Immanuel Kant has been one of the most renowned philosophers of the 18th century. He is well known for his duty-bound theory. Kant proposed the theory of Categorical Imperative which is duty-bound. He believed that an act should be done because the act itself is moral and not because it would produce the desired consequence. It is also well-known as the complete opposite of the consequentialist’s claim that “the end justifies the mean”.
In this paper, the main point would focus around how Kant would possibly evaluate abortion considering his deontological theory or duty bound ethics. Moral Issues of Abortion The issue of abortion has been open for criticisms for a long time now. It has been discussed in academics, courtroom and personal events. The complication of the issue concerning abortion is absolutely evident if we one would notice the varying opinions of the public towards it. There are several conflicting sides which are present in the seemingly never ending moral issue of abortion.
One particular and probably most primary reason why it is considered immoral is the fact that it is an act of killing an undeveloped child. The idea that it terminates a life regardless of the early life stage of the fetus, is simply killing. It is a sin because most of the motivations behind accounts to selfishness. Usually, a teenager would abort a baby for practical reasons. It is either she wants to save her face from humiliation or would not want to become pressured by financial responsibilities.
It can also be because she is not ready yet for greater responsibilities that having a child might impose—or maybe because there is no father to support them. Other selfish reasons are because a couple only wanted to have sex and accidentally conceived one so they decided to terminate it. On the other hand, some people believe that abortion should be legalized in all aspects. They believe that a woman has the right to decide whether she would like to have a baby or not. These people, therefore, give the power to the pregnant woman whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.
Others believe that abortion should be legalized in some circumstances like rape or financial instability. These opinions are generated from people who believed more in the rights of women than of the unborn child. In this case, the issue of abortion has more significance in the issue of morality too. According to Jay Garfield and Patricia Hennessey on their book, Abortion, Moral and Legal Perspectives: The abortion issue is not only important politically and socially, though this importance alone would justify our serious attention.
The question of the moral and legal status of abortion is also of considerable intrinsic philosophical and legal interest, inasmuch as it involves some of the most profound questions about the nature of persons, the boundaries of the state’s power over persons, the connection between law and morality, and the nature of the action (1). Kant’s Categorical Imperative “The moral imperative enjoins moral goodness: it bids us to act morally—that is, as we have seen, to act for the sake of the law or for the sake of duty.
The universal ethical command is ‘Act in accordance with duty for the sake of duty’” (Paton 117). The philosophy of Kant is actually easily comprehensible. For him, an act is moral if it qualifies as a good act in accordance to what Kant considered as maxims. For example, the Ten Commandments are a type of maxim that consists of actions which are considered good and moral. The commandment “You shall not kill” is an absolute maxim which, if done otherwise under any circumstances, is considered immoral. No matter how desirable the consequences are, it is still not a moral act.
Furthermore, Raymond Deveterre argues that, “Kant’s basic moral principle was a general imperative that reason imposes on all of us. He called the principle the “categorical imperative”. It is an imperative because it commands and obliges us; it is categorical because it is absolute and generates absolute moral norms” (77). Therefore, if the act of killing is not good in nature, it must be avoided under any circumstances. Even if the situation is a matter of life and death of a mother, it is still her full duty to act in accordance to what is right and not in regard to the consequence.
That is the reason why Kant’s deontological theory is entirely in contrast with Consequentialism. According to Children’s Act 2001, “every child has an inherent right to life and it shall be the responsibility of the government and the family to ensure the survival and development of the child” (qtd. in Mwiti 101). The purpose of this act is to protect the right of a child to life. It does not mention any stages of childhood but speaks in the entirety of childhood in all aspects.
Mwiti added in her research that, “This act spells out the fact that abortion is taking away the life of a defenceless and powerless child. That is why the law steps in as a defender of the voiceless—the unborn baby. Abortion therefore can be termed as child abuse of the cruellest form because in it is murder most foul” (Mwiti 102). This kind of claim evidently considers the moral principle of the Kantian theory as it shows the wrongness of killing regardless of the consequences. Conclusion Immanuel Kant’s duty theory is simple in nature if one would analyze how he based the principle from pure reason.
His views are not based on any religion but it sure does resemble the Catholic church’s views about life. His views would definitely evaluate abortion as immoral based on the initial act performed which is killing. He would not consider the idea of “a better result” because he does not believe in the goodness of consequences. He disregarded consequences in all aspects. This means that he believed that we must always look at the initial action that we perform in our decisions and that action would determine if what we did is moral or not—not the consequences that resulted from it.
Works Cited
- Devettere, Raymond J. Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts.
- Washington D. C. : Georgetown University Press, 2000. Garfield, Jay L. , & Patricia Hennessey.
- Abortion, Moral and Legal Perspectives: Moral and Legal Perspectives. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1984. Mwiti, Gladys.
- Young Lives at Risk. Kenya: Evangel Publishing House, 1997.
- Paton, Herbert James. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.