then it is your duty to do it. In my opinion the maxim does fail. I would not be comfortable with everyone having an abortion out of convenience. I am not willing to live in a world where this is accepted and if it were my mother in this situation I would not want her to abort me. This maxim also does not treat others as being worthy of respect and dignity. Therefore, according to the categorical imperative, it is your duty to not fulfill this maxim.
Aristotle uses the Practical Syllogism to explain the essence of possessing good character. Moral and intellectual virtues are used to describe the qualities of a good character. These are qualities that you would have to acquire over time. According to Aristotle, we are all born as political and rational animals; moving from potential to actual, but not all of us are able to obtain this goal or have this as a goal. According to this all of us would not be able to mature enough to reach this. To move from potential to actual you must fully develop their Nature and create conditions that are required for moving forward. The actual is also known as the end or the “good”. If Aristotle’s idea were to be used then it would basically take almost a life time to mature to this stage.
With Aristotle’s belief of political and rational animals moving from potential to actual; political animals are those who must have interaction with others.

For example, these animals will not thrive alone. The process of change for political animals starts with, political animals being the potential moving to the right desire, then ending with moral virtues being the actual. Rational animals are those who possess the ability to have deep and meaningful thought about the process you go through to reach their end or ‘good’. These animals could spend their lives in thought without engaging with others, but would not thrive. For rational animals the process starts with rational animals being the potential, moving to the right deliberation and ending with intellectual virtues being the actual. This change symbolizes the irrational part of the soul transitioning from nutritive, to perceptive or desiring, to rational. The nutritive aspect of the transition is where we are born. Here we are controlled by our lust. In the desiring stage we lead with our hearts and yearn for recognition. In the final rational stage we are controlled by our heads and are able to make decisions that result in the good for everyone. This process of change also ties into the Practical Syllogism. So, if we are ever able to possess the right traits, they take a long time. It would take years for our minds to develop enough for us to be able to make the moral decision. Let’s face it, not everyone that is capable of producing a child is capable of having deep and meaningful thought and in most cases the child is conceived through lust, leaving many stages for the parent to go through before being able to possess the right

traits.
Aristotle explains good character through Practical Syllogism. This idea states: 1. Right desire 2. Right deliberation, therefore 3. Right choice, that leads into the right action. Those with good character possess the ability of doing the right action, in the right way, to the right extent, for the right reason, while still feeling good about it. Many are unable to do this. In order for you to move to each stage the brain has to master that specific stage. For example the brain must have the right desire in order to move to the right deliberation. After this is accomplished the brain is able to think and rule on its own. These qualities come from the moral and intellectual virtues which start as political and rational animals. This idea is more about doing what you think could be right for you, rather than doing what could be better for others. In many cases where parent(s) are considering abortion they did not start off with having the right desires. Therefore, this prevents them from using the practical syllogism.
According to Aristotle women and “slaves” were unable to accomplish this. The term slaves in this context does not necessarily mean those ruled by others. It refers to those that need gratification from others. For example, they did not feel loved unless someone was telling them they were loved. These people give power to others, due to their own inabilities. “Subjects” were also not capable of accomplishing this because they could not direct themselves or moved toward a false end. In this context “Masters” were the only ones that could use the process; for their ability to make the good for themselves and community interchangeable. This idea only allows for one group of people to mature enough to make what they think is the right decision, that leaves a lot of people out. Especially with women being cut out of this group, they are the ones that are going to be carrying the child.
Moral and intellectual are the virtues possessed by the few “unqualified men” or moral