This paper compares and contrasts the philosophical positions of John Finnis and Michael Tooley on the moral permissibility of abortion. Finnis argues that life begins at conception and that all human persons possess an equal right to life, making abortion morally impermissible except in narrow circumstances where maternal life is threatened. Tooley contends that moral personhood requires specific characteristics—particularly self-consciousness and awareness—which fetuses and infants lack, rendering abortion morally permissible. The paper examines each philosopher's core principles (Finnis's justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence versus Tooley's personhood criteria), explores their treatment of exceptions and edge cases, and concludes that Finnis's argument provides a more compelling moral framework grounded in the inherent value of human life from conception.
Abortion is defined as a medical procedure or intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb. Abortion has been and remains a deeply controversial issue, one that continues to generate significant moral, philosophical, and political debate. This paper compares and contrasts the philosophical positions of John Finnis and Michael Tooley on whether abortion is morally permissible. It examines the basic principles each philosopher uses to support his argument and evaluates which position proves more persuasive.
The central question underlying this debate is how we define and value the fetus in relation to human personhood and whether it is ethical to end its development. The public has long struggled to determine whether abortion is morally permissible or morally impermissible. Because abortion generates differing opinions, it has become one of the most controversial topics in bioethics. Some people believe that abortion is unacceptable under any circumstances. Others contend that abortion may be justified under certain conditions. Many philosophers have attempted to articulate what criteria must be satisfied for abortion to be acceptable or unacceptable.
Finnis and Tooley represent nearly complete philosophical opposition on abortion. Tooley argues that specific characteristics are required for a "right to life," concluding that the unborn and some infants do not possess these characteristics and therefore abortion is morally permissible. Finnis, by contrast, maintains that if the unborn are human persons, then the principles of justice and non-maleficence prohibit abortion, making it morally impermissible. Anything that harms an innocent human being violates these foundational principles. However, Finnis does recognize limited exceptions to his position, particularly when the mother's life is threatened or in cases of rape where defensive action is justified. For example, if the life of either the mother or fetus can be saved only through a procedure that will adversely affect the other, abortion may be applicable in that extreme circumstance.
Finnis argues that life begins at the moment of conception and that the fetus possesses an equal right to life as any other human being. He grounds his position in three core moral principles: justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. According to Finnis, any attempt to deliberately harm an innocent person—such as through an abortion procedure—violates both non-maleficence and justice, regardless of the reluctance with which such an act might be performed.
The principle of non-maleficence requires that we refrain from causing harm to others. Justice demands that we respect the fundamental rights of all human persons. For Finnis, the fetus qualifies as a human person from conception, and therefore possesses the moral status necessary to invoke these protective principles. This means that intentionally killing a fetus is fundamentally unjust and harmful, even if someone feels compelled to do so.
Importantly, Finnis does acknowledge exceptions to the absolute prohibition on abortion, though these are narrowly construed. He recognizes that a woman has the right to defend herself in cases of rape and in situations where her life is threatened. For example, Finnis permits the use of a "post-coital pill" to prevent reproduction in cases of rape, because the direct intention is prevention rather than termination. Additionally, if a medical procedure is necessary to save either the mother's or the fetus's life, and no alternative exists, that procedure may be morally permissible even if it adversely affects the other. These exceptions reflect Finnis's recognition that other moral principles and rights (such as bodily autonomy and self-defense) can, in extreme circumstances, override the presumption against abortion.
Tooley takes a fundamentally different approach by distinguishing between being a human being and being a person in the moral sense. He argues that being human is not the essential criterion for possessing a right to life. Instead, moral personhood requires specific psychological characteristics that a fetus and young infants do not possess.
The central characteristic Tooley emphasizes is self-consciousness or self-awareness. According to his argument, to possess the moral right to life, an individual must have the capacity for conscious experience and must be a subject of mental experiences. A fetus or infant, lacking this capacity, does not qualify as a moral person and therefore does not possess the right to life that moral persons enjoy. Tooley's distinction allows him to argue that abortion is morally permissible precisely because the fetus lacks the psychological criteria necessary for moral personhood.
For Tooley, personhood is not automatically conferred by biological membership in the human species. Instead, it is acquired through the development of certain cognitive capacities. This position implies that the moral status of a fetus is significantly lower than that of a person with self-consciousness, making abortion a permissible choice. Tooley's framework essentially decouples biological humanity from moral personhood, which is the crux of his disagreement with Finnis.
The divergence between Finnis and Tooley reflects a fundamental disagreement about the basis of moral status. Finnis locates moral personhood in biological humanity—specifically, in being a human organism from conception onward. Tooley locates it in psychological capacities, particularly self-consciousness. This disagreement is not merely academic; it determines whether a fetus possesses rights that must be protected.
Finnis relies on three moral principles—justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence—to argue that abortion is impermissible. Because the fetus is a human person, harming it violates these principles. Tooley, by contrast, bases his argument on the absence of the characteristics required for personhood. His reasoning is that since fetuses lack self-consciousness, they do not qualify for moral protections and therefore abortion does not violate any moral duty.
A key difference is that Finnis acknowledges narrow exceptions to his position (life-threatening circumstances, rape), whereas Tooley's framework provides broader grounds for abortion, limited primarily by the question of whether the fetus has yet developed the requisite psychological capacities. The two philosophers ultimately cannot be reconciled because they begin from incompatible premises about what confers moral status.
In my assessment, Finnis's argument is more persuasive. I agree that from the moment of conception, a new human life has been created. From a biological perspective, once conception occurs, the mother's body immediately begins preparing itself to sustain and develop this new life, whether or not conception was intentional.
"Direct comparison of Finnis and Tooley's core principles"
"Author's assessment of which position proves more compelling"
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.