The four moral theories of standard consequentialism, moderate consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics are the ones that have been examined throughout the course. The reading material for the class include the writing of Don Marquis and Michael Sandel whose articles will be used to analyze which type of moral theory each author is most likely to be coming from. Marquis wrote a piece on abortion, titled “Why Abortion is Immoral?” While Sandel wrote about gene modification in a piece titled, “A Case against Perfection?”
Based on the argument presented by Marquis, I would be inclined to say that he must be a consequentialist. The way he presents the topic of abortion from both perspectives and ultimately what the outcome would be shows a strong correlation with an individual who is measuring a situation based on the end result as a way to establish its morality. Despite the title of the essay, there is a fair amount of reasonable argument and counterargument presented which is what makes me believe that Marquis is or writes this from a consequentialist belief system.
Ultimately what he presents is a logical explanation for when abortion is acceptable and when it is “immoral.” The times when there is a negative outcome as a result of the pregnancy, whether it be to the mother or the child, than abortion is acceptable. However, if one were to abort a child because of its sex then it would be immoral because the outcome from what could be possible from this child’s future is what gets robbed in that decision.
Sandel, who writes about the genetic modification and cloning process, is most likely a deontologist. I am lead to believe this because the way that the argument is presented the primary concern is about the outcome from the scientific enhancement or alteration of human genes. Sandel presents the moral dilemma of creating the perfect human being based on gene selection in the embryo prior to implantation. The other argument that he presents is about the outcome of cloning and what that can result in with existing family members who are re-living experiences of a dead relative.
The question is whether or not it is fair to give the individual an advantage in life by selecting the ideal genes or playing God by allowing a formerly dead person to live once again. What happens as a result of this manipulation of nature is what concerns Sandel, which suggests a deontological philosophical belief of concern about the end result of a decision. For example, the sheep that was cloned died at an early age as a result of complications; if this were to repeat in the case of a human there would be some devastating results as family and friends are forced experience the death of the loved one again. Another example using the gene modification is that the parents who have the income to manipulate and select genes will have children with an unfair advantage in life to those members in society who were not born with pre-determined perfect genes.
The overall concern by Sandel is the end result, which is how the deontological philosopher observes life, which is why it seemed most appropriate in response to Sandel’s article on “The Case against Perfection.”
Works Cited
Marquis, Don. "Why Abortion Is Immoral." Journal of Philosophy 86 (1989): 183-202. Web. 10
Sandel, Michael J. "The Case against Perfection." Atlantic Apr. 2004: 1-22. Print.
