Author Archives: Josh Bainnson

Noonan vs. Thomson: Both Sides of Abortion Analyzed

            This week as we enter into applied ethics we are discussing the highly controversial topic of abortion. We are reading both sides of the debate: Noonan’s piece, titled “Abortion is Morally Wrong”, and Thomson’s piece titled, “A Defense of Abortion.” Through both pieces, it is possible to see arguments on both sides of the abortion issue and truly think about which side has more positive ideals. Typically, the anti-abortion believer will argue that abortion is morally wrong since it is killing a living person, as conception and the creation of the zygote is the creation of a person. In order to parallel the two sides, Thomson argues her points from a position in which she agrees, for the purpose of making an equal argument, that the formation of the zygote is the formation of a person.

            In Noonan’s piece, he argues that abortion is morally wrong. First, he touches on the point that there are difficulties with the distinction of viability, the main way that lawmakers use to determine abortion’s legality. Lawmakers say that “Before an age of some many months, the fetus is not viable, that is, it cannot be removed from the mother’s womb and live apart from her,” (Noonan 353). He argues that this is not a valid argument for allowing abortion before a certain time period as in reality, “dependence is not ended by viability. The fetus is still absolutely dependent on someone’s care in order to continue existence; a child of one or three or even five years of age is absolutely dependent on another’s care for existence,” (Noonan 354). His next argument against abortion lies on the principle of deciding how to determine if humanity can be dependent on experience. Noonan argues that “the zygote is certainly alive and responding to its environment,” (354). He also argues that rare cases of aphasia in adults do not erase humanity, so not having memory does not make one not a human. Overall, he argues that abortion is morally wrong and not something to be done in society.

            On the other side, Thomson argues that abortion, in some cases, is a valid, morally permissible action. She begins by stating that she will make all of her arguments based on the view that the formation of the zygote at conception is the beginning of humanity for the unborn baby. She continues on to give one main example in her piece. The first states that you are a person who is lying in bed next to a famous, talented violinist who will not survive unless you lay in bed “plugged in” to him so that he can use your kidneys to filter his blood. You did not agree to have yourself plugged into this man and it was done in a forceful manner. Thomson argues that you are doing a nice thing for the person if you remain plugged in but you are not required to do so, and you are not wrong to unplug yourself even if it means that the person may die. Through this example, you can transfer the idea to abortion in that you are a woman who has a baby plugged into you. If you do not want the baby to be plugged into you, it is not wrong to unplug the baby.

            In American society, court cases such as Roe v. Wade uphold the right to abortion upon request up until the point when the fetus is viable. This case overturned a state law banning abortion for the unborn child in the first trimester and said it could be partially restricted in the second and third trimesters, except in the case when it would harm the mother to give birth to the child. Although abortion is legal under federal law, states have the ability to restrict abortions, and many states have either fully, or partially, restricted abortion.

            Through all of these different lenses, it is very difficult to make a decision on how one stands in respect to abortion. I personally tend to stand more on the pro-choice side of the debate with Thomson and many of the US states. I feel that, like being stuck to a famous violinist, having a child that one does not want and cannot properly care for is something that no person should have to do, and it is better off for the future of the child and the parents if abortions are legal, therefore, I believe that abortions are morally right until the child is viable.

Sources:

Kliff, Sarah. “The Landscape of Abortion Bans, in One Must-see Map.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2014.

McBride, Alex. “Roe v Wade (1973).” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2014.

Noonan, Joseph T., Jr. Abortion Is Morally Wrong. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Thomson, Judith J. A Defense of Abortion. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Utilitarianism in Practice

In our first week of studying Normative Ethics, we come to one of the “big three” topics, Utilitarianism. This week, we read two texts, one by Christopher Bennett and one by John Stuart Mills about their viewpoints on the topic. Utilitarianism is “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people” (Merriam-Webster.com). In other words, when choosing what to do, a person living by the standards set forth by utilitarianism will choose the option that promotes the happiness and well being of the most people.

This concept is one that sounds great in theory and sounds like an awesome way to promote a happy existence on Earth. When digging deeper into utilitarianism, there are ways to refute that it is the best way to act. Many state the claim that it is a very difficult and arduous way to live. Under utilitarianism, one will calculate the costs and benefits of every action taken in order to determine the best choice for the individual. This sounds like a difficult process, but the true way the utilitarian will act is based off of patterns of behavior formed by the human race over time in order to prevent the need to calculate everything at every moment (Mill).

Another argument against utilitarianism is that in order to act in this way, promising something to another person is impossible as when the promise is to be enacted, the utilitarian might decide that it would be beneficial to instead do another act for the good of all sentient beings. The utilitarian would refute this claim by stating that breaking the promise with one person is okay as long as your new action would benefit more than the one. This still could create a society in which there is distrust among all people (Bennett).

These problems can also be solved by a sub-division of utilitarianism, rule-utilitarianism. This states that utilitarians should follow socially beneficial rules rather than attempt to assess each and every consequence for ourselves. Basically, it states that we should always act in ways that are beneficial for society as a whole.

A utilitarian’s view on global poverty is as follows. Peter Singer, a utilitarian, believes that every person should be taking one percent of their income and donating it to eradicating poverty and helping those in need. Ideally, he states, that people should be donating more, but one percent is a small amount that he could ask from everyone (Schweickart, 3-4) This view that people should have it within their nature to donate to others and help support happiness and well being in the world is one that utilitarians try to promote.

Though criticized, I tend to think that I have the beliefs of a utilitarian. I believe that positive intentions are definitely there and I try to live my life so that I am helping the most people through my actions. There will always be those who state that the utilitarian is acting selfishly through his or her actions and that the benefit of others really means that of ones self, but I truly believe that after reading both Bennett and Mills that the mindset of a utilitarian, if truly abiding by the principles, is one that can benefit society as a whole and make it so the world could be a better place.

Works Cited

Bennett, Christopher. “4 Utilitarianism.” What Is This Thing Called Ethics? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. “Chapter 2 What Utilitarianism Is.” Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. “Chapter 4 Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility Is Susceptible.” Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.

Schweickart, David. “Global Poverty: Alternative Perspectives on What We Should Do- and Why.” Journal of Social Philosophy (2008): Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.

“Utilitarianism.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilitarianism>.