• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A Kantian would never allow abortion. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


A Kantian would never allow abortion. Discuss. Firstly, a Kantian would believe that we should only act according to a maxim when it can be universalised. Clearly, if you were to universalise abortion, the human race would become extinct and there would be no one left to have an abortion, thus abortion is a contradiction in the Law of Nature and would never be allowable. Whilst I agree that abortion cannot be universalised, perhaps in some circumstances, abortion may actually help the woman and foetus. According to Kant's principle of universality, the maxim 'should I refrain from helping others?' would not become a categorical imperative because if no one helped each other, society would be in turmoil and therefore the maxim 'should I help others?' ...read more.


Pojman suggests that some actions may be allowed through Kant's theory if worded slightly differently. For example, suicide would not be allowed as it is not able to be universalised, but if the principle was reworded to 'whenever the pain or suffering of existence erodes quality of life is such a way as to make nonexistence a preference to suffering existence, one is permitted to commit suicide' then it could potentially be universalised and could become a categorical imperative. If this is true of suicide, then who is to say that it is not also true of abortion? For example, if the foetus is not yet considered to be a person, then abortion is justified. If the foetus is not a person, then it may not be considered to have a soul and sanctity of life and therefore does not necessarily have a right to life. ...read more.


Therefore, according to this categorical imperative, abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances. However, this is only true if we consider the foetus to be a person. Kant did not make it clear whether he regarded a foetus to have personhood, but he did distinguish between three types of beings: people - rational agents, people with partial rights - people who lack rights e.g. children, mentally disabled and things - animals, plants and things which can be treated as a means to an end. Kant did not make it clear where he classified foetuses. If they are classified as things, Kantians might justify abortion on the basis that they can be treated as a means to an end. In conclusion, I feel that a Kantian may allow abortion if it was seen to be following the categorical imperative 'to help others'. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Utilitarianism VS Kantian Deontological Ethics

    would treat yourself because you do in fact want other people to treat you in that way?'; a question sometimes raised in contention to the Golden Rule. Kant challenged the Golden Rule with the famous motto 'what if everyone did that?', believing that rational beings aim to act according to

  2. Discussion of abortion

    The main response would be that abortion is not allowed, because the foetus has the legal right to life from the moment the egg and sperm unite.

  1. is abortion justified to save the mother's life

    that humans have the freedom to dispose of life as they wish. Unlike the Sanctity of Life, which is based on the existence of God, the Quality of Life principal suggests that the value of life is to do with external or extrinsic factors; such as the desire to live and the right to die.

  2. Is Christ a Kantian?

    (Philosophically, this question becomes, how can I ever know which is more important i.e. happiness or virtuousness? How can two entirely different qualities be compared? In what scale can you measure the importance of virtuousness and happiness? In Kant's view since one must always choose virtuousness before happiness, therefore virtuousness must be something more important than happiness.

  1. `Always tell the truth and Always keep your promises' Kant's Categorical Imperative.

    It is characterised by the word 'if'. So, for example, 'If you wish to gain praise you must behave in a creditable fashion'. Kant puts it thus: 'If the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical' (Fundamental Principles, p.31).

  2. Modern life-prolonging technologies have sharpened some ancient dilemmas on the value of life.

    But even when the existing resources can help a majority rather than a minority, the "license" from theory to save some at the expense of others does not help select the lucky ones to survive. While solving the selection problem will be a primary reason to put aside SL for

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work