currently in my ethics class we're discussing abortion. judith jarvis thomson has an analogy that goes like this: if a burglar breaks into your "secure" house (against your will) and demands that you now have to support him, do you have an obligation to do so? obviously not. therefore, if you secure yourself (with contraception) and get pregnant (against your will), you don't have an obligation to keep the baby. see, she's not actually totally "pro-choice" (quotes cause appt terms like pro-choice and pro-life have nothing to do wit ethics) because she doesn't believe that a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy in every situation.
my thoughts: wat if you live in a bad area and don't secure your house? if you get burgeled then, do you owe the burgler anything? no. obviously you should've been smarter than to leave your unbarred windows open. but you still don't have an obligation to the burgler. similarly, if you're a woman wearing revealing clothing, walking around in a bad area of town and get raped. is that really your fault? no, it isn't. again, you should've been smarter than that, but you weren't actually "asking for it," nor do you, by any means, deserve to have been raped. by the same token, if you willingly have sex, don't use contraceptives and do get pregant, you also don't owe the "baby" anything. that was stupid on your behalf but that doesn't mean that you have the moral obligation to carry the baby to term. even though you knew better, you didn't want to get robbed, and you certainly didn't want to get pregnant.
btw, i like metaethics more than applied ethics. it seems like metaethics is more about thinking; applied ethics, about quibbling. =\ oh, and normative ethics are okay too.
No comments:
Post a Comment