Evaluate the arguments of Virtue Ethics for and against abortion
Virtue ethics ask the question “How can I be a better person” and refer to the central feature of a character to determine the rightness or wrongness of abortion. The concept of eudemonia and golden mean are the basis in Aristotle’s virtue ethics. For a virtuous person, actions are gaining towards the ultimate purpose of eudemonia as the greatest state of good. One must practice and cultivate virtue to find the golden mean which balance between extremes by using reasons. Thus, abortion can be approached within the character whether the action can flourish eudemonia. What is important in virtue ethics is not that there is one right or wrong answer but the decision taken, shows that the person consider the need to be responsible for one’s action. Discussions on abortions are focused on its main features: personhood, sanctity of life and the issue of rights. On the other hand, virtue ethics assess actions by the type of character which produces and choose the action. Virtue ethics in modern context have caused different arguments for and against abortion. McIntyre developed Aristotle ethics and argued that ethics has lost its roots and being virtue is something sustains the communities in which to seek for good with reasons as the tool. Meanwhile, there are more contemporary arguments, Foot emphasizes virtues are good if used for a good end. We need the idea of morality as constituted before we make sense that abortion is right or not. However, Hursthouse disagreed with some Aretaic ethics and stated that abortion can be a right decision and still demonstrate a lack of virtue. She argued that should an adequate theory provide answers for abortion with references easily? Nevertheless, Nussbaum responded that there are absolute in virtue ethics which abortion is wrong. As abortion is impractically not human flourishing and rejected a compatible approach.
Virtue ethics is not concerned with the motives or consequences of an action. The theory asks how one can become a better person. It defines good people and qualities that make them good. Aristotle proposed two types of aim, superior and subordinate. Superior aims are final goal whereas subordinate aims are thing we have to get. Aristotle’s stated that whatever we do something, we do it to gain an end and the ultimate end of all is the greatest good, a superior goal of happiness. Eudemonia, the ancient Greek concept of a state being satisfactory in life was described as the greatest good. This is the highest good because it is for its own sake and has intrinsic value. Therefore, virtue ethics can be considered as teleological as it concern with achieving eudemonia as the ultimate end.
Aristotle believed that people’s idea of happiness can be group in three major types. Pleasure seekers, who value pleasure and self pleasure as their aim in living life of enjoyment. Seekers of honors, who like to serve the community and being a free member of society. Lastly, people who contemplate and understand the purpose of life. For Aristotle’s eudemonia, it involves a combination of all three types of happiness. Also, Aristotle proposed two types of virtue, moral and intellectual virtues. Moral virtues can be described as qualities of characteristic such as courage, temperance and patience which are cultivated through habit. Intellectual virtues are qualities of mind such as wisdom, understanding and judgments which are cultivated through instruction that were taught and learnt, but not developed through habit.
Aristotle stated extremes of behaviors, vice of deficiency and excess are unhelpful to society. Golden Mean is gained through reason and ability to follow the middle way between excess and deficiency. In order to cultivate the mean, one must control emotions and behaviors in different situations, conduct ourselves with dignity and find the middle way with reasons. Reasons have the ability to work out how to gain pleasure for all members of society and to think in moral capacity. Also, reasons should always come before feelings and should be used to cultivate our virtues. For Aristotle, virtue is something that is practiced and thereby learnt as a habit. We acquire virtues by doing virtuous acts like we acquire a skill by practicing the activities involved in the skill.
Virtue ethics avoids having to use formula such as greatest good for greatest number in Utilitarianism when making moral decision but focus on the kind of person we ought to be. Virtue ethics stresses the importance of motivating people that want to be good and integrate many different aspect of life into our ethical reflection taken in different situations. It does not provide any actual rule on abortion. The way to learn how to be virtuous is to follow the example of a virtuous person. A virtuous agent’s application on abortion could say that we should follow the example of a good person and ask would that person have an abortion in that circumstance.
As Virtue ethics is a flexible ethical theory, it holds between right or wrong. Abortion could be a right if the mother may consider another child would affect her ability to love and care the rest of her family. For which bring greater harm than good to the group, the affect of an unwanted pregnancy can therefore be considered as acceptable. However, virtuous agent might see ending a pregnancy with violence is a cowardice and rashness act. The importance of Aristotle virtue ethics is not that there is one right or wrong answer but the decision reflects the person has considered the need to be responsible for one’s action.
The weakness of virtue ethics’ flexibility on abortion can be found between intellectual and moral virtue. As intellectual virtue cannot be learnt without moral virtue. Our moral virtues are in practice such as courage and selflessness; these will make abortion towards a wrong act. Likewise, intellectual virtues would let us learn a negative view on abortion, as we are learnt that taking innocent’s life away is wrong. The flexibility of virtue ethics is therefore causing difficult of identifying virtues. Are virtues culturally relative in a modern context?
In a modern abortion debate, Aristotle’s view on personhood has been argued mistaken about unborn human life. Defining when is an embryo or foetus becomes a person is vital when applying virtue ethics to abortion. Various views of personhood have been developed since. The Roman Catholics said that human is ensouled at the point of conception. While, Peter Singer argued that we cannot define a person before fourteen days of a growing foetus.
Moreover, for or against abortion arguments have been based on whether foetus is a person and the issue of rights. J.J. Thompson’s analogy of a violinist has revealed a pro-choice argument on abortion and support the right of the foetus is not greater than the mother’s right to freedom. This underlines the problem of abortion in virtue ethics when considering abortion is right or wrong, it depends on different views of the unborn child and the rights of the person.
Aristotelian’s ethics looks at abortion in a different way from pro-choice or pro-life arguments, consider the value of relationship and that a person acts virtuously will always do what is right for the individual within the society. However, the different value of goodness can be hard to distinguish by virtue ethicist, such as an agent with exterior acts which come from doubtful motives can mislead virtue. As well as considering how a virtuous person might act, there can be confliction in virtue while making a moral decision.
Contemporary moral philosophers have helped to revive and revitalize Aristotle’s system of virtue ethics and approach on moral issue such as abortion in modern context. Alasdair MacIntyre tried to resurrect Aristotle’s virtue ethics. He believed that too much has been emphasized on reasoning with not enough on lives for ordinary people. As Macintyre thought that while philosophers are thinking about the issue of abortion, people are suffering from deprivation and unable to make decision on abortion. The majority of ordinary people cannot implement the philosophical thoughts into real life scenarios. Ethics should be more concern about the moral good of a community. Therefore MacIntyre rejects the idea that modern society has inherited traditions from the past. As he claimed that morality has suffered a catastrophe that has lost moral wisdom. This urged us to understand the historical context of ethics. Virtue ethics has to be reassessed and updated from Aristotle’s times.
In contrast to Aristotle, Macintyre thought reasons should be used to achieve virtues, rather than to determine what makes a virtuous character. He rejected quandary ethics and insisted that ethics should tell us how we ought to live.
Macintyre believed that there are relative values in modern ethics. Different societies hold different values and virtues change over time. He explained this point by showing there is difference in Homeric virtues such as strength, courage and honors, Aristotelian such as courage, justice and temperance and Christian virtue outlined by Aquinas. For example, an underage girl from a Catholic family became pregnant and abortion would be considered as a wrong act in all circumstances. By understanding historical and social context, we understand ethical issues that arise and why abortion is wrong for the Catholic family. MacIntytre agreed with Aristotle’s purpose to develop the ultimate end and also emphasizes the use of reason in modern context which lead virtue ethics a relative theory when determining abortion is right or wrong.
Another contemporary moral philosopher, Philippa Foot keeps Aristotelian understanding of character and virtue. Foot believes that goodness should be seen as the natural flourishing of human. Individuals’ sense of reason is important when practicing virtues. Virtue is good for us and helps us to avoid passions and temptations. Foot claimed that virtues are only good if used for a good end and argued that although virtue ethics does not guarantee happiness, it is a part of achieving it. This has put virtue ethics towards a teleological context. In abortion, Foot claimed that we need the idea of morality as constituted by virtue before we can make sense that abortion is right or not. We have to found the end within morality, and forming part of it, not standing outside that moral action is to be judged compare with MacIntyre’s virtue ethics. Therefore, Foot emphasized that abortion is right only if it is for a good end within the morality of virtues. Hence, virtue does not operate if it turned to a bad end. This responded one of the weaknesses above on exterior act in Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Therefore, when virtues are used for a good end can be used to correct vicious acts, such as making a wrong decision as an exterior act.
Foot also added there is one way to reintroduce acts that are morally unacceptable as a case against abortion. She stated that one might respond to the overall objection with the concept of abortion (e.g. as a bad act) and being a characteristic of vice. Those acts which are not aiming at virtue would constitute our conception of bad behavior and will lead abortion towards a morally impermissible act.
This has responded to a weakness of Aristotle virtue ethics that ethicist wanted to say some actions are intrinsically intolerable which cannot be enough to explain by the characteristic of behavior within the theory.
Hursthouse’s virtue ethics does not agree with all Aristotle virtue ethics. She argued that being virtuous shapes an agent reasoning, but not shaping the person’s attitude or actions directly as Aristotle claimed. Being virtuous is a reliable path to flourishing because it shapes one’s reasons as well as character of actions. Therefore, she emphasized that we are not born with virtue, we develop virtue from habits. She used an analogy that there are young mathematical geniuses but we rarely observe moral genius
to distinguish moral has to be practice. Also she attempts to criticize there is no guidance in virtue ethics when facing moral dilemmas. As Hursthouse argued should an adequate moral theory provide answer to the question easily with references of what really matters in human life? Instead of telling how a virtuous person would act when facing a dilemma of abortion, but by showing how the person would think about the moral dilemma.
Her emphasis on personhood is only relevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion if we have the accurate knowledge biologically on the state of foetus. This seems to response the mistaken view of personhood in Aristotle’s time which abortion was not consider as murder of an innocent which could affect the use of reasons in this case. On the other hand, the issues of rights to abortion has no relates to the morality of abortion in Hursthouse’s view. “For it is irrelevant to the question ‘In having an abortion in these circumstances, would the agent be acting virtuously or viciously or neither?’”
For Hursthouse, abortion would be seen as a wrong act as parenthood is an intrinsic way of human flourishing. However, it could be right due to consideration such as poor health of the child. Hursthouse writes that abortion is part of human life and death, parenthood and family relationship issue and is not a decision taken in isolation. If virtue is linked to human flourishing while parents care about their children and family relationship which contribute to that flourishing. Abortion could ignore the view on virtue. Therefore, Hursthouse thinks that having an abortion can be the right decision but still demonstrate a lack of virtue when parents deeply care about love, relationship and family.
Annette Baier’s approach on virtue ethics has stated the natural biases for different virtues between men and women. Men often think morally in terms of justice and autonomy. Whereas women are in terms of caring and nurturing, this seems to refer to Hursthouse’s human flourishing on the importance of trust, family and relationship in abortion. Discussions in ethics of caring do not always make explicit links with virtue Ethics, but in their discussion of specific virtues. It is important that we not consider some virtues are more valuable than others, in particularly the case of abortion, has to take into account of the moral circumstance for which virtue(s) refers to.
Nevertheless, Martha Nussbaum virtue ethics depends on moral absolute which against abortion. It is virtues that have value which we should strive for justice, wisdom, temperance etc. These are essential for human flourishing across all societies and times. Virtuous being has a responsibility to act in certain way. When thinking about abortion in modern context, abortion is wrong as we must not kill an innocent person or using violence to end a pregnancy are impractically known as unjust, unwise and insensible act. Therefore, she rejects a relativist approach in abortion and claimed that virtue ethics is incompatible.
The issue of abortion focuses on personhood, sanctity of life and the issues of right while virtue ethics access an action by the character to choose the actions. Virtue ethics looks at the issues in abortion in a different way from pro-life or pro-choice argument. Aristotle teleological virtue ethics considered the value of relationships and the fact that a virtuous person will always choose the right act for the individual within the society, through education and habitually in order to achieve eudemonia. While Foot claimed virtues are good if used for a good end and we have to constitute the idea of morality of a good end before we determine abortion is right or wrong. This emphasis Aristotelian ethics to distinguish between interior and exterior acts. As a flexible theory, it holds between right or wrong of abortion and takes into accounts of the situation. MacIntyre developed virtue ethics by saying that values change and different societies hold up different virtues. Abortion is relative to context of culture and it can remain virtuous as long as we use reason to sustain the communities to seek for good. Virtue ethics avoids having formula to work out the decision of abortion, while focus on what kind of person we want to be. However Hursthouse argued virtue ethics does not give any concrete answer of abortion and claimed that abortion is not a decision taken in isolation. Abortion cannot ignore the love, relationship and family life which contributed to the human flourishing. Therefore dismiss the issue of right in abortion and emphasis personhood is only relevant with accurate biological knowledge. In contrast foremost, Nussbaum holds an incompatible view on absolute value as abortion is impractically not human flourishing. Furthermore, some might argued that virtue ethics does not seem to have the concepts of rights and obligation. Virtue ethics may be seem as incapable when facing abortion as it does not always have a view about what makes an act right or wrong.
|
