Hrsthouse Virtue Theory And Abortion Summary

In Rosalind Hursthouse’s essay on Virtue Ethics, she aims to create a new type of ethics that is classified as Aristotelian in nature. Hursthouse’s model is more agent-based rather than action-based, which implies that it is based on the individual’s characteristics rather than the type of action implemented. Husrthouse believes that the agent’s thought process, beliefs, and personal view of moral values are ultimately what shapes virtue ethics. Although her discussion on virtue ethics is both intriguing and important, Hursthouse's model falls short of being a viable ethical theory for several reasons. Firstly, the idea of agent-based ethics is a nice one in theory, but is not easily employable because of the individual standard of ethics that would be required to take ethical action. It is important to present a model that can actually be applied in practice in order to achieve actual results. Virtue ethics cannot be considered as a real alternative to any other code of ethics because it is not employable in the real world, and is therefore not worthy of serious consideration. This underlying reason will be thoroughly discussed in order to refute the arguments that Rosalind Hursthouse provides on Virtue Ethics in her essay.

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

There is a vast number of ethical theories, whether or not you believe in those theories is a matter of opinion and personal belief. For this reason, people can take the general concept of a theory and explain it in a way that aligns with their beliefs. Personally, I feel as though there is some truth in most, if not all, ethical theories. Though, there is one theory in particular I have taken a liking to; and this theory is egoism. Egoism, in the most general terms, is a theory in which a person is motivated by their own self-interest to further their wants or goals. This theory can be interpreted in a number of ways, one of them is that it is considered selfish. Egoism, is not necessarily selfish in that it may be in your own self-interest to do something for others. To help further explain my understanding of egoism, I’d like to bring up the topic of abortion. The debate over abortion has been going on for a while. As time goes by, my opinions on the topic have changed, especially when I learn about the different arguments each side makes. I will take some arguments from both sides to help explain egoism. Through my explanation on my understanding of egoism, I will ultimately express my views on this social issue as well. Though it is important to keep in mind that my main goal is to explain each side of the debate through the views of an egoist and whether or not each side is morally sound.

In the article, “Virtue Theory and Abortion”, by Rosalind Hursthouse, she explains her view on abortion without trying to solve the issue of if it is right or wrong. She, with the use of Virtue Theory, simply says that an action is right only if a virtuous agent would do it were they in the same circumstances. She goes on explaining how a Virtue Theorist needs to apply if actions are honest/dishonest and charitable/uncharitable; without doing this then Virtue Theory would be of no use with real moral issues because of a lack of argument.

In this paper, I will critically examine Rosalind Hursthouse’s argument on “Virtue Ethics” about the reasoning of a virtuous person by delving into the topic. I will then expose a particular problem within it. Perhaps the strongest point of the argument on “Virtue Ethics” that Hursthouse gives relies on the claim of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy claims that a virtuous person would act and make decisions like what a virtuous person would do. In this paper, I will focus on Hursthouse’s argument on the certainty of a virtuous person, offer an objection to the argument, and demonstrate how Hursthouse might respond to that objection.

In Judith A. Thomson’s article, ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson defends her view that in some cases abortion is morally permissible. She takes this stance even with the premise that fetuses upon the moment of conception are in fact regarded as persons. However one criticism of her argument would be that there is a biological relationship between mother and fetus however there is no biological relationship between you and the violinist. Having this biological relationship therefore entails special responsibility upon the mother however there is no responsibility in the case of the violinist. Thomson argues against those who are opposed to abortion with her violinist thought experiment.

The Virtue Theory, also know as Virtue Ethics, refers to the character of each person. This theory states that every person should try for excellence. The characteristics of each individual are made up from their environment that they are a part of. The theory would further suggest

There are many common pregnancy alternatives, but most often the resulting decision is abortion because it is effortless. Abortion is endings a women’s pregnancy by removing or forcing a fetus or embryo from the mother’s womb before it is able to survive on its own. Not all abortions are purposely done some are spontaneous like when a women that has a miscarriage. Rather abortion is done purposely or naturally it is a worldwide complication as to it being wrong or right. Abortion is an ethical issue that will be analyzed according to a personal worldview and Christian worldview. Ethical thinking will be examined by value-based decisions that address abortion from the perspective of a Christian worldview and comparing it to a personal assumption by addressing ethical dilemma, core beliefs, resolution, evaluation, and comparison.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

In her article, “The Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states an analogy involving a violinist. She first states that you are allowed to unplug yourself in the violinist scenario, second abortion after rape is analogous to the violinist scenario, therefore, you should be allowed to unplug yourself and be allowed to abort after rape (Chwang, Abortion slide 12). In this paper, I will argue that abortion is morally acceptable even if the fetus is considered a person. This paper will criticize premise two from the traditional argument against abortion string that killing innocent persons is wrong (Chwang, Abortion slide 9). Following the violinist analogy will be an objection to this analogy and my respons to them. One of the

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not

In the article Ethics of Abortion, much of the pro life argument seems to be

Rosalind Hursthouse argued that virtue ethics is the preferable moral philosophy for determining the moral permissibility of abortion because it avoids the drawbacks from the utilitarian approach, and the deontological approach. I will demonstrate that virtue ethics is preferable because (i) it does not require a comprehension of problematic abstract concepts, and because (ii) it is sensitive to circumstantial variation. This paper will argue that virtue ethics is the preferable ethical approach to the question of abortion because it avoids the drawbacks of the two traditional approaches by permitting a variety of right answers. I will determine the advantage virtue ethics holds to other moral philosophies by firstly providing a

In Rosalind Hursthouse’s essay on Virtue Ethics, she aims to create a new type of ethics that is classified as aristotelian in nature. Hursthouse’s model is more agent-based rather than action-based, which implies that it is based on the individual’s characteristics rather than the type of action implemented. Although her discussion on virtue ethics is both intriguing and important, Hursthouse's model falls short of being a viable ethical theory for several reasons. Firstly, the idea of agent-based ethics is a nice one in theory, but is not easily employable because of the individual standard of ethics that would be required to take ethical action. Secondly, in Hursthouse’s model for virtue ethics, people would need to be self aware enough