The Golden Rule Argument Against Abortion

1679 Words4 Pages

Golden Rule and Abortion In his essay “Against the Golden Rule Argument Against Abortion,” David Boonin-Vail argues against R. M. Hare and Harry J. Gensler. He states both versions of the golden rule should be rejected. The golden rule is a biblical rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt. 7:12). Boonin-Vail maintains that both Hare’s and Gensler’s interpretations are not adequate enough in stating that the golden rule shows abortion to be immoral for various reasons.
I will not be arguing that the golden rule argument is sound. I agree with Boonin-Vail’s reasoning. However, I believe that his argument falls short when criticizing the implication of contraception for the same reason as abortion. To better understand Boonin-Vail’s argument I will reformulate it and later on further explain each premise: P1: Both versions of the golden rule argument are objectionable,
P2: Both versions are unable to avoid the implication of contraception,
P3: Both versions are unable to support satisfactorily modified conclusions, P4: Arguments that avoid future implications (such …show more content…

Simply having the argument look like this: P1: Both versions of the golden rule argument are objectionable,
P2: Both versions are unable to support satisfactorily modified conclusions, P3: Arguments that are objectionable and unable to support satisfactorily modified conclusions should be rejected C: Therefore, both versions of the golden rule should be rejected.
To reemphasize, applying the golden rule to abortion does not make for a sound argument. However, Boonin-Vail’s criticism of Hare and Genseler’s philosophies pertaining to this application, is not completely unflawed either. Boonin-Vail would make for a stronger argument if he does not address his second premise, not allowing for future objections to his main

Open Document