L.O We are learning how Kant’s theory applies to abortion and homosexuality Wednesday 23 rd October 2013 Applying Kant’s theory Starter: What is your gut instinct- Do you think Kant would approve of abortion or homosexuality?

 A Kantian ethicist must consider: a. The principle of duty b. The rejection of happiness as a basis for moral decision-making c. The rejection of love as a basis for moral decision-making d. The importance of the individual and the immortality of the soul.

 The following issues should also be taken into account for a Kantian approach to abortion: 1. The preservation of life – The individual has a moral duty to preserve life. A comparison can be made between abortion and 2 ethical issues that Kant wrote about: SUICIDE WAR

 He was critical of suicide, because humans have a duty to preserve life. To take one’s own life was therefore wrong.  He was also critical of warfare and argued that rational humans should work towards ‘perpetual peace’. The preservation of life is again central to his understanding of war and peace.

 There is one reason for abortion that might be allowed. This is when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. The preservation of her life is imperative.

2. The principle of extreme duty.  By duty, Kant is referring to things that are difficult or are performed against your natural instincts. For example, bringing up a child in difficult circumstances may be considered an example of extreme duty. An abortion might seem an easier option.

 Critics of this view argue that life is not an endurance test. Therefore it is best for foetuses with severe abnormalities to be aborted rather than for the parents to live the often difficult life of carers.  Having an abortion might also be seen as an example of extreme duty if it is deemed advisable by medical specialists, but goes against the natural instincts of the woman.

3. Happiness has no part to play in any ethical decision-making. A deontological approach to abortion is not interested in the happiness of the woman. Rather it asks her to consider her duties towards herself, her partner, any existing children and the foetus.

4. Moral decisions should not be based on love or sympathy. This may appear harsh. A young woman is raped and gets pregnant. She does not want to keep the child as it will remind her of this traumatic event. Situation ethicists would argue that in this situation an abortion is the most agapeistic thing to do. Kant would argue that love and sympathy should be set aside. The vital thing is to perform your moral duty.

5. The problem of universalisability  Universalisability relies on people being rational.  Kant recognises that human nature is not always rational.  However, this fact should not stop people trying to search for moral certainty.  Kant believes the Categorical Imperative will help individuals to make rational moral choices.

 To test universalisability, we could take the example of a woman who decides, after a scan, that she does not want a daughter. Suppose every woman only wanted a son and decided to abort all female foetuses. The result would be that the human race would die out. This conflicts with Kant’s principle of the preservation of life.  Therefore, abortion fails the test of universalisability.

6. Treating humanity as an end and not a means to an end.  We should never treat humanity as a means to an end.  Kant would argue that it is wrong to abort a foetus because of its sex because the woman is treating the foetus as a means to an end, i.e. a way to fulfil her desire for a son, rather than an end in itself.