As is the case with many issues in a utilitarian system, the rightness or wrongness of the act in question turns mainly not on the effects of the act on the agent, nor on the being(s) directly affected by the act, but on the less direct effects on the community at large. The issue of abortion, stripped of the language of "rights" and emotional sway over "murdering babies", actually becomes one of the desirability of increasing or decreasing the population.
Under the kantian viewpoint of reflection there may be a lot of people that wouldn't mind being aborted if their mother is severely struggling but a lot will disagree if their mother just wants to continue school, go on a vacation, or just continue with her sex life, etc.
utilitarianism on abortion Through the lens of utilitarianism, abortion can be permissible. It is first very important to point out that this theory is the maxim that right actions are those that produce the best overall outcome for those who will be affected by the action. In this sense, a mother can terminate the life her foetus if this pregnancy contributes a danger over her safety because if she dies, a lot of people are going to be harmed by her death such as her husband or her children. In addition, according to a utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, the early unborn humans do not feel pain and they cannot act rational, and they are not self-aware, so they are not intrinsically valuable. Therefore, if government banes abortion, it may put a lot of women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists or die. Therefore, in a utilitarian view, government must give great consideration to the rights and needs of its individuals because people are happy when they enjoy their freedom of rights. However, the utilitarian theory seems to focus a lot on the consequence rather than the actual action which involves killing an innocent child since science as well as religions such Islam or Christianity does consider the foetus as a person.
What do you think make something"good"? If it is good because a theistic deity said so, is it good just because the deity commands even if it contains suffering which contributes nothing to usefull or the deity realises that the deeds which it deems good are pretty usefull which one can realise without the existence of the deity. If second is the case, it implies utilitarianism and consequentialism while if first is the case, I find no reason to believe in the moral validity of such claims by the deity
Here 'usefull' refers to decrease in suffering or increase in pleasure and happiness, which according to your stand is not necessarily good or does not define something as good
As is the case with many issues in a utilitarian system, the rightness or wrongness of the act in question turns mainly not on the effects of the act on the agent, nor on the being(s) directly affected by the act, but on the less direct effects on the community at large. The issue of abortion, stripped of the language of "rights" and emotional sway over "murdering babies", actually becomes one of the desirability of increasing or decreasing the population.
I know I'm probably trapping myself by asking this, but what about adoption?
Under the kantian viewpoint of reflection there may be a lot of people that wouldn't mind being aborted if their mother is severely struggling but a lot will disagree if their mother just wants to continue school, go on a vacation, or just continue with her sex life, etc.
utilitarianism on abortion
Through the lens of utilitarianism, abortion can be permissible. It is first very important to point out that this theory is the maxim that right actions are those that produce the best overall outcome for those who will be affected by the action. In this sense, a mother can terminate the life her foetus if this pregnancy contributes a danger over her safety because if she dies, a lot of people are going to be harmed by her death such as her husband or her children. In addition, according to a utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, the early unborn humans do not feel pain and they cannot act rational, and they are not self-aware, so they are not intrinsically valuable. Therefore, if government banes abortion, it may put a lot of women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists or die. Therefore, in a utilitarian view, government must give great consideration to the rights and needs of its individuals because people are happy when they enjoy their freedom of rights. However, the utilitarian theory seems to focus a lot on the consequence rather than the actual action which involves killing an innocent child since science as well as religions such Islam or Christianity does consider the foetus as a person.
I disagree with his assumption that sex is a “good” thing
Why would it not be a good thing if both parties are gaining pleasure from it?
@@erinkeat85 that just presupposes naturalism and utilitarianism. Pleasure does not equal goodness.
What do you think make something"good"? If it is good because a theistic deity said so, is it good just because the deity commands even if it contains suffering which contributes nothing to usefull or the deity realises that the deeds which it deems good are pretty usefull which one can realise without the existence of the deity. If second is the case, it implies utilitarianism and consequentialism while if first is the case, I find no reason to believe in the moral validity of such claims by the deity
Here 'usefull' refers to decrease in suffering or increase in pleasure and happiness, which according to your stand is not necessarily good or does not define something as good