PHIL2617 Practical Ethics
Week 3 Abortion
Plan
• 1. Marquis on why abortion is immoral
• 2. Thomson in defence of abortion draws on
rights-theory
• 3. which natural rights? Justice and
beneficence
• 4. which acquired rights? Responsibility
• 5. aborting unplanned foetuses
Recap An objection to the
conservative position -“speciesism”
Species membership (like race, or sex) is not by itself morally relevant
Recap
An objection to the liberal position
• P1. Only killing a being that
is an actual psychological
person is prima facie
seriously immoral.
• P2. Infanticide does not
involve killing a being that is
an actual psychological
person.
• C. Hence, infanticide is not
prima facie seriously
immoral
• P1. Only killing a being that
is actual psychological
person is prima facie
seriously immoral.
• P2. Abortion does not
involve killing a being that is
an actual psychological
person.
• C. Hence, abortion is not
prima facie seriously
immoral
Liberal reply
• What factors might make infanticide (killing a
newborn infant) more morally wrong than
killing a foetus?
• Infanticide (but not abortion) is seriously
morally wrong all things considered because it
has adverse side-effects
• What do you think: Is this reply satisfactory?
unpalatable consequence?
Don Marquis, ‘Why Abortion is Immoral’
P1. What makes killing a normal human adult
prima facie seriously immoral is that it causes
the victim to lose a future like ours.
P2. Abortion causes a foetus to lose a future like
ours.

C. Therefore, abortion is prima facie seriously
immoral. (From P1 and P2)
‘future like ours’
• Is it the foetus or the (potential) person that has the
valuable future? (McInerney)
Best explanation?

Marquis’s reply to the ‘contraception’ objection
• “The wrong of killing is
primarily a wrong to the
individual who is killed;
at the time of
contraception there is
no individual to be
wronged.”
the “totipotency problem” (Singer)
Best explanation?

Rights-Theory
• Killing a person is wrong
because it violates the
person’s rights
Thomson’s (Qualified) Defence of Abortion
• Even if a foetus is a person from the
moment of conception, it does not
follow that it has a right to the continued
use of the mother’s body to maintain its
life, unless she has ‘given’ it this right
prelude
• “[G]rant that the fetus is a person from the moment of
conception. How does the argument go from here?
Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to
life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the
mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and
to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a
person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent
than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and
to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not
be killed, and abortion may not be performed…It
sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine
this”…
Thomson’s Violinist
“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an
unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found
to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has
canvassed all available medical records and found that you alone have the
right blood type to help. They have kidnapped you, and last night the
violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys
can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The
director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry thee Society of
Music Lovers did this to you – we would never have permitted it if we had
known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To
unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months.
By then he will have safely recovered from the ailment and can be safely
unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this
situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great
kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine
months, but nice years? Or longer still?...(Thomson, 1/106).
Claim-rights
X has a claim-right against Y that p
If and only if
Y owes a duty to X that p
IF
X owes a duty to Y that X performs action A
THEN
(i) typically X must perform A
(ii) X would owe Y compensation for not
performing A
which natural rights?
Natural rights
Against interference with,
or damage of, bodies or
property
• No natural rights to
someone’s help
Henry Fonda example
• But we must help when it
would be unkind not to
Justice VS Beneficence
• Justice requires
respecting people’s
rights
• Kindness requires
helping people at
reasonable cost
violinist analogy
• you must help the violinist
when the cost is so small it
would be unkind not to
• but the violinist does not
have a right to your help
On the assumption that a
foetus is a person…
• a pregnant woman must
help the foetus when the
cost is so small it would be
unkind not to
• but the foetus does not
have a right to the pregnant
woman’s help—unless she
has ‘given’ it this right…
acquired rights
• From responsibility for
(certain) voluntary
actions, e.g. promises
• Because X is responsible
for performing a certain
action A, Y has acquired
a right against X
(backward-looking)
an acquired right to help?
• Under what circumstances, if any, does a
foetus acquire a right to a pregnant woman’s
help?
IF
(i) an agent is responsible for performing an
action,
(ii) this action leads to a particular outcome, and
(iii) the agent foresaw this action might lead to
this outcome
THEN
the agent is responsible for this outcome
unplanned pregnancy
non-consensual
sex
consensual
unprotected sex
consensual
protected sex
“People Seeds” analogy
IF
(i) an agent took all reasonable precautions
against her action leading to an outcome, and
(ii) by taking these precautions she has reduced
the chance of the outcome to size S, and
(iii) she has a legitimate interest in performing
this action that justifies tacking a chance of size S
THEN
the agent is not responsible for this outcome
“people’s legitimate interest
in sex justifies taking an S
chance of pregnancy”
but how large is S?




• Which methods count as taking reasonable
precautions?
PHIL2617
Euthanasia
General Definition
• ‘Euthanasia’ refers to
the killing of those who
are incurably ill and in
great pain or distress, in
order to save them
further suffering or
distress
Are any
individual acts
of euthanasia
morally
permissible?
Different types of euthanasia
1. Consent: Distinction between voluntary,
involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia
2. Difference between ‘killing’ and ‘letting die’,
or ‘active’ versus ‘passive’ euthanasia
• What is any of these types of euthanasia morally
permissible?
Voluntary euthanasia
The patient him- or herself requests euthanasia,
either at the time or in advance


• To be autonomous, the request must be free,
informed and rational
Involuntary euthanasia
• The patient is mentally competent and has
expressed a clear preference to live; someone other
than the patient requests, or decides to perform,
euthanasia.
• Like murder, except that the decision to kill or let die
is made for the patient's sake.
Non-voluntary euthanasia
The patient is incompetent (i.e. incapable of making a choice);
someone other than the patient requests, or decides to
perform, euthanasia.
• In some cases, the patients once had the capacity to make a
choice, but no longer have the capacity (dementia, ; in other
cases the patients (babies) have never possessed such a
capacity.
Should (certain kinds of) euthanasia be legal?
In Australia
• Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in WA, Vic,
Tasmania, SA and now NSW; it is illegal in NT and ACT
What do you think? Is voluntary active euthanasia morally permissible? What
about non-voluntary euthanasia? Does it matter morally how the death is brought
about—whether by ‘active’ or ‘passive’ means?
Case Studies – Case 1
A man is dying in hospital of throat cancer. He is
in terrible pain, which is barely alleviated by
regular four-hourly doses of pain-killers. He is
going to die within the next few days and knows
this. He is still mentally competent and rational
and asks his doctor to give him a lethal injection
to end his life quickly and painlessly, rather than
in agony over a period of days. Is it morally
permissible for the doctor to give him the
injection?

Case Studies – Case 2
A woman has advanced breast cancer. She knows she is
going to die within the next six months and that her
death will be painful and perhaps drawn out. She is not
suffering too much now, and is mentally competent
and rational. She is worried that in the final stages of
the disease she may be in a great deal of pain and/or
heavily sedated and so but no longer be competent to
request that her life be terminated. So she asks her
doctor in writing to give her a lethal injection should
this fear prove true. Is it morally permissible for the
doctor to agree, and then to give her the injection?
Case 3
An old man is slowly dying. He is completely bed-ridden, in
quite a lot of pain, on a kidney support machine, and he
requires constant medical attention. His children are finding his
slow death emotionally exhausting and upsetting. They suggest
to their father’s doctor that it would be in everybody’s best
interests if he were taken off the kidney support machine.
• 3a. The old man, however, does not want to die.
• 3b. The man is so senile that his opinion cannot be sought and
as far as anyone knows he has not expressed a preference one
way or the other about what he would like to happen in such a
circumstance.
Case 4
A young woman suffers severe brain damage as a
result of an accident and is comatose. The doctors
are confident that she will never come out of the
coma and she is being kept alive on various life
support systems — respirator, intravenous feeding
etc. The young woman has not issued an advance
directive. The parents request that life support
systems be withdrawn, the doctors agree, and the
young woman dies. Did the doctor’s act wrongly?
Case 5
A baby is born with gross deformities including
severe mental retardation, physical deformities and
immune deficiencies. It is expected that she will die
within a few months. Her parents do not want to go
through the next few months waiting for their
daughter to die and request that her life be
terminated.
• Is there a moral difference between allowing the
baby to die, e.g. by not giving her antibiotics if she
gets an infection (which is likely to result in a
painful, drawn-out death), and giving her a lethal
injection?