This paper examines Immanuel Kant's philosophical approach to morality, centering on his concept of duty (Pflicht) and the primacy of good will in ethical action. The paper distinguishes between actions motivated by self-interest and those performed from a sense of duty, arguing that true moral behavior requires selflessness and adherence to duty regardless of personal benefit. The paper then applies Kantian ethical principles to the question of abortion, considering both how Kant might have reasoned given his historical context and how he would likely judge the issue with modern understanding of fetal development. The analysis concludes that Kant's deontological framework would ultimately oppose abortion as inherently immoral, since it violates the categorical imperative by treating human life instrumentally rather than as an end in itself.
Kant focused on presenting the idea of good as a concept that should not be defined by relating to a series of attitudes and behaviors that some communities are likely to identify as good. Instead, he attempted to show morality in its entirety as the only good thing and as being strongly related to good will. Even though he emphasizes occasions in which people can put forward helpful attitudes toward others on account of their personal interests, he also addressed how someone can actually behave morally without expecting something in return. From Kant's perspective, this is a good example of a person recognizing that a sense of duty fuels them rather than the feeling that they will profit from the action.
According to Kant's philosophy, an individual who behaves morally practically abandons all desires in order to experience a type of happiness that is based on their interest in assisting others because the others are happy, rather than because this happiness serves them in any way. This represents a form of selfless happiness and stands as a paradox when considering ideas in contemporary society, as most people appear to believe that having material interests is an essential element of human nature and behavior.
A sense of duty toward doing good deeds, from Kant's perspective, means that an individual always focuses on moral values when performing any action. While there are episodes during which a person can appear to be interested in doing good, people are often guided by selfishness when helping others. The simple act of helping an individual is frequently owed to the helper being interested in the benefits associated with providing assistance. It would thus be accurate to say that a sense of duty implies a unique form of being good—in such a setting, the morally good person behaves in that manner because they are well-acquainted with the reasons why they should do this, understand the risks and detriments associated with the action, and are nonetheless determined to proceed.
A person who feels that they have a duty to behave morally is likely to qualify as someone who actually behaves morally and who fails to be categorized as a normal person who only acts on account of the profits they obtain as a result. Furthermore, the individual who performs moral actions does not do so because they consider the eventual benefits that they or the person involved will get from the action. Instead, they want to be moral because they feel that this is right and should have nothing to do with the profits these actions involve for themselves or for the person or persons they want to help. Thus, selflessness is the key to performing moral behavior.
Even though Kant emphasizes the idea of duty as a superior state of being, he also addresses how it can directly act in disagreement with personal desires. By considering that it would be their duty to behave morally, a person directly acknowledges that they should ignore a series of tempting opportunities in the process. This individual practically admits that there are better things in life but that they need to refrain from pursuing them because they have a duty to behave morally. The categorical imperative—Kant's foundational principle—demands adherence to duty regardless of personal benefit or competing interests.
Although Kant was especially specific with regard to moral duties and the degree to which a person can be considered to behave morally, it would be especially difficult to determine whether or not he would agree with abortion. When regarding matters from his direct historical perspective—the position of a man who had limited understanding of fetal development before it becomes a fully-grown infant—it would be reasonable to say that the German philosopher would have been pro-choice.
Kant would probably have focused on the woman's position with regard to the matter, and as long as she would be supportive of having an abortion, the individuals performing it would behave morally as they would be acting in the woman's best interest (assuming that she believes there is no other solution to her situation). Kant's understanding of pregnancy was certainly limited, and he could not have possibly considered that a woman could give birth and the baby could develop normally at an earlier stage in the pregnancy. Taking this into account, he would likely have considered that the moral thing to do in such a situation would be to allow the woman to obtain an abortion.
When considering a situation in which Kant would be familiarized with contemporary ideas, it would be more likely that he would oppose the idea of abortion. He would be probable to consider that a fetus is a human being and that it would thus be against moral ideas to perform an abortion. The German philosopher would consider that there is no difference whatsoever between committing murder and performing an abortion. From his perspective, a person should not concentrate solely on the final effect of their actions and thus act accordingly; rather, they should focus on all effects associated with their actions. Kantian thinking opposes the idea that "you have to break some eggs in order to make an omelet."
Kantian thinking supports the idea that in order to behave morally, people would have to be selfless in everything they do. As a consequence, a woman wanting an abortion would have to consider the fact that she needs to give birth to her child as a means of doing something moral for the child. She should not allow herself to be guided by her interests and should only concentrate on what would be best for the world as a whole. A person should generally concentrate on performing actions that are beneficial for the world, and abortion or a chain of abortions would obviously damage the social order through the ideas they entail.
"Kantian conclusion: abortion as immoral and harmful to social order"
You’re 91% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.