I'll limit my initial response to the second assignment.
I don't think you've done enough to demonstrate that aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's syndrome meets Kant's CI as universal law, primarily because the end in itself aspect of CI cuts against any you. Children with Down's syndrome certainly require additional care obligations along with the quality of life considerations you mentioned arguing the utilitarian point; however, I think this only gets you to a hypothetical imperative, which Kant wouldn't agree is sufficient to justify a universal law.
Despite immense interest in some of your commentary in the last two paragraphs, I question their inclusion in this assignment. The second portion of the assignment was to defend utilitarianism, your choice, against the objections (lack of ubiquitous satisfaction and limits on personal achievement). I think your defense would work better by using the abortion example to help concretize your argument.
If I'm the instructor, my immediate interpretation of this is "fuck your assignment, I'm going to talk about what I want". I find what you want to discuss much more interesting; however, I just caution that it may be too far afield given what was asked.
I don't think you've done enough to demonstrate that aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's syndrome meets Kant's CI as universal law, primarily because the end in itself aspect of CI cuts against any you. Children with Down's syndrome certainly require additional care obligations along with the quality of life considerations you mentioned arguing the utilitarian point; however, I think this only gets you to a hypothetical imperative, which Kant wouldn't agree is sufficient to justify a universal law.
Despite immense interest in some of your commentary in the last two paragraphs, I question their inclusion in this assignment. The second portion of the assignment was to defend utilitarianism, your choice, against the objections (lack of ubiquitous satisfaction and limits on personal achievement). I think your defense would work better by using the abortion example to help concretize your argument.
Quote:I would rather like to briefly consider an objection and a defense of consequentialism from a different angle.
If I'm the instructor, my immediate interpretation of this is "fuck your assignment, I'm going to talk about what I want". I find what you want to discuss much more interesting; however, I just caution that it may be too far afield given what was asked.
