(Premise) 2. A fetus is an innocent human life. (Premise) 3. Therefore abortion is morally impermissible (From 1 and 2) Instead of continuing the seemingly endless argument on whether the right to life is more important than the right to one’s body, Warren offers a different perspective by disagreeing with premise 2. By examining the views on abortion of Marry Anne Warren, this paper will argue that abortion is morally permissible on the grounds that early fetuses, though they are genetically human, are not persons (members of the moral community).
It focuses on the intrinsic value of the action itself and whether or not it is inherently good or bad, meaning that when applied to abortion there is not much lenience as it directly breaks three of the primary precepts: those of preserving life and the innocent, proliferation of the species, and to a lesser extent, the education of children (by removing the potential for one). This, coupled with the deontological nature of moral law, means that when following it to the letter abortion is wrong. However, this can be challenged by the doctrine of double effect, the concept that an action that is morally bad may be allowed if its effect will outweigh the action in terms of goodness or moral gain. Aquinas observed “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Accordingly, the act of self-defence may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.
Unfertilised ovum are also lost through In Vitro Fertilisation procedures and scientific research. It would be unrealistic to place the same moral status on an unfertilised ovum as you would to a fertilised ovum because if you held that the first premise was untrue it would almost be impossible to prove. Therefore the first premise would have to be true. The second premise does not take into consideration the fertilisation of the ovum or the change
Beneficial in the way it helps the overall population and harmful for its side effects are not always certain. To me, the benefit of the overall population outweighs the damage from one person. However, there are several reasons why some people are against vaccinations. One reason being, that it is against some religions. According to Mathew D. Staver, people oppose certain vaccines because some vaccines are made from aborted fetal tissue; such as vaccines for Chicken pox, Hepatitis-A, and Rubella.
Are they able to reason and act upon this accurately? Abortion would go against the primary precept of reproduction and if the foetus is considered a person, then the primary principle to preserve innocent life would also be broken. This means abortion will generally not
IT is however important to note that Natural Law thinkers are not concerned with the consequences of actions, whether they bring good or bad doesn’t matter but what matters to them is whether the action itself is good or bad. Kantian Ethics would also further disagree with Fertility Treatment as the Categorical Imperative says that people must be treated as ends in themselves. If an embryo is a life then the destruction of spare embryos during IVF would be seen as using them as a means to an end. Further if the embryo was experimented upon instead, and the embryo
The moral ethical standards of a society provide the basic guidelines for corporate ethical stewardship existence and allow us to resolve conflicts by social existence and allow us to resolve conflicts by appeal to shared principles of justification. According to “Block’s (1993, p23-25) stewardship and the role "emphasized over the service over self-interest”. It is easy to see how the laws are set one can find it hard and how difficult it is to keep up with the different laws set in Ethical Stewardship rules and relations. When it comes to research methodology and using the Theoretical model: leadership behavior, trustworthiness, and ethical stewardship .This diagram shows how easy it is to see how trustworthy people would have a hard time agreeing to
You must make sure that whatever act that you want to do you must first see if you can will that everyone can do this act or not if yes then it is moral to do it and you can do it, if no then it is not moral to do it and you can’t do it. The second formulation is that “the action must respect people as ends in themselves not treat them as means to an end” this means that you cannot cheat anyone to get a specific service, use them as means to your end, to your own benefit. When we discuss abortion in Kantian perspective we should analyze it by the categorical imperative two formulations. We should ask the woman that wants to have an abortion: would you will that every woman would have an abortion? If she said yes then it is moral to have an abortion, if no then it is not moral.
Commercialization of Organ Transplants TMD Strayer University The possibility of the commercialization of organ transplants raises a lot of questions in regards to morals and ethics. The new policy in favor of the commercialization requires us to examine the arguments both for and against the issue. There have been arguments that allowing organs to be bought and sold is unethical, meaning that it lacks moral principles, which are defined as the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by and individual or social group. (dictionary.reference.com, 2013, n.d.). There have also been arguments that say it is a good business ethic to proceed with the policy because it will be good for business.
However this would only apply if the embryo is regarded as a rational moral agent but the status of the embryo is unclear. Kant’s example of suicide can be used as in the same way as suicide, embryo testing and research can be seen as a contradiction in nature and therefore is not universalisable. Similarly to embryo research, consequences cannot be considered when looking at the issue of experimenting of humans and is also using people as a means to an end which goes against Kant’s second formula. In the case of testing on prisoners the formula would suggest that you can’t exploit a minority group, such as prisoners, for the sake of majority gain. However May suggests that there may be a duty to take part in non-invasive or riskless research as it would be beneficial to