PHIL 335 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Maximum Principle, Patient Participation, Feminist Ethics
3 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Unit 7
1. What is the state of the law in Canada regarding abortion? Is this an acceptable
situation? Why or Why Not?
Canadian law states that women must be able to access abortion services, that an individual
doctor has the right to refuse to provide an abortion and that a doctor does NOT have the right to
pressure a woman into having an abortion.
Yes this is an acceptable situation. Abortion is a complex topic and in order to apply rules as
such, a careful balance of the roles of those involved need to exist. These laws cover the roles of
the female and the doctor. Canada has legalized abortion meaning that the woman can seek out
and abortion in a safe manner which may not occur if abortions had to be conducted illegally.
With the abortion laws laid out as they are the woman’s rights to decide about whether or not she
wants to carry the pregnancy to term are respected, as I believe that women should be allowed
this choice. Under these laws the woman can terminate her pregnancy and isn’t forced to give
birth to an unwanted fetus that may be conceived from the result of incest or rape, or risked
being raised into poor economic or abusive environments. Even if the pregnancy is not a result
of incest or rape, but perhaps the timing is off in the woman’s life because she is perusing a
career or an education, by making abortion legal is Canada as it is the woman can have the
option to choose.
These abortion laws also give some moral ground for the doctor to depend on. This is beneficial
for the doctor as they are not forced to provide the abortion if providing the abortion is against
their personal values. The doctor, like the female is also given the choice to decide if they do or
do not want to provide abortions which is fair.
These laws prevent coercion on both sides as a result.
1. Define Moral Standing, Why is this Concept Important in Abortion Debates?
Describe a Criterion for Establishing Moral Standing. Identify an Objection to that
Criterion.
Moral standing: Plays a central role in ethics. The general idea of moral standing is that we (as
humans) are moral agents and we have moral obligations ONLY to these things or beings that
have moral standing.
To have moral standing: is to be able to claim certain kinds of treatment.
If a thing or being has no moral standing then we can have NO obligation towards it.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Determining a criterion for moral standing is no easy task. What should count in establishing this
criterion, deciding whether something can have more moral standing than something else and
whether or not moral standing can be developed over time should are all questions that are open
to debate in regards to moral standing.
The sentience criterion is one way of determining the moral rights of a fetus in regards of
abortion.
Sentience: is described as a feeling or sensation but one that is different from perception and
thought. In this case the fetus has sentience when is can respond to pain and pleasure. This is the
point at which the fetus should have moral rights, and therefore should not be exposed to pain.
Sentience is said not to be a suitable criteria for determination of moral standing because it is too
broad. From this stance Warren says that this criterion would include animals that do experience
pain such as mice, and it is wrong to give equal moral standing to mice and to a fetus.
Viability is another criterion used to determine moral standing meaning that a fetus should have
moral standing after is considered able to live outside of the womb. The sentience criterion is
found to be more beneficial to moral rights versus the viability criterion because it can’t be
changed in terms of advancements in surgical procedures and technology. Also the sentience
criterion doesn’t allow for a moderate perception of abortion as it is directed towards the late-
term fetus and the newborn.
1. Respond to the claim that a single criterion for moral standing will never suffice for
all cases of moral reasoning.
The single criterion view says that there is a single property. The presence or absence of this
“property” causes the world to be broken into 2 groups. The first group occurs when the
“property” is present and since it is present this group is entitled to moral rights. The second
group doesn’t have moral standing because the property is not present.
The group of people that follow the single criterion theory are called monists and their aim is to
create a logical, well organized set of principles that will answer all moral questions.
The single criterion for determining moral standing will never work for all cases because it wants
us to deny that there are several reasons for giving moral rights and a variety of things and beings
to which some rights may be appropriately ascribed.
I agree that this single criterion would never work for all cases for moral valuing because it is
impossible for all moral cases to be some similar that one set of principles could answer all
moral issues. This single criterion fails to acknowledge that social relationships do relate with
moral standing. It is too vague as it doesn’t give a definite premise as to what that “property”
consists of that some get moral rights and others don’t. What do the people that have the
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
“property” do to be said that they have that property in order to receive moral standing? How do
these beings who are said to have this “property” obtain it?
1. How does Marquis Argue that Abortion is Immoral? How would you Respond to
the objection that not all fetuses have valuable features relevantly similar to
children’s? To those of adult humans?
Marquis is a conservative. He feels that abortion unless in rare cases is seriously immoral and
stands in the same moral group as killing an adult human being.
Marquis displays this argument between the pro- choice and antiabortionist and says that neither
side can explain why it is wrong to abort because neither side has the moral capacity to make it
decisive to why their principle can or can’t apply to killing an adult human being.
The pro- choice group tries to find a moral principle concerning the wrongness of killing is so
narrow that fetuses will not fall under it.
The anti-abortionist view is so broad that even fetuses in the early stage of development will fall
over it.
Neither one of these views can explain why it is wrong to kill infants and young children,
severely retarded, or mentally ill.
Marquis says that the moral claims on both sides pro-choice and anti- abortion dispute don’t
even touch on the essence of this matter.
Marquis then goes into explaining why killing “us” is wrong. Marquis says that it is wrong to kill
us because when we die or are dying we are deprived of what we value, how and what we value
in our future personal life.
Marquis says that by indicating this loss on himself is ultimately what makes killing him wrong.
Because like previously mentioned, by killing him he is being robbed of all the value he has
placed on his future.
Marquis says that the greatest wrongness of killing is the effect of the victim. The loss of one’s
life is the greatest loss that a person can suffer because it deprives them of all of the experiences,
activities, projects, and enjoyments that would have otherwise been in their future. By aborting
fetuses we are aborting them of the same future and therefore Marquis concludes that killing a
fetus is just as wrong as killing an adult.
I would disagree with Marquis’ view. I don’t believe that all adult humans’ future should be
deemed equal. Because not all human adults are the same. Take that stance and compare it to the
fetus, when this is done the same can be said for fetuses, not all fetuses have the same valuable
future. When this is the case, I believe in what Marquis says that abortion should be given as an
option in “rare cases” in such circumstances as the woman is unhealthy, in an abusive
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Abortion is a complex topic and in order to apply rules as such, a careful balance of the roles of those involved need to exist. These laws cover the roles of the female and the doctor. Canada has legalized abortion meaning that the woman can seek out and abortion in a safe manner which may not occur if abortions had to be conducted illegally. With the abortion laws laid out as they are the woman"s rights to decide about whether or not she wants to carry the pregnancy to term are respected, as i believe that women should be allowed this choice. These abortion laws also give some moral ground for the doctor to depend on. This is beneficial for the doctor as they are not forced to provide the abortion if providing the abortion is against their personal values.
