Which ethical theories limit grounds for abortion

[dms1972]

I would guess most systems of ethics in theory put some limits on under what grounds abortions (deliberately ending the life of an unborn baby) can be deemed ethical - I was wondering about Kantian Ethics, and Hegelian Ethics and how the issue of abortion would usually be addressed under those ethical theories?

I don't think a Bible believing christian can be wholly in agreeance with the philosophies of either Kant or Hegel, but I am interested in how they or ethics along either Kantian or Hegelian lines would address the problem of abortion.

Anyone familiar enough with these to offer some insights?

 

[public hermit]

I've tried to read Hegel.

I think your question in regards to Kant is interesting; although, I'm not sure how one might approach it. There are several versions of his categorical imperative. Here are a couple:

1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

2. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
(This one depends on some definition of what being human entails, which is a primary issue, not yet resolved,regarding abortion)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

How would CE place limits on abortion, or not? I'm not sure. Great question, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would guess most systems of ethics in theory put some limits on under what grounds abortions (deliberately ending the life of an unborn baby) can be deemed ethical - I was wondering about Kantian Ethics, and Hegelian Ethics and how the issue of abortion would usually be addressed under those ethical theories?

I don't think a Bible believing christian can be wholly in agreeance with the philosophies of either Kant or Hegel, but I am interested in how they or ethics along either Kantian or Hegelian lines would address the problem of abortion.

Anyone familiar enough with these to offer some insights?

Honestly, it's been a while since the time I took my Bio-Ethics classes which pertain to this very question, but if I remember what I studied back then (and I'd have to refresh and update my research since then), I'd say that there really aren't any non-Christian ethical positions that will seek to protect the unborn child.

If Kant had been asked about this kind of thing, I'd think he'd generally say "no, abortion is a bad idea," but I think that with him there'd be some qualification too since he also thought that a human being's autonomy hinged on his/her level of rational power. So, if a fetus were to be found to have, say, Down Syndrome or some other even more serious disorder before birth, or if he knew that a birth could prove detrimental to the well-being of a mother's health, then he'd likely subsume the value of the fetus into a lesser category and place it under and apart from the value and autonomy of the mother.

As for other ethical positions, I can't think of any that would press hard for pro-life leanings. I would think that a truly robust Pro-Life position can only be buttressed by the idea that human beings have been specially Created by a Supreme Creator who values them and loves them. Without this axiomatic fixture at the center of whatever ethical system is at play, then the human fetus simply becomes a secondary consideration.

 

[com7fy8]

Anyone familiar enough with these to offer some insights?

How about if you give us a simple summary of what you understand that each philosopher says, that is relevant to abortion? And then we can say if and how we think it relates to abortion.

I'll try . . . after a very brief Net investigation > Kant thinks there are morals, that these are not based on consequences of our actions but morals need to be guided by our duty.

So, in the case of a possible abortion, then, I suppose he would ask is it the duty of the person to keep the child . . . or the duty to kill the child? I suppose he might say it is the duty to keep the mother alive, but her duty to care for her child if she can. So, there might be cases in which he would say it is duty not to have an abortion . . . maybe for the mother's own good, even, so she would not later have conscience problems, and for the good of other family members who need to love and therefore need her child to love. But what if she was an essential law enforcement or military person or other professional highly needed, and ones could be in trouble if she stopped her work, even just long enough to have proper medical care while giving birth to her baby?

Duty alone could be argued in different ways, I can see.

It seems Hegel believed there is such a thing as what is rational, and what is rational is so clear that you can have very clear ideals to go by. So, what would be the rational ideal to go by, in the case of considering an abortion, then? I suppose one ideal would be, "Don't do what can hurt anyone." But this might not answer if the unborn is someone, or not. And in case a woman wants to kill, essentially, the one she fears her child will become later in her life . . . is that good for her? And in case she already fears/hates that potential future person . . . would it be good for him or her to be born and then live with someone who is so able to hate and fear him or her? Well, she might be in for a surprise, how a mother can plan to give birth to her child and not keep him or her, but then she can so bond with her baby at birth. Are there women who fear falling in love with their babies, then? Ones have been hurt in the sort of love that they fell into, possibly; so, for all I know, a woman could fear this happening with someone she can't later just dump or divorce. The ideal might not be clear, might not be rational . . . considering how unique and complicated each person can be.

Ok, so I have bluffed being a philosopher. You are welcome to make a more clear summary of each guy, if you please so we can comment on how you understand Kant and Hegel.

 

[dms1972]

I would say Hegel is rather obscure in much of his philosophy. So maybe we leave him till another time.

It is not possible to ask Kant personally, we can only look at elements of his theory - but its not possible for those who follow his idea to avoid the question.


Kant's writings are somewhat torturous to study in places. I read some of his philosophy and have come across summaries of his ethics - but I don't want to revisit his writing needlessly. There is the aspect of the need for a good will in his philosophy, but he also introduces the idea of radical evil or something in human nature that can deflect one from keeping the moral law. He seems to believe people can be given a push in the right direction, but he doesn't address past sin and its forgiveness.

Three aspects that need consideration in any position on the subject are:

Autonomy
Beneficiency
Justice.

It is how these can be held together is the question, but the question of the status (rather than the viability) of embryo / fetus / unborn baby is still debated. But its not a merely academic question either.

Abortion from a Bioethical Viewpoint: Autonomy and Beneficency versus Justice? (longdom.org)

Euphemisms such as "reproductive rights" mask a more difficult and stark reality that some people don't wish to talk about.

I take the view that when the fetus has developed to have a beating heart, the deliberate ending of its life is a much more serious matter, not that it is unserious before that, it is always a matter of seriousness. Seriousness implies the need for careful ethic consideration at all points. But I review my thinking on it. I just find it hard to say its all the same whether in the first couple of weeks or after 6 months.

 

[hedrick]

I’m not sure this is a question ethical approaches can handle. The issue is when human life begins. That depends upon things like the nature of the soul, how we get or become one, whether the image of God requires consciousness, etc. As far as I know ethical theories don’t deal with that.

 

[stevevw]

I would guess most systems of ethics in theory put some limits on under what grounds abortions (deliberately ending the life of an unborn baby) can be deemed ethical - I was wondering about Kantian Ethics, and Hegelian Ethics and how the issue of abortion would usually be addressed under those ethical theories?

I don't think a Bible believing christian can be wholly in agreeance with the philosophies of either Kant or Hegel, but I am interested in how they or ethics along either Kantian or Hegelian lines would address the problem of abortion.

Anyone familiar enough with these to offer some insights?

I think Utilitarianism (consequentialism) is the best fit for the abortion issue at least from the atheist side as it doesn't have any absolute value on human life so avoids moral questions about when human life begins. Its about maximizing whats best for society so fits in with secular government systems.

Secular laws have to accomodate rights based laws as human/group rights are seen as fundemental. But identity politics feeds into some narratives that overlook the facts. Basically abortion is about "Life" upholding life. So the issue is whether the Fetus is life or not. If we determined that the Fetus was a human life then I don't think many people would be having abortions.

 

[J_B_]

It's a rare person who contemplates Kant's position (or any moral system) on anything as a means for making a decision in a frightening, lonely, emotionally painful moment. That type of thinking comes from the pressure (or support, depending on how you view it) of the people/family/community surrounding the pregnant mother.

But in a society (e.g. American) that values individual rights above all things, the prevailing pressure at the moment is to force a separation between the mother and that community as a means to "protect" her rights and force her to make the decision on her own. Until that type of ludicrous thinking is put to rest, moral arguments aren't going to change a thing.