Moral Philosophy First Reading: Why

¶ … Moral Philosophy

First Reading: Why Abortion is Immoral

Author Don Marquis's view justifies the immorality of abortion on identical grounds with that of the immorality of killing an adult human being. Akin to killing an adult human which is prima facie wrongful as it denies him of a future life, killing a fetus also deprives it of a future life. Hence to Don, the supporters of abortion are inconsistent when they advocate abortion but consider killing an adult a crime when both killing a fetuses as well as killing an adult both amounts to killing. Anti-abortionists are quite right when they maintain that life comes into being from the time of conception or that fetuses morphologically appear like babies or that the genetic code has already been imprinted on them which is both necessary as well as sufficient for being human and putting forth any claim is enough to demonstrate that abortion with certain exceptions tantamount to murder. Therefore the premises for demonstrating that abortion is immoral must make us not merely believe but also understand why killing adult human beings like us are wrong.

2): The author in the essay argues that save for rare cases; abortion is seriously immoral and akin to killing an innocent adult human being. However, he also states that people who support abortion defend their act by compartmentalizing that fetuses are not individuals or rational agents and also not social beings hence these claims are enough to demonstrate that abortion should never be construed as a wrongful killing. The opposing claims of both camps i.e. The anti-abortionist and the supporter of abortion makes an impasse which has to be surmounted as regards the principles of morality involved. The anti-abortionist defends his turf on moral principles entailing the wrongness of killing which tends to be broad in its applicability such that fetuses at an early stage of pregnancy will be covered under it. The difficulty with accepting broad principles, results in accepting a lot too much.

Similarly the pro-choicer looks to find a moral principle regarding the wrongness of killing which becomes narrow in scope so as to exclude fetuses from their purview. Hence narrow principles have an inherent flaw that they do not embrace enough premises. Thus a stalemate comes about in the form that the anti-abortionist charges fairly justifiably that pro-choice principles regarding killing are very narrow to be acceptable; the pro-choicer holds that anti-abortionists principles regarding killings are very broad to be acceptable. Hence this demonstrates that a necessary condition of resolving the abortion disagreement is more theoretical account of the wrongfulness of killing. In the ultimate analysis if we just believe, but fail to comprehend as to why killing adult human beings like us is wrong, how could we plausibly demonstrate that abortion is ether immoral or permissible?

A possible answer to this problem could be found out by looking at oneself whose absence would put untold miseries on our dependents i.e. our family. However, the greatest loss will be to the victim as loss of one's life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer denying him of all the experiences, performances, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one's future. This is the loss of one's biological life which might not be valuable at the moment but will be valued when a person grows old and he depends on those values when his capacities decline or changes. Therefore wreaking this loss on a person makes the killing of a person wrongful. Therefore what renders killing any adult human being wrong on the face of it is the loss of his or her future.

Besides, the author also defends the wrongness of killing in his essay which he extends to children and infants at it are presumed that they too have futures or values. As it is considered to be wrong to kill defenseless tiny babies, it is crucial that a theory of the wrongness of killing is responsible for this. The claim that the fundamental wrong-making feature of the killing is the loss to the victim of the value of the future accounts for the wrongness of taking the life of young children and infants directly, it renders the wrongness of such acts as obvious as we really believe it is. Thus, it appears that this value of 'future similar to ours' theory of the wrongfulness of the killing shares the strengths of both sanctity of life and personhood accounts at the same time avoiding the weakness of both. Apart from that, it interlocks with a central inkling that makes killing wrong.

3): The strongest argument of Don Marquis regarding the immorality of abortion draws on the parallel that the primary wrong-making aspect of a killing is the personal loss to the victim of the value of its future has apparent outcomes for the ethics of abortion. The future of a normally growing fetus contains a set of experiences, projects, performances and other acts which are same with the futures of adult human being and are same with the futures of young children. As the cause, which is sufficient to elucidate the reason why it is wrongful to kill human being following the time of birth is a reason which is also applicable to fetuses as well. Hence, I am in complete agreement with this view that abortion is severely a morally wrongful act. The debate to the conclusion that abortion is basically a wrongful act proceeded independent of the notion of person or potential person or any equivalent.

It is wrong regardless of any circumstances as the loss of the future to a normal fetus, in the event of it being killed, is, nevertheless, at least as huge a loss as the loss of the future to a normal human being who is killed, abortion, similar to normal killing, can be justified merely by the most convincing arguments. The loss of a person's life is definitely the gravest disaster which can happen to someone. Apparently, abortion could be defended in some situations only if the loss resulting in failing to abort would be as immense. I have no disagreement on this serious issue with the author on the entire issue of immorality of abortion as I personally feel that abortion is severely a wrongful act, as wrongful as killing another human being.

Second Reading: The Singer Solution to World Poverty

1): The author Peter Singer's belief stems from the lopsidedness of the hapless divide between the haves and have-nots and how the situation is further compounded by the affluent who instead of contributing precious little to the cause of the poor continue to indulge in luxuries of life while his less fortunate brethren starves to death. If sacrificing some of the less important luxuries of life contributes in favor of a noble cause that confers the very fundamental right of every human being to get some food so that a precious life is saved, then we all should do so. As a step in that direction Singer advocates how every individual can contribute in his own way to the cause of the poor by sacrificing some of expensive habits like refraining from buying new clothes, not dining at exotic restaurants and such stuff which are not indispensable for leading a normal healthy living and donating this money to charitable bodies which could save the lives of numerous children living on the fringes.

Singer does not remain just theoretical and offer rhetoric about morality of the issue of donating. He at the same time shows practicality of his philosophical argument and urges his readers about the urgency of donating for the cause of deprived children by stating the Toll free numbers of UNICEF and Oxfam in his writing. As a further step he invites a modest sum of $200 dollars as contribution for treatment of a sick 2-year-old into a healthy 6-year-old, which will help a child overcome his most vulnerable years of life. There are a lot of people who can afford to contribute $200 dollars, but many aren't taking the step which should not mean that an individual should follow herd mentality and refrain from contributing. This would mean acting akin to the many Germans who overlooked the situation when crimes against humanities were being committed by the Nazis.

Singer also takes an insight into the human mind when contributing $200 is concerned. As there are several deprived children in this world, contributing for one child will not mean enough and for how long one must go on contributing? Is it to the point of exhausting oneself? Then what is the threshold limit? Is it up to the point where the self is put to trouble? If venturing to this extreme would imply inflicting pain to oneself, then it would definitely discourage people to contribute to charity. It is here that Singer offers a solution that charity has to be on an equitable basis so that each and every citizen contributes equally and none has to make a drastic sacrifice. This would make the resource pool of charity large enough for the deprived sections of the society.

2): On the issue of morality Singer in his writing refers about the Brazilian film Central Station in which Dora, a poor retired school teacher gets an opportunity to earn $1,000 by handing over a 9-year-old homeless boy to an address where the boy will be fostered by wealthy foreigners. She hands over the boy, earns the money and buys a television to enjoy, only to be told by his neighbor that the boy will be killed and his organs used for human transplant. Dora gets upset and she decides to bring back the boy. In this situation Dora becomes a pawn of an immoral act without her knowledge following which she suffers from emotional turmoil. Had Dora acted otherwise without expressing any qualms of her actions, the author maintains, the audience would have branded her a demon.

But the irony of the fact remains that the same audience who would have raised their finger on Dora had she decided against taking back the boy; themselves dwell in far more plush apartment than Dora, enjoying life's more luxuries. In that vein the author states that affluent people spare no opportunity to condemn acts of immorality committed by others, but when the turn comes for them to show act of ethical behavior by saving a life or contributing for a charitable cause they never seem take the initiate to lead by example. The author raises question about the comparative ethics involved in the two acts and the degree of harshness committed by the two persons, i.e. Dora selling a homeless child for some money in exchange and an American upgrading to a better TV as the old one is no more fashionable conscious of the fact that the money could be given for charity which will better the lives of kids living on the edge.

To a utilitarian philosopher like Singer who believes in consequences, although it is sheer heartlessness to kill a child who the earlier moment was alive compared to ignoring an appeal for money to help children whom the donor will never get a chance to meet, are both the same judged from a consequential angle. In case of Dora, she commits an act which is immoral while an American refrains from doing a noble act, the consequence of both being equally immoral. Hence by shadowing the act of an American consumer behavior for not donating generously while pointing a finger at Dora raises a serious moral issue.

3): Several of Singer's views are practical to which every reasonable person will agree and come forward to make his contribution. It is true that we preach more than what we practice when it comes to donating for a noble cause like saving the life of children in need. Peter Unger also cites another example of his writing in Living High and Letting Die where he debates about the wrongfulness involved in leading opulent lives while the teeming million perish due to hunger, malnourishment and treatable diseases. In his imaginary example where Bob does not save a child by being run over by a speeding train at the cost of his prized possession - a vintage car Bugatti. All he could do was to pull a switch which could have diverted a speeding train from the path of the child and allow it to ram into his Bugatti which he didn't and continued to enjoy his car and financial security. It is agreeable with the author that collective wisdom demands that everybody should contribute to the cause of world hunger by donating in small amounts. This can be called as persuasive philanthropy where the affluent citizens are called upon to donate in small packages so that flow of donation is regular and the kitty becomes sizeable to be of substantial use to the needy.

However the point of disagreement with Singer is that it might not be possible to get what he terms as 'fair share' which might save lives which may otherwise be lost. Asking people to refrain from buying a new car renovate the house or other material improvement might be taken by different people in different perspectives. Some may oblige, others may see it as an intrusion of their personal decision. By putting down an exact sum towards charity which Singer states should be in the region of $20,000 may not be acceptable to a lot of contributors who may view this amount as huge and may be willing to part with this sum. Besides, asking them to forego their luxuries and contribute the amount would be counterproductive. Instead a better way would be to contribute any sum however small so that it brings amounts which can be substantial when contributions are received from a lot of people. This will be a satisfaction of the conscience of the people for donating for a noble and worthy cause.

Third Reading: Feeding the Hungry

1): The author Jan Narveson reserves a strong view regarding the politicization of starvation and how corrupt Governments use them to further their end. Starvation results due to bad functioning of governments, instead of nature's inability to cope with the ever-growing population. Starvation can be construed as a form of killing and definitely is included under the same parameters that any other process of killing is liable to. However when the problem is plague, crops fails due to famine, or just dearth of adequate knowledge, and then the blame is not put on anybody. At this point the haves must come forward to the rescue of the have-nots and if we don't we should be held guilty.

2): The author makes us aware about the finer points of distinction between duties of justice and duties of charity. Duty towards justice comes from compulsion whereas; charity comes from the heart of the giver with the desire to benefit others since they need it. When we take away the motive of a Samaritan from the act of charity, we can define charity as simply doing well for others. At this point according to the author charity takes the shape of compulsion which is definitely not true as far as the definition of charity goes. But instances of compulsion are found where the Government in order to undertake an equitable distribution puts taxes on the rich to use the money for the use of the poor for their socio-economic benefit, education and the like. At the point while we question, then, on which camp of the moral divide we should place feeding the hungry- unenforceable charity, to be left to personal consciences, or enforceable justice, maybe to be addressed by the Governments which is a real moral issue and also an important one.

It is not the question that feeding the hungry is not just something we should do, rather something we must do as an issue of justice. And the latter issue is the focal point of this argument. This brings us to the fundamental question regarding, are we duty bound to do justice to feed the starving? From this comes the second point, if there is not, then is there a basic need of charity that we will be disposed to perform in that manner, and if such how strong is that need. We can start with the question whether it is unjust to allow other to starve to death. According to Rachel, he sees no fundamental distinction between killing and letting die. Secondly, several people insist that feeding the hungry is the duty of the justice although we if we do not accept the equivalence of killing and letting to die. Thus they require separate arguments, in favor of a positive right to be fed.

The two divergent opinions need very different discussions. Starving and letting to starve are particular cases of killing and letting to die. In order to be certain we often attribute causality to human inaction. However, the definite instances of such attribution are those in which the agent in question possessed an antecedent responsibility to perform the thing in question. Moreover definitely we may agree that in case we have a duty to feed the poor and fail in our duty to feed them, then we are at fault. Besides, what is our stand that killing and letting die are morally on the same platform. Once again, there is a risk of begging the question which is if we have a duty to feed the hungry and we do not, then in that case refraining from doing might be morally equivalent to killing them. However once again, the outcome definitely does not follow in case we do not have that duty, which is in question. Among the people who consider that we do not have fundamental duties to mutually take care of one another as a mark of fraternity, but just duties to refrain from killing and things similar to that will deny that they are morally equal.