Abstract
“Abortion Kant vs. Utilitarianism” is the main topic on which the author focuses in this study. Accordingly, the object of the presented work will be abortion as a problem about the moral qualification of which there is no unity of opinion in the public consciousness. This paper aims to compare and distinguish two ethical theories and their application concerning abortion. The student used such qualitative methods as the search for relevant and reliable literature and its subsequent analysis. The results obtained suggest that utilitarianism is the best theory in relation to the study of abortion issues. This moment allows people to satisfy the opponents and defenders of abortion and present infanticide as beneficial for society. The significance and scope of the acquired knowledge will allow us to comprehend the current medical and ethical problems and form a clear opinion on whether abortion should be justified or not.
Introduction
Abortion is perhaps one of the most complex and controversial topics most closely connected with the problems of medical ethics, philosophy, jurisprudence, and theology. Taking an already difficult decision, women, in most cases, face the disapproval of others and constant discussions about the prohibition. However, as practice shows, abortion is a moral and ethical problem, and it is reasonable to talk about it from the point of view of various ethical theories. Thus, for instance, both Kant’s deontology and utilitarianism are most often applicable to questions about the artificial termination of pregnancy and the right to a child. One should recognize that each of these theories looks at abortion from entirely different perspectives and interprets this action in its way. However, according to the student, the concept of utilitarianism most vividly and fully reveals the essence and nature of the intervention aimed at terminating a pregnancy. Utilitarianism is one of the most compelling theories when considering abortion issues within the principles of importance, significance, and usefulness.
Analysis
Before considering abortion in the context of utilitarianism as a direction in ethics, it is necessary to analyze the theory’s basic concepts, definitions, and principles. Utilitarianism is an ethical and political theory developed by Bentham and Mill, supplemented by John Stuart Mill (Wilburn, 2022). The main criterion of justice and morality is utility, the understanding of which was borrowed by utilitarians from Adam Smith. Utilitarianism, as the embodiment of practical liberalism, is closest to an adequate knowledge of the actual process of democratic aspects.
In general, the maximization of pleasure, happiness, and good and the minimization of suffering, pain, vice, and punishment are the main motives of any action. Nevertheless, Bentham considered moral judgment a determination of happiness, suggesting the possibility of mathematically establishing morality as a balance of pleasure and suffering resulting from an act (Warren, 2020). John Stuart Mill supplemented Bentham’s thesis with a provision on the qualitative assessment of happiness and the priority of freedom among pleasures (Julius et al., 2020). Therefore, there is one good that matters morally; this is a benefit— or utility. Such benefit can be identified with happiness, pleasure, well-being, the satisfaction of desires and preferences, or the realization of the interests of individuals. The most exciting thing about utilitarianism is an entirely new level of formulation of moral laws. Utilitarianism allows one to overcome the limitations of all previous moral approaches — to overcome subjectivity, relativity, and theoricality and build a new model of ethics.
Based on this theory, it should be assumed that people, for the most part, should prefer the production of neutral actions or internal values that do not vary from person to person. For example, neither undergoing nor having an abortion is intrinsically good. Any being capable of feeling pain and experiencing pleasure has the right to life. Because of this, the conceived fetus’s ability to be sensitive makes it a moral subject. Nevertheless, many people will justify abortion as outwardly good in some circumstances – as a means to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman, which are internal benefits. Abortion is permissible even if the fetuses have the right to life and are individuals (Räsänen, 2020). In addition, abortion is now accepted in most countries that should be defined as civilized. One can confidently say that the practice of abortion is a civilizational norm.
The Second Theory
It should be stated that Kant’s deontology holds an entirely different view of abortion. Thus, the deontological theory evaluates behavior and decisions regarding an act, not its results. Its main concepts are “duty” and “human rights”; a duty is an obligation to act in a certain way for specific moral reasons. Considering an act as a means to an end rather than an end, this theory, unlike teleological theories, recognizes the existence of rules that cannot be violated even in the name of maximizing utility. An example is a statement that a person must be honest, keep their word, pay off debts, and comply with contracts. Thus, an act has moral value only when it is motivated by concern for the moral law. According to Kant, a person should not only act out of the right motivation but also do the right thing. The act must be morally correct, and the action and motive have moral significance. In other words, a person must act not only out of a sense of duty but also according to duty or as required by duty.
Based on this, one should assume that the authors of utilitarianism are wrong in their attitude to abortion issues based on violations of moral and ethical norms and laws. Relying on the theory of Immanuel Kant, it can be concluded that abortion is a “wrong and wrong” act since it contradicts the philosophy of morality. Abortion is premeditated murder, which means it cannot be considered a manifestation of “good will” or the only thing that can undoubtedly be regarded as good and humane. According to Kant, the existing reality of reality goes back to God as its ultimate cause, and God guarantees that the virtuous will be rewarded and the vicious will be punished. In this case, it becomes evident that infanticide is a vice, and a woman who performs an abortion is cruel, and her action should be condemned in society.
Comparing the Theories
Primarily, utilitarianism and Kant’s deontology are two universal, multipurpose approaches to explaining and interpreting human actions and deeds based mainly on using reasoning and logic. Moreover, each of the theories seeks to understand how the highest good for society can be achieved. In other words, individual rights and opportunities, to a certain extent, constrain what can be done in the name of maximizing aggregate happiness. These theories are mental constructions, the meaning of which is to reflect on morality and solve moral problems through hypotheses, analysis of facts, and other methods. In this sense, the presented ethical theories are no different from scientific theories. At the same time, everyone is free to choose them according to their taste, which does not make moral life easier.
Contrasting the Theories
However, despite the apparent similarities between the two theories, they are completely different from each other and have a wide range of significant contrasts. For example, utilitarianism justifies the means to achieve a specific goal, whereas in deontological ethics, everything is completely different, and obligations are of paramount importance. In brief, in the first variant, an action can be correct when it leads to the best consequences. In the second variant, this action must still be justified and morally justified, especially if it is still determined by the principle of pure reason, regardless of the consequences.
Utilitarian ethical systems usually include those teachings that focus on achieving the utilitarian good and, as a rule, do not associate its achievement with the moral good. In this case, the act or deed is justified by achieving benefits, and the result evaluates pleasure. For example, as one of the most ancient ethical teachings, hedonism suggests considering pleasure as the highest good, which a person, as an earthly being, naturally strives for. In contrast to the attitudes of utilitarian ethics, supporters of ethical absolutism proceed from the belief that the most significant benefit for society and the person himself is brought by his desire for virtues and orientation towards achieving moral good.
The ethics of Aristotle and the ethical teaching of Kant are usually attributed to this type of absolutist theories of morality. A characteristic feature of Kant’s ethical teaching (ethics of duty or deontic ethics) is its rigid attitude to the doctrinal (generally recognized scientifically) character of morality and a significant proportion of ethical rigor (excessive rigor), which, like the teachings of the ancient Stoics, comes from the assertion of autonomy, independence of morality, from the desire of a real person to satisfy their practical needs and interests. A person, according to Kant, must, regardless of circumstances, fulfill the requirements of morality, which not only does not need to be justified by benefit but also does not coincide with benefit because its laws are absolute.
Conclusion
Summarizing the above, it should be stated that utilitarianism is one of the most suitable theories for analyzing abortion as one of the controversial issues of our time. Nevertheless, this circumstance in no way detracts from the importance and significance of Kant’s deontology since this theory similarly focuses on the problem but approaches its solution from a completely different point of view. The criterion of utilitarianism is called the “principle of utility”: some action is right if it produces the most significant amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people; otherwise, it is wrong. However, according to Kant, it is essential to distinguish between actions performed “according to duty” and those performed “according to duty.” The idea is to check each step by what would have happened if it had become generally accepted. However, according to the student, within the framework of modern realities, utilitarianism looks like the most loyal approach to the abortion situation, especially when it comes to civilized countries.
References
Räsänen, J. (2020). Liberal utilitarianism—yes, but for whom?Camb Q Healthc Ethics, 9, 1-8. Web.
Julius, A., Quinn, M., & Schofield, P. (2020). Bentham and the arts. UCL Press. Web.
Wilburn, H. (2022). Philosophical thought. Tulsa Community College.
Warren, J. (2020). Bentham’s two sovereign masters – examining Bentham’s influence on the social sciences. Exploring Economics. Web.