Case Study : Deontology
It is difficult to say whether Susan’s decision is moral or not. This is because of the way an abortion is being used. This non-traditional manner makes one question all of the conditions surrounding the case when deciding the morality of her decision. The facts of the case are this; Susan has put her life on hold to have a family, she is the primary care taker of a very large family, she wants to return to her fulfilling life in the legal system, she then finds out that she is pregnant with a fetus that has Down syndrome, and she decides to have an abortion.
In Kantian deontology we must consider who is being affected by the decision because the categorical imperative must be met in order for this act to be considered morally correct. The categorical imperative here relies on what Susan is using as a way to get to her final goal of returning to her legal career. It gets tricky because normally, Kantian theorist would say it is morally wrong to have another human suffer to fulfill your own needs, but in the case of abortion the line between personhood and not is a blurred lined between theorists. In my eyes I agree with Thomson, that a clump of cells, not able to feel pain, should not be considered a human and therefore Susan is acting morally in relation to the fetus. Deontologists do not consider the uncertainty of the future when deciding what is moral or not and since we have considered the fetus non-human than the future of the handicapped fetus is not taken into consideration.
However, it is unclear if the husband knew about the genetic testing or the pregnancy in general. I am however sure that the husband would not be considered in methods to care for the child. So although Susan is denying her husband the right to another child, another offspring to carry on his genetics (the goal of reproduction), it seems that the emotional experience with the child would not be felt if the child was born or not. That is why I think the Rossian deontologist would agree that the prima facie duty in this case is duty to oneself, not duty as a wife or as a pregnant woman. The prima facie duty takes in consideration all of the conditions of the case and would agree that for Susan to be happy and fulfilled she had to go through with the abortion.
It may seem cruel but the most important aspect is for Susan to retain her autonomy, and her civil right to govern her body as she may. Susan reminds me of Hornstra, and how she put her career before having a baby. I think Hornstra and Susan would agree that their bodies and their futures would come before a clump of cells.
Some questions to consider:
Utilitarian’s take into account the uncertainty of the future, but what would bring the greatest suffering for the future, Susan’s unhappiness? A handicapped life of the child? A familial rift between a husband and wife?
Which is more important fulfilling your duty to the community or to nature (mother hood)?
Would you consider abortion active euthanasia? And if so, who would you consider responsible for the abortion, the mother or the physician performing the act?
Meta
Who’s online
New Posts
- Debate: Abortion (No)
- ‘Yes’ opposing legalized abortion imposes a moral obligation to adopt
- Increasing Restrictions Leading to Alternative Methods.
- News Article- High school health center aiding in abortion?
- Case Study:Abortion (Care Ethics)
- Case Study : Deontology
Recent Comments
- Jacqueline Falk on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jacqueline Falk on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jacqueline Falk on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jacqueline Falk on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jacqueline Falk on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jacqueline Falk on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jacqueline Falk on ‘Yes’ opposing legalized abortion imposes a moral obligation to adopt
- Albert Thomas on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Marisa on ‘Yes’ opposing legalized abortion imposes a moral obligation to adopt
- Tasha on Debate: Abortion (No)
- Jennifer on ‘Yes’ opposing legalized abortion imposes a moral obligation to adopt
- Jennifer on Debate: Abortion (No)
Twitter Stream:
"FDR once said that we have nothing to feat but fear itself. Therefore women have no reason to fear serial rapists." #PHIL148 #SexismIsFunny3 months ago
We're currently discussing what kinds of chairs there are in the world.. #phil148 #swirlychair8 months ago
and I'm missing another today because of the #Rockies game. meaning I have to go to #PHIL148 in order to not feel like a failure today.20 months ago
So NOW Tweet Blender updates and starts showing all the tweets from #phil148 on the course site? Too late!23 months ago
@5Ralph3 it's interesting that more educated women were most likely to abort their female fetuses #phil14823 months ago
June 29th, 2011 - 13:46
Taking deontology as my stance as well i agree with you that this case gets a little tricky. It comes down to whether or not the fetus or as Thomson puts it “a little clump of cells unable to feel pain” is considered a person that can be used for Susan’s end. I am in disagreement here where i beleive the fetus is indeed a person and by Susan getting the abortion she is using her unborn child as a means to her end to return to practicing law. As Marquis states in his reading that killing is wrong becasue we are denying the victim any sort of future. Although a child with down syndrome’s future may appear dim at first glance, it is still a future which must be repected.
I personally would allow my wife to get the abortion if i was in a similar situation becasue i would be content with the large family I already would have. I also would understand the serious financial strain a mentally ill child will have on my family and I am probably already having a hard time making ends meet with four children.
The Utilitarian perspective also seems a bit tricky. It would be hard to determine which would have more negative effect on the family either having the child and Susan never returning to work or Susan getting the abortion and threatening her relationship with her husband. I think from a utilitarian perspective she should have the child because it would create the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Susan would also be commended for her utilitarian sacrifice of her profession but this is a sacrifice many mothers already make.
June 29th, 2011 - 18:08
So your saying that this decision is morally wrong but you, yourself, would allow your wife to go through with the abortion? As for drawing a line for personhood it is a personal choice. Using what standard do you consider being a person or not? I choose to believe that until the clump of cells responds to pain than it should not be considered a fetus. A sperm and egg can be brought together on a petri dish and used for experimentation then disposed of. It would contain all the genetic information that could lead to a human but still should not be considered a fetus but it cannot respond to pain. Do you consider disposing the cells on the petri dish to be an abortion?
June 29th, 2011 - 14:34
I thought taking the deontology stand would be hard, but you did a very good job at it. From a utilitarianism stand I would agree with you that it would be moral for Susan to have an abortion. Utilitarianism says that the good have to outweigh the evil in order for the situation to be moral. In this case more people would be happy if she got the abortion because in terms of her four children that she already has they would lose attention and opportunities if there was another, let alone another child who had Down’s syndrome. As well as if Susan had an abortion she could return back to the work force which is something that she wants and she is upset that she gave up her career in order to have a family. They would all benefit from her having an abortion because there will be more money within the family is she goes back to work, so it will allow them to do more things. The only person that could feel as if they are losing would be her husband, but since it is not him who gave up his career and it is not him who would be carrying and taking care of the baby then he should not have a say in what happens. I think this may cause problems in their relationship, but in the end more people would be happy, so the good would outweigh the evil, leading to it being morally correct for Susan to have an abortion. Do you think the situation would change if he was willing to give up his career to raise this child?
June 29th, 2011 - 18:17
I do infact think the situation would change but I also think it would change the morality of the situation. As deontologists regard morality they if you use someone else as a means to your ends then this act is morally wrong. For example since Susan’s husband is no longer able to have a career of his own for the sake of Susan’s career that is a new condition to consider and would be considered immoral. Not to mention, having the child, money and resources would be used on check-ups and doctors for a child with special needs this could pay a toll on the family, especially with only one income. Also, being pregnant for 9 months is something Susan has gone through 4 times. It pays a toll on the body and the more children you have the more likely there are to be complications with the pregnancy and birth.
June 30th, 2011 - 14:16
I agree with you that the situation woould change, but in terms of an utilitarianism stand point it would still be moral to have an abortion because the family would be greatly affected by the father not working. Susan would not be able to support the family on her income ans therefore it would be hurting more than helping.
June 29th, 2011 - 17:30
You’re certainly right, as Jacqueline and Sam have stated- that the deontological stance is a bit tricky (especially with regards to “personhood)- though you definitely did an excellent job of analyzing it. Using Thomson’s arguments certainly would make Susan’s actions moral from a deontological sense. I really liked the way you pointed out the the future is irrelevant to a deontologist, thus the handicapped status of the child in the future is does not effect the morality of the abortion itself.
In response to your question about utilitarianism- I think that the best option from a utilitarian perspective would be for Susan to go through the abortion, even though the future is uncertain. Although she may have guilt over aborting the child or even for being dishonest with her husband, this suffering would be outweighed by the fact that Susan and Rick would not have to bear the burden of having to care for a special needs child, they would have more time to focus on their other four children and Susan especially would be able to return to her career. This may sound relatively harsh, but I truly think that’s what the utilitarian would say is for the better.
In terms of fulfilling your duty to a “community” v “motherhood- I think the answer really and truly is up to the woman in question. I assume that by community you mean career, as in a contribution to society– Susan is already a mother and it seems that she is looking to increase her interest and dedication into a career, thus for her at this point in her life maybe she feels that she’s truly meant to return to her career and not become a mother to another child who will need extensive care. It’s not as if her role as mother to her other children will necessarily be compromised by her returning to her work, especially if it’s part time.
I don’t think abortion can necessarily be considered “active euthanasia” especially since, as you pointed out, the concept of “personhood” is quite fuzzy. It’s not as if a fetus in the first trimester would be able to survive without the care of it’s mother and it’s not as if anyone else would be able to influence how the mother takes care of the child, as the mother truly is their only “lifeline.” So it that sense I don’t think it’s necessarily “euthanasia,” especially since the fetus hasn’t technically begun to “live” yet. Interesting question though, what are your thoughts?
June 29th, 2011 - 18:21
I agree I do not consider it euthansia for the reasons you have stated. The fact that I do not consider it a person, I do not consider it euthanasia.
June 29th, 2011 - 22:29
Do you think that from a deontological perspective there is possibly another wrong being committed by Susan, her decision to withhold information from Rick? Do you think that she has any sort of obligation to at least share this information with him, if she’s already decided what choice she will make?
July 1st, 2011 - 13:59
I did adress why I beleive that withholding the information from the husband would be excusable. I believe that since the husband does not play an intergral role in raising the children now, that he would not play a role if the child were to be born. Therefore, she does not have an obligation to tell him because he would not be affected by the decision to keep it or not. Thats why she isnt effectively lieing to him, instead she is just not having a conversation. Just in the same way you are not telling your bus driver if you did or did not eat breakfast, he does not care for ur health, he just fulfills his duty to get you from one place to another. The father here acts as the bus driver and fulfills his duty to make money to support the family, and does not care by which means members of the family are proquering their nutrition.
July 1st, 2011 - 22:40
@Erika, I’m not sure if I can necessarily agree with your stance that just because a parent is working that he does not play an “integral role” in raising the child. If both parents work full time and put their children in daycare, are they then failing to play an integral role in raising their own children?
In terms of lying, I feel that not sharing information that concerns Rick’s own child is simply a lie by omission. I think that Rick’s interest in his own child is much more warranted and relevant than a buss driver’s interest in what you had for breakfast. I’m all for women’s rights, but I don’t think reducing the role of a father and husband to only “making to support the family” if actually quite wrong from a deontological perspective as it is using the father/husband as only a means towards a achieving a certain standard of living. The viewpoint that you expressed is extremely problematic and unfairly threatens not only a father’s role as a parent- but the roles of working parents regardless of sex.
June 29th, 2011 - 19:37
You mention that the prima facia duty is to oneself and not a duty as a wife or a pregnant woman. I think that this is in line with virtue ethics. Virtue ethics requires us to be compassionate and sensitive to the womans needs and if we are to follow this ethical perspective then we must see Susan’s decision as a a decision for herself and not a decision as a wife or a pregnant woman. Virtue ethics would support Susan’s decision as long as it is deliberated morally and that she takes all factors into consideration. Using our compassion and sensitivity we must understand that Susan has wanted to get back into her career for a very long time and this child has just interrupted that long lost dream. Furthermore, the child is disabled which would mean a difficult life for the child and that Susan and Rick would have to use their free time spent taking care of the child rather than spending it with the other children. Even in the utilitarian perspective this is not for the greater good since most of the family would want Susan’s support and attention, and a disabled child would deprive the rest of the family of that privilege.
Brody would say that Susan has the right to her body and that would justofy her not informing Rick of her decision. Hornstra’s article gives a us a slight insight inot Susan’s situation since she shows us a first person perspective of a woman considering abortion. Virtue ethics can greatly benefit from a first person perspective such as Hornstra’s because it can helps us identify with the person in question, increasing our compassion and sensitivity for them and their predicament. Thompson also agrees with the views of virtue ethics in saying that the woman has a right to her body and should not be held back because of a being that depends on her body for sutenance, like the idea of the violinist attached to the person. Susan has a right to her body and should not be restricted because this child depends on her for support.
I think the utilitarian would see Susans’s unhappiness, the difficult life of the child and the time and attention Susan and Rick would have to devote to the disabled child as the least beneficial for the greater good. Utilitarianism would see the greater good as Susan being happy and being able to devote her time and devotion to the other children, rather than the child with down syndrome.
Can fulfiliing the duty to the community and the duty to nature be considered the same thing sometimes? In this case it can be that Susan is fulflling her duty to the community by preventing the child from entering a life of hard ship and she is fulfilling her duty to nature by being a caring mother for the children she already has.
I would consider abortion active voluntary euthanasia since the mother has the final say in what is done to the baby.
July 1st, 2011 - 14:01
Right, i didnt want to emphasize the fact about the childs future because deontologist would not factor in a future of a non-person. But i disagree that I would consider an abortion before the 10th week to be active euthansia. Because euthansia is a term resevered for the killing of humans, and i do not consider the fetus at this time to be human.
June 29th, 2011 - 22:13
Erika, arguing from a deontology perspective and taking your personal views into consideration I would have to disagree with you in your stance in this matter. You mentioned that “in the case of [an] abortion [that] the line between personhood and not is a blurred lined between theorists”, of which I would have to agree, and then go on to say that you personally agree with Thomson’s understanding of personhood (that a clump of cells not being able to feel pain, should not be considered a human). I disagree with you on the latter simply because of the fact that a fetus is no longer a clump of cells. After, say 7 weeks of development the embryo begins to take the shape and form of a human being as it continues to develop major organs (such as the heart, brain,etc). I would assume that the prenatal test was conducted during the 10-12 week of her pregnancy (because that’s the time frame in which such tests are usually conducted). During this time it is definite that the fetus can feel some kind of pain. It can then be argued that the fetus is indeed a person and that Kantian deontology would disagree with the abortion.
“In the Kantian system, among the most notable of our perfect duties to others are (1) the duty not to kill an innocent person.” If the fetus is a person then Susan would be violating this duty by having an abortion. She would also be found guilty of using this act as a mere means to an end. It is obvious that the abortion is being carried out because of the burden that it may have on the family and Susan’s desire to work again. However going through with it, when looked at from a deontology point of view, denies the unborn child the respect that it deserves. It can be viewed as saying “I don’t want you to live because you do not fit into my plan in life right now.” To a child not only is this hurtful but disrespectful. Deontology, therefore, does not agree with this an act.
Also in a marriage one can easily consider Susan’s decision to not tell her husband about her condition a lie and lies are not tolerated as a part of the deontology theory. Her husband may eventually agree with her decision to have an abortion but he is not being told about this possibility. Susan is withholding information that affects both her and her husband. He should therefore be informed and involved in the decision making. Susan not saying a word to him about it, is withholding information and thus lying.
July 1st, 2011 - 14:07
Right so our disagreement here lies on the line of what is to be considered a person or not. Do you feel that abortion at any point should be seen as immoral? Do you also feel that the act of abortion is active euthansia? For your arguement you are considering the fetus to be a child with a future, for my arguement I do not. I also dont think as I pointed out to Marisa that she is not lieing, she is just not having a discussion about it. But i stated why this is exusable in the response to marisa, because he would not play a role of caring for the child an emotional, or physical level. He is there to provide monatry compensation, and one less person to compensate for would actually be a postive for him.
June 30th, 2011 - 00:00
I’m not sure if I would agree that Susan put her life on hold to take care of the children. What I took from the case study is that Susan decided to give her career up in order to take care of the children, with the belief that she would really enjoy it. After ten years and four children, Susan is deciding that she would like to pick up on the career that she gave up, as she wants more than to stay home and take care of children. I think that Susan is regretting her initial choice to give up a legal career, and is changing her mind a little too late. The reason I say this is because it seems as if Susan is backing out of the initial plan of a big family. Four children is certainly plenty, but is that what Susan and her husband consider a big family? Perhaps it is to Susan, as she doesn’t really want any more children. However, Susan shows no concern for what her husband considers to be a big family, and that lack of care implies that Susan is not really concerned with her husband’s intentions with the family, but wishes instead to follow her own path. From a virtue ethics standpoint, Susan is not being a right person and showing good virtue in her decision.