WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

[Dachshund]

ABORTION AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE


I know that Kantian morality has its critics, but nonetheless I think it can still be interesting to apply KANT's ethical theory to some of the controversial moral questions we are struggling with today in the West. The opinion of the greatest of the Enlightenment's thinkers/ethical theorists should surely be worth something?

Kant believed that moral laws could be derived purely from human reason, and that all immoral (bad) behaviour is unreasonable and irrational.

One of Kant's best known moral notions is called the Categorical Imperative, and when it is applied to the question of abortion, the results are interesting.

The Categorical Imperative is basically a law of morality that ALL humans MUST obey. Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is as follows...


"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."


Kant believed that ALL moral duties/obligations could be derived from this.

What the Categorical Imperative means, in essence, is that if you want to decide whether an act is morally good, then you should be able to will that EVERYONE ELSE would act in the same way. In other words, the act must be universalisable.

So, what would Kant say to the woman who wants an abortion? He would say something like this: "Can you will that every other woman would have an abortion when she is pregnant?" If she says, "No", the abortion cannot be moral.

It seems to me that a woman who wanted to have an abortion COULD NOT will that every other woman also have an abortion when she is pregnant. Why? Because in one generation the human race would go extinct and then NOBODY could have an abortion. To will that all women have abortions would mean that NO woman could have an abortion after the current generation died off. By Kant's reasoning, this would make abortion irrational, and therefore, immoral.

Again, according to Kant, abortion would be immoral because it would be irrational to will that every pregnant woman have an abortion. The act of every pregnant woman aborting the foetus inside her would, ultimately end abortion.

Finally, this means, fundamentally, that those who support a woman's choice to have an abortion, can only support SOME women choosing abortion, not all.

Presumably and Ironically, if ALL women decided to have abortions, the pro - choice movement would have to become pro - life (??!!)

Regards


Dachshund

[-1-]

Re: WHAT WOULD KANT SAY ABOUT ABORTION ?

I KAN'T SAY.

[Logik]

The act of every pregnant woman aborting the foetus inside her would, ultimately end abortion.

Is that a consequentialist or a Kantian line of reasoning?

[-1-]

ABORTION AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE


I know that Kantian morality has its critics, but nonetheless I think it can still be interesting to apply KANT's ethical theory to some of the controversial moral questions we are struggling with today in the West. The opinion of the greatest of the Enlightenment's thinkers/ethical theorists should surely be worth something?

Kant believed that moral laws could be derived purely from human reason, and that all immoral (bad) behaviour is unreasonable and irrational.

One of Kant's best known moral notions is called the Categorical Imperative, and when it is applied to the question of abortion, the results are interesting.

The Categorical Imperative is basically a law of morality that ALL humans MUST obey. Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is as follows...


"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."


Kant believed that ALL moral duties/obligations could be derived from this.

What the Categorical Imperative means, in essence, is that if you want to decide whether an act is morally good, then you should be able to will that EVERYONE ELSE would act in the same way. In other words, the act must be universalisable.

So, what would Kant say to the woman who wants an abortion? He would say something like this: "Can you will that every other woman would have an abortion when she is pregnant?" If she says, "No", the abortion cannot be moral.

It seems to me that a woman who wanted to have an abortion COULD NOT will that every other woman also have an abortion when she is pregnant. Why? Because in one generation the human race would go extinct and then NOBODY could have an abortion. To will that all women have abortions would mean that NO woman could have an abortion after the current generation died off. By Kant's reasoning, this would make abortion irrational, and therefore, immoral.

Again, according to Kant, abortion would be immoral because it would be irrational to will that every pregnant woman have an abortion. The act of every pregnant woman aborting the foetus inside her would, ultimately end abortion.

Finally, this means, fundamentally, that those who support a woman's choice to have an abortion, can only support SOME women choosing abortion, not all.

Presumably and Ironically, if ALL women decided to have abortions, the pro - choice movement would have to become pro - life (??!!)

Regards


Dachshund

TAKE THE CASE OF A WOMAN WHO HAS A FETUS WITH TWO HEADS, AND SHE AND THE FETUS ARE DIAGNOSED TO DIE DURING CHILDBIRTH.

ASK THE WOMAN: "WOULD YOU HAVE ALL THE WOMEN IN THE WORLD NOT HAVE AN ABORTION?" SHE WOULD THINK OF WOMEN IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS TO HERSELF, AND SHE'D SAY, "NO, I DON'T WANT THAT."

THEREFORE ALL WOMEN OUGHT TO HAVE ABORTIONS.

THIS IS TO ILLUSTRATE THE FUTILITY OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

THE COUNTER ARGUMENT BEING THAT TO YOU AN ABORTION IS AN ABORTION IS AN ABORTION. THAT IS, IN MY OWN PRIVATE OPINION, THE WRONG WAY TO LOOK AT THE QUESTION.

BECAUSE THE LEADING CAUSE TO HAVE AN ABORTION PERFORMED IS NOT THE SAME IN EACH CASE.

IN A HAPPY MARRIAGE WHERE THE FINANCES ARE IN PLACE, AND THE MORALS, TOO, NO ABORTION OUGHT TO HAPPEN.

BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF PREGNANCIES OUTSIDE OF THE CONFINES OF HAPPY, HEALTHY, WEALTHY (RELATIVE TO POVERTY) MARRIAGES. A SINGLE GIRL SUFFERING FROM SIPHYLLIS, FOR INSTANCE, IS ADVISED TO HAVE AN ABORTION. ETC.

SO YOUR FALLACY, DACHSHUND, LIES IN THE FACT THAT YOU GENERALLY CONSIDER ALL ABORTIONS AS EQUAL TO EACH OTHER, WHILE THEY ARE NOT.

[DPMartin]

ABORTION AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE


I know that Kantian morality has its critics, but nonetheless I think it can still be interesting to apply KANT's ethical theory to some of the controversial moral questions we are struggling with today in the West. The opinion of the greatest of the Enlightenment's thinkers/ethical theorists should surely be worth something?

Kant believed that moral laws could be derived purely from human reason, and that all immoral (bad) behaviour is unreasonable and irrational.

One of Kant's best known moral notions is called the Categorical Imperative, and when it is applied to the question of abortion, the results are interesting.

The Categorical Imperative is basically a law of morality that ALL humans MUST obey. Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is as follows...


"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."


Kant believed that ALL moral duties/obligations could be derived from this.

What the Categorical Imperative means, in essence, is that if you want to decide whether an act is morally good, then you should be able to will that EVERYONE ELSE would act in the same way. In other words, the act must be universalisable.

So, what would Kant say to the woman who wants an abortion? He would say something like this: "Can you will that every other woman would have an abortion when she is pregnant?" If she says, "No", the abortion cannot be moral.

It seems to me that a woman who wanted to have an abortion COULD NOT will that every other woman also have an abortion when she is pregnant. Why? Because in one generation the human race would go extinct and then NOBODY could have an abortion. To will that all women have abortions would mean that NO woman could have an abortion after the current generation died off. By Kant's reasoning, this would make abortion irrational, and therefore, immoral.

Again, according to Kant, abortion would be immoral because it would be irrational to will that every pregnant woman have an abortion. The act of every pregnant woman aborting the foetus inside her would, ultimately end abortion.

Finally, this means, fundamentally, that those who support a woman's choice to have an abortion, can only support SOME women choosing abortion, not all.

Presumably and Ironically, if ALL women decided to have abortions, the pro - choice movement would have to become pro - life (??!!)

Regards


Dachshund

abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.

[-1-]

abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.

Abortion, and I hate to disagree with you, IS a moral struggle.

Most innate ethical values are genetically passed on, originally with one goal in mind: to preserve the individual, or if that can't be done, then to preserve the likelyhood for offsprings to reach age of sexual maturity. Morality extends beyond that: to behave such a way as to maximize the potential proliferation of one's own DNA, or similar; first you save you children, then your siblings, then your cousins, then your distant cousins, then members of your community, then the human race, then all living creatures. In this order.

So yes, abortion IS a moral issue if you look at it that way.

Therefore the individual would like the fetus to survive, and reach a sexually reproductive age in well-being.

However, there are times when realizations occur, that no matter what, the person can't bring the fetus to reproductive age. In these instances, abortion is the ethical way to continue: to free up resources for survival for those who can carry the DNA or closely similar ones to the individual's, on to future generations

Therefore if the fetus is for sure going to be challenged, incapable, incapacitated, or dead within a few years, it is morally acceptable to abort it.

If the predictable SOCIAL climate of the individual is bleak, such as the mother being dirt poor, or emotionally/physically / intellectually incapable, but otherwise healthy, abortion is also commendable.

[Dachshund]

abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.

(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum. Best stick to something more commensurate with your IQ like Batman Comics or such like.

(2): Just because Kant is dead, it doesn't mean that his ethical theory is of no value in helping us think more rationally about human morality in 2019. (Quite the opposite, in fact). It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

Regards


Dachshund

[Arising_uk]

...
What the Categorical Imperative means, in essence, is that if you want to decide whether an act is morally good, then you should be able to will that EVERYONE ELSE would act in the same way. In other words, the act must be universalisable.

So, what would Kant say to the woman who wants an abortion? He would say something like this: "Can you will that every other woman would have an abortion when she is pregnant?" If she says, "No", the abortion cannot be moral. ...

Just change the word "would" to "could" and your nonsense is solved.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.

Abortion, and I hate to disagree with you, IS a moral struggle.

No, it isn't. It's a practical necessity for a lot of women.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How ironic (and typical), the male white supremacist (and evidently misogynist as well) wringing his hands and wailing in anguish at the thought of all those 'sacred zygotes' being flushed away.

As for Kant, if he was a christian/hypocrite then he would publicly decry abortion for others, while privately partaking of it when it suited him.

[Arising_uk]

... It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

Regards

Dachshund

You've obviously not read a jot of Shakespeare.

[-1-]

As for Kant, if he was a christian/hypocrite then he would publicly decry abortion for others, while privately partaking of it when it suited him.

It would have been very difficult for Kant to have an abortion done. He was a male.

This is the first time I've been called a White Supremacist. I bet you say that to all the boys.

[-1-]

... It's like saying that because Shakespeare is long dead, we shouldn't bother to use the texts of his dramas and poetry to help us justify/evaluate what is, or is not, exemplary use of the English language.

Regards

Dachshund

You've obviously not read a jot of Shakespeare.

Dachshund, you should be proud. You have just been compared to Shakespeare.

[Dachshund]

Dachshund, you should be proud. You have just been compared to Shakespeare.
[/quote]


Well I don't like to boast but I do knock out out a pretty mean sonnet and some classy blank verse (even if I do say so myself). Oh yeah, and I've got a hip earring just like WS as well !


Regards


Dachshund

[-1-]

CHAPTER I

abortion isn't a moral struggle, its a legal/political/social struggle. and really, Kant is dead, who cares. he's not a justification for yea or nay on the subject.

the justification is whether or not it becomes law one way or the other via the agreed method of making or rescinding law.

(1): If you don't understand how abortion is a moral issue, you shouldn't be wasting your time on a philosophy forum.

CHAPTER II

Abortion, and I hate to disagree with you, IS a moral struggle.

No, it isn't. It's a practical necessity for a lot of women.

According to the above, 2 are for, and 2 are against, the notion that abortion is a moral issue.

Interestingly, one of the atheists opines it's a moral issue. For supposedly completely different reasons than the theist voter for "moral issue".