Abortion Philosophy the Utilitarian Debate

Abortion Philosophy

The Utilitarian Debate Against the Ethicality of the Pro-Life Agenda

Though there is a theoretical separation between Church and State which is said to serve the inherently spiritual but politically secular United States, there is nonetheless an inextricable relationship between the moral codes which guide both sectors. Indeed, it may often be difficult if not impossible to fully distinguish where such moral motives can be said to derive from political imperatives or from religious ones when speaking on such sociologically prevalent issues as those concerning law and order, civil liberty and the sanctity of human life. Perhaps no such issue is as salient in modern discourse as that of abortion, which by no mere incidence of its commonality throughout human history, but by its very implications to our conception of that which defines life, is unlikely ever to be settled in such a fashion as to end our collective disagreement on terms. However, by examining abortion according to the premise of utilitarian thought, it is clear that there is a greater rational foundation for the political perspective taken by pro-choice candidates, which opposes legal obstruction to the right to an abortion.

The utilitarian ideology in the form that interests us, may be traced to the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, a scholar to whom John Stuart Mill, in his 1838 treatise on the influential thinker, attributed the quality of progressiveness. Indeed, one of Bentham's great contributions to the field of discourse on the prime determinants of individual rights is his insertion of logical pragmatism into the formulation thereof, which ultimately allows us to be removed from the restraints of religious ideology that have confounded the true ethical debate over the right to abortion.

Bentham considered the notion that there are certain guaranteed natural rights to which all men are entitled and should thus be rewarded with just by the virtue of their existence, premising the value of a utilitarian perspective. He objected to the idea that any individual or group should be given an ethical framework through which he or it could then dictate that which is right and that which is wrong, providing a firm preemptive rejection to the religious politicization that has manifested in the effort to establish prohibition against the right of women to decided for themselves whether an abortion is an appropriate action. Such prohibition, Bentham contended, would be a contradiction to the preservation of individual rights. He even goes so far as to signal the necessity for a change in approach to contending with any questions regarding the prescription of rights, here channeled through the words of John Stuart Mill. The remarks seem directed in their derisive tone at the unempirical thinkers espousing the Law of Nature as a singular lens for evaluating human rights.

"Instead of taking up their opinions by intuition, or by ratiocination from premises adopted on a mere rough view, and couched in language so vague that it is impossible to say exactly whether they are true or false, philosophers are now forced to understand one another, to break down the generality of their propositions, and join a precise issue in every dispute." (Mill, 1)

Guided by the central principle that morality may defined as the creation, extension or preservation of happiness for the largest number of people at all times, Mill's ideas are conceptually incompatible as well with the idea that government might be able to enforce a prohibition or intervention where abortion is sought. This is to indicate that there is a fundamentally irrational overarching premise to the idea that abortion could be controlled through governance, especially given that many of the core arguments in favor of such control proceed from a position which cannot be argued but which must be believed. This is the type of vagueness at which Mill balks, perceiving this as an intentional mode of obfuscation to as to enable moral control.