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...
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.
Quite so, the
debate on abortion suggests a concerted interest by those parties subscribed to the pro-life agenda to invoke a common acceptance of a single moral position. This is the type of imperative that runs directly counterintuitive to the ethical pragmatism demanded by the utilitarian perspective.
Works Cited:
California Medical Association (CMA). (1973). Where We Stand -- CMA Position Papers: Abortion. Western Journal of
Medicine, 116(6), 42-59.
Mill, J.S. (1838). Bentham. London and Westminster Review. Online at http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/bentham/bentham
Rachels, J. (1993). The Utilitarian Approach. The Elements of
Moral Philosophy, pg.
91-101. New York:
McGraw Hill.
