Ethics Class Homework Assignments: Critiques, Thoughts... Thanks!

[Mudhammam]

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. 

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.

Sweet, thanks Cato. I can see where my professor might interpret it that way; maybe I'll phrase the line differently so that I don't come across as too obstinate... really, I'm not sure what else that I could add to the comments on utilitarianism with regards to abortion, and the two objections, that wouldn't just be restatements of the point I think I said decently well in brief (since I'm be limited to 2 1/2 pages, as I said it is almost impossible to consider anything in any truly serious way). The primary reason for the inclusion of the last two paragraphs, was (as you said) that I found them more interesting observations, and partly in response to some of the things he wrote on my last essay (for instance, he asked why it is that I should presume all definitions of objective good to be equally correct and likened it to the concept of a "chair").  

As for Kant, you might be right. He's one of the two (along with Mill) whose writings on morality I'm not acquainted with too much (the others we have covered thus far have been Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Nietzsche). I did do a little research, to see how Kantians view abortion, and from their arguments and the words of Kant it seems there is some disagreement over his ideas of "rational being" and "humanity," and how this fits into our obligations to the unborn. The categorical imperative, at least as I would imagine it, would be something like, "All fetuses that suffer from a disorder or a defect that is sure to substantially lower their future quality of life should be aborted," granting that an unborn child doesn't meet his definition of humanity (rational, can set ends for itself) and that it would even be cruel to not abort the fetus (cruelty not even being permitted towards animals, as it debases human character and increases the likelihood of acting cruelly towards other humans). But I'm sure there are Kantians who would disagree with that reading of Kant, and probably others who would seek to justify abortion in certain instances for other reasons.

Anyway, I really appreciate the input.