In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant divides his work into three sections. The sections transition common rational moral cognition through philosophical moral cognition to metaphysics of morals, and finally into the critique of pure practical reason. The ancient Greeks divided science into physics, ethics and logic. Kant argued it was a perfect assessment of science and claims his journey into morality was to further refine the definitions.
In the first section, Kant describes moral duty. He argues “to preserve one’s life is a duty” and claims everyone is inclined to save their own life. However, merely staying alive does not satisfy the moral duty to preserve life because staying alive is beneficial to the person. Performing a task to self-benefit does not provide a moral duty. Kant further argues a person’s moral worth is demonstrated when they preserve life despite a lack of inclination to do so. He gives the example of a person struggling with their own grief and thus unable to fully attend others. If such a person is able to ignore their own shortcomings and serve others when they simply do not have an inner motivation to do so, but do it out of a duty to honor their talent; then a morally worthwhile course of action has occurred.
Taking Kant’s position on a moral duty to preserve life and applying it to the abortion debate, his position becomes abundantly clear. If a woman must decide between preserving her life or risk death, Kant argues she should choose life. Whether her choice is morally worthwhile depends upon the rationale behind the decision. If she is not inclined to abort, but does so to preserve her life, then her decision has moral worth. If she is inclined to abort then her decision does not have moral worth because it is directly beneficial to her wishes. In either case, Kant would argue preserving life is a duty. Esteem should only be placed upon a woman whose decision was morally worthwhile, the woman who was not inclined to abort.
Kant’s moral duty arguments apply equally well to extreme cases such as rape. The distinction between a decision with moral worth and one of benefit becomes harder to determine, but nonetheless exist. If a woman who has been raped chooses to abort because she does not wish to produce a continuation of the crime, the decision is beneficial and therefore not of moral consequence. A woman, who does not abort despite an inclination to do so, would demonstrate moral worth. The question not directly addressed is; should a woman abort when her life is not in jeopardy?
Kant argues there is a duty to maintain happiness in life because the lack of it will create temptation to violate moral or lawful duties. Hence, a woman should endure an abortion if it will aide in maintaining happiness in life. The decision is not morally worthwhile due to the beneficial relationship. However, not all decision must be have moral worth. A decision may not have moral worth, but still be a proper decision. The only distinction between a decision with moral worth and one without is the application of praise or esteem. Praise can only be given to a decision of moral worth. A woman may choose to abort a child, outside of medical necessity, but only if she is not inclined to do so and commits the action can she be morally praised.
For example, suppose a religious woman whose ethical guidance declares all life sacred is raped. She must choose whether to abort. If she chooses to bear the child because of her perceived ethical obligations, then she has not made a morally worthy decision. The decision is beneficial to her, if only to preserve her happiness by following her convictions. On the other hand, if she aborts the child despite her inclination against it because she cannot separate her happiness from her ethical view she has created a choice of moral worth and should be praised.
The defense of abortion from Kant is thus; a woman has a duty to preserve life or happiness and should be able to exercise the choice of abortion. The decision is either a moral duty or beneficial one. The reasons behind the choice shall be the only determining factor for the moral worth of the choice. Moral worth is not equated to correct or proper. The decision can beneficial and not a true example of a moral duty, thereby deserving to praise. It can also be a moral duty, despite an inclination to the opposite, and indeed deserving high esteem.
No comments:
Post a Comment