Abortion is an ongoing ethical issue that has been controversial for quite some time. It attracts different views from various religions, races, and ethical groups. Some ethical theories support abortion, and some think it is immoral. This brings up the question – is abortion moral from a Kantian standpoint? Deontological ethics determines morality, focusing on the nature of the actions rather than the consequences, and hence consider abortion immoral. In the following paragraphs, abortion’s morality will be discussed according to deontological thinking, including categorical imperative and autonomy.
Kantian deontology is an ethical theory that focuses on things’ moral righteousness and wrongness. Immanuel Kant was a systematic thinker whose arguments emphasize reason, and thus his deontology argues that “morality must be rational” (Kranak 1). The right and wrong are derived from Kant’s categorical imperative, according to which every action should be put under the universalizability test to be defined as moral (Kranak 1). First formulation of the categorical imperative is in other words moral laws that should become universal. However, Kant argues that applying categorical imperative does not guarantee inevitable consequences; thus, a lot depends on a person’s good will or character. Expressing a good will and training a moral character requires person to have autonomy. Autonomy is the capacity to deliberate and to give oneself the moral law, rather than merely heeding the injunctions of others. Personal autonomy is the capacity to decide for oneself and pursue a course of action in one’s life, often regardless of any particular moral content.
Applying the Kantian deontology to abortion issue leads to thinking it is immoral because it does not follow universalizability and contradicts good character. According to universalizability, if X does something to Y, then Y should be able to do the same thing to X., Or if X does something to Y, then X should expect to undergo the same thing from Z (Kranak 1). Since the woman who does the abortion, cannot experience it, and cannot be killed by the fetus – abortion is unjust and hence immoral. In addition, considering abortion as killing makes X lose good character and thus lose autonomy. It is also essential to consider the intention behind performing abortion because if it is done for self-serving purposes, then such abortion is not of good will. Moreover, since abortion requires to govern one’s body, it contradicts the principles of autonomy. Consequently, legalization of it cannot be universal, and hence it should be considered immoral.
The difficulties in using Kantian deontology to discuss the morality of abortion are defining whether the fetus is a human, and the role ethics play in actual decision-making. The discussion of the fetus, zygote, and embryo’s personhood status has been going on for many years. Some say that calling the zygote and embryo persons is “highly unreasonable” (Miklavcic, Janez, & Flaman 8). In addition, some scientists and philosophers argue that human life begins after birth or fertility, which means that a fetus does not have a human life value (Miklavcic, Janez, & Flaman 9). These contradictions cause difficulty in understanding whether deontology can be applied to abortion. Another difficulty is caused by Nobis’s argument that often leaders and organizations do not have “any interest in what ethicists have to say about abortion” (Nobis 3). However, he also claims that ethical discussions are necessary and that all parties must hear them. Therefore, the value of discussing abortion from any perspective, including Kantian deontology, is questionable but critical.
To conclude, the paper discussed whether abortion is ethical from a Kantian standpoint or not. The argument that a Kantian would make about abortion is that it is immoral because abortion is a non-universal maxim and provokes a negative will. Moreover, abortion is immoral due to contradictions between it and autonomy, and Kant’s categorical imperative. Some of the difficulties in the process of applying formula are the personhood status of the fetus and the actual influence of the ethical discussion. While there are some contradictions in this matter, discussing abortion’s moral side is vital to create consensus among people.
Works Cited
Miklavcic, John Janez, and Paul Flaman. “Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus.”The Linacre Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 2, 130–144, 2017.
Nobis, Nathan. “Yes, All Bioethicists Should Engage Abortion Ethics, but Who Would Be Interested in What They Have to Say?”, The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 22, no. 8, 33-36, 2022. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2089274
Kranak, Joseph. “Kantian deontology.” Introduction to philosophy: Ethics, 2019.