Utilitarian and Kantian Ethicist Approach to Abortion

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. After their previous Abortion debate they will now look at how Normative Ethical theories can be applied to Abortion and if Abortion would be morally permissible under Utilitarian and Kanitan Ethics.

So would the greatest good for the greatest number allow abortion? What about only following a maxim that you will to be universalized? Watch as our two favourite Philosopher discuss.

For an introduction to Ethics and Political Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology Vol 3, paperback book available worldwide on Amazon:

[PhilosophyVibe]

Check out the Philosophy Vibe 'Ethics and Political Philosophy Anthology' paperback, available worldwide on Amazon:

[elanawillett-caoagdan]

Just like everyone else, thank you a ton- this helps so much more than a textbook reading with confusing wording that makes you go cross-eyed.

[SmdYaCarzyAzzB]

This was a very educational video, helped with my ethics class.

[firinnamas]

People always get Kant wrong. The universal maxim can't be made more specific to fit your own personal situation. If this was the case, you could justify anything. "Anyone of my sex, my race, my height doesn't like a particular thing in a particular situation, can do this to rectify the situation." The maxim must apply to everyone in every situation equally or it's not valid. It doesn't matter what your situation is, lying is always wrong. It doesn't matter what your situation is, murder is always wrong.

[lohithreddypolu]

Thanks to this channel for making me understand concepts of philosophy in a very easy and understandable fashion, I was able to complete my Philosophy course with flying colours

[tomashill]

thanks so much! helped with my essay soooo much, not to sure about the vibe ahaaahha but the vibe of you two is great! thanks and keep it up :))))

[lauriannechanteloisecole]

Thank you so much. This video just explained to me what I’ve seen in two classes of 3 hours.

[anthonyfigueroa]

I had an essay on this due today and my god this video helped so much thank you

[NathanNobis]

This is very good except the final concern from Kant should be about whether fetuses are rational beings, not "human beings." Think about who he argues is an end in themselves.

[zandilengwenya]

Wow, this is a very interesting argument significantly eye opening. Thank you so very much for this video

[akifemresahin]

What about birth control? I think it also cannot be universalized .

[eironeearlbustos]

Thank you! It gives me a big help with my Ethics class.

[ewclpqr]

never thought I would here a animated character spit facts so hard

[freedomdividendnews]

Utilitarian would be against abortion since 35, 000 animals are harmed in order to feed the fetus during it's 80 years on earth. The harm caused to 35, 000 animals is more harm than the pleasure of one human

[random]

just wonder for 9 months if it's morally permissible so that the child gets born and you don't have a dilema anymore
but wait... what if the conclusion would be that abortion is the only moral choice

[MaryvalePress]

Deontology: How about the question of if a child is a rational being. Is there a direct duty towards irrational beings?

[JDG-hqgy]

I’m disappointed that potential utility is never mentioned, so here’s a dialogue I wrote to demonstrate this kind of argument:

X: I’d like to ask a few questions about your opinion on abortion

Y: Ask away

X: If I kill a 7 month old foetus is that worse than killing a 7 minute old baby?

Y: Yea that is worse

X: Why?

Y: The foetus is a bundle of cells, the baby is a sentient human being

X: Why is killing the sentient human being, or any sentient human being bad?

Y: Because it ends a life.

X: So there is value in life?

Y: Yes

X: Why?

Y: Because life is pleasurable to those experiencing it

X: Life can also be displeasurable

Y: In times, yes, but the amount of pleasure in a human life is usually quantitatively bigger than the amount of displeasure in that life

X: Usually?

Y: If you killed a sentient being, the being probably would’ve had a pleasurable life, had you not killed it, therefore making it wrong; it would only be a mercy killing, therefore justified, if the displeasure that is to be experienced in someone’s life is bigger than the pleasure that they’ll experience, but that is hard to determine.

X: So the average human life is pleasurable?

Y: Yes

X: So in creating human life you are creating pleasure?

Y: Most likely, yes.

X: So in ending human life you’re not creating displeasure, but preventing pleasure.

Y: For the victim, yes, but you’re also creating displeasure for the friends and family of the victim.

X: But the victim would have died anyway, the grief at his death would have been felt whether he lived to 7 or 70.

Y: The victim probably would have died from natural causes, making his death less distressing. Even if the death of the victim was painless.

X: But the greatest loss is to the victim themselves, would you agree?

Y: Yes.

X: So I’ll rehash, in ending his life the greatest loss is not the displeasure caused, but by the pleasure that has been prevented from arising in the future. Would you agree?

Y: Yes.

X: And if you were a utilitarian you’d want to maximise net pleasure

Y: You would

X: And so by taking a human life, that reduces net pleasure?

Y: Yes, obviously

X: So the biggest crime is the waste of human life, would you agree?

Y: Yes

X: Since there is pleasure, and therefore value, in human life, and that value is comprised of the things that happened that add pleasure to their own lives or others lives. The longer the life, the more things that will happen and therefore the more pleasure that will be brought about.

Y: Correct

X: For every second lived that is a second less left to live.

Y: Go on

X: And if I end a human life I am not erasing him from time, the pleasure he brought into the universe is not undone, he is just prevented from producing any more pleasure from this point in time forward?

Y: Yes

X: And your capacity to produce pleasure into the future is heavily influenced by how many more years you have left to live.

Y: Yes, what is it with these pointless truisms?

X: So the lives of the young are more valuable than the lives of the elderly?

Y: Yes

X: So the death of a 7 year old is worse than the death of a 70 year old?

Y: yes

X: And the death of a 7 week old is worse than the death of the 7 year old.

Y: That is what logically follows, yes.

X: So the death of a 7 month old foetus is worse than the death of a 7 year old child

Y: The foetus is not a person, the 7 year old is.

X: But the foetus could become a person, and killing it would waste human pleasure would it not?

Y: But now you’re forcing the mother to carry the baby, which is displeasurable to her.

X: Does the amount of displeasure in 2 months of pregnancy and then childbirth outnumber the amount of pleasure of 80 years worth of life?

Y: No

X: What about 9 months of pregnancy?

Y: Where are you going with this?

X: Before I get to that, another question

Y: Yes?

X: Is killing a 7 month old foetus worse than killing a 7 minute old baby?

Y: Yes

X: But they both have practically the same effect, that is: no life.

Y: So the mother has an obligation to carry the baby, because it creates more pleasure to keep it than to abort it?

X: That is my argument, yes.

Y: So your neutrality, your rights to bodily autonomy must be discarded, for the sake of utilitarianism.

X: All must be discarded if it is an impediment to utilitarianism

Y: Then where do you draw the line?

X: Sorry?

Y: By your logic women are now morally obligated to get impregnated and bear as many children as they can, because aborting a foetus, and not having that foetus at all have the same outcome, and since not keeping the foetus is a waste, so to is not having children, they both have the same waste since they both had the same potential.

X: That is why I weighed up the pleasures of 80 years of life, vs. the displeasures of 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth.

Y: So you’re saying that their is a moral obligation for having children.

X: Yes

[ivanskevels]

A fetus is only a fetus for a few months so don’t spend too long trying to decide if it is a “real being” or else it will already be born. 😂😂😂

[newkids]

Thank you so much, this really was educational aswell as easy too understand!

[alvbjo]

I would reason that the categorical imperative would fail the test of universalising the law that one could will for abortion to be outlawed, since it would remove a persons choice powers over whether the baby as an empirical being would get to exist in them, which would entail that whatever Alien and non-concenting force put that baby in the mothers womb would be of more moral worth than that of the mothers choice power. The baby can’t have a right to a mothers womb in virtue of its life being predicated upon her non-choice, since if any human life can only exist if another life is enslaved, the death of such a life would be a tragedy, but the enslavement of her would be still be the erasure of humanity in a human being.