WEEK 1: Introduction
Define ethics and civics






ETHICS is the study of how one should live. Ethics is the study of morality.
 Ethics  Study of how one should live
 Morality  How one should live
2 different approaches to ethics
 Theory-led (normative ethics)
 Begins with a theory. An ethical theory usually involves a set of
principles that are meant to apply universally to anyone and what
they should do in general.
 For e.g. Utilitarianism  one should act in a way that maximises
overall pleasure
 Other types of ethical theories: virtue ethics, Kantianism, deontology,
existentialism
 We cannot pick and mix ethical theories, we should pick what is the
most reasonable and what makes the most sense of our individual
and collective lived experiences of the world.
 Make sure that whatever ethical theory you commit to is the most
justified and has the most explanatory power.
 Circumstances-led (applied ethics)
 WHO exactly are the actors of a given scenario / WHO exactly are the
ones who are acted upon by the actors.
 WHAT – circumstances led approach pays attention to the aspects of
a given scenario that are morally relevant.
 WHEN
Pay attention to the time and place during which the person acts
 WHERE
 WHY – pay attention to the causes and conditions of the scenario.
In ethics we not only care about which act a student should perform, but the reasons
behind why he should do it and whether these reasons themselves are good or bad.
CIVICS is the study of how one should live as a citizen. Civics is the study of our rights
and duties to the state and to each other as citizens of a state in relation to which we
draw benefits and protection.
 This thus involves what sort of state is in question, in addition to how citizens
relate to it and each other.
 State is a unique, historical stable site of economic, political and social
relations. What characterises each state, and its citizens’ corresponding rights
and duties, involves its particular histories, people, cultures, goods and
services, as well as the forms and values of its government.
Civics Is not about being a good citizen, it is learning how to communicate with
others about civic issues.
The study of how one should live as a citizen then, does not only concern voting and
taxes, nor does it only concern open-air demonstrations and rallies. It also concerns




our everyday lives and how the rights and duties of citizens might be found in the
structure we encounter on a daily basis.
Doing ethics and civics does not mean merely sharing opinions or beliefs without
rational support. What we care about are opinions and beliefs that have undergone
a process of an exchange of reasons with others.
Ethics and civics is about an exchange of reasons. Ethics and civics is the currency of
any discussions.
There are only certain reasons that are relevant is discussion of ethics and civics.
These are Morally relevant reasons
 Normative claims
 What we ought to do, or should do e.g. “kai should help Deanna”
 Anti-discrimination laws
 Descriptive claims
 A particular state of affairs e.g. “Kai helps Deanna”
 Observing that “most members of a given society do not discriminate”
Morally relevant reasons are relevant for supporting normative claims e.g. we should
help people because it increases overall happiness.
Discuss the importance of ethics and civics





Every one of us lives in societies with other individuals. And each individual likely has
very different ideas and conceptions of how they should live, whether as individuals
or as citizens.
We often belong to different societies that also overlap: you may not only belong to
Singapore society, but also internet society, global society, school society, etc.
When we reflect on the kinds of action either would or would not contribute to how
we think we should live, both as an individual and as a citizen, we find that this
includes a wide range of concerns.  Our decision thus not only affect others but
affect others in very different ways and to various extends.
The societies that we are born in or find ourselves in are always made up of various
diverse cultures and subcultures even if we might be unaware of it. The fact that
globalization in the world today also makes it such that so much of our participation
in the economy has implications for societies and cultures all over the world.
Ethics and civics are necessarily multicultural because we are constantly engaging in
an exchange of reasons with others who are culturally dissimilar or different from us
and we constantly have to adapt our beliefs and actions as a result of such an
exchange. As we collectively change, so do the various culture that each of us all
make up, change and multiply.
WEEK 2: Reasoning in Ethics and Civics
1. Clarity of reasons
 What matters is reasonable belief. Dispute in ethics and civics is always at the level of
reasons, not the level of beliefs or opinions.
 Concepts are important when they serve the purpose of rationally supporting your
beliefs in an exchange of reasons with others.
 Allows common ground for discussion
 Allows you to be more precise and accurate in saying something
 When providing supporting reasons
1. Ensure that you help other understand how you rationally arrive at a certain position
2. Never assume that they should make the argumentative connections themselves
3. Have in mind a fellow student who in unfamiliar with the content when presenting or
writing
4. Provide an argument for your beliefs with as much or as little contextual information
as required
 How should anyone be convinced? How can there be clarity in where disagreements
lie? How to ensure that others understand your reasons?
 Concepts allow
 A common ground for discussion
 To be more precise and accurate in saying something
 Concepts are important when they serve the purpose of rationally supporting
your beliefs in an exchange of reasons
 Concepts are understood in terms of their conditions
 Good reasons is conceptually clear
 Conditions are the elements by which we define and understand concepts
precisely and accurately.
 Sufficiency  “if p, [then] q” or “p is sufficient for q” or when we represent it with
logical notation for conditionals: pq e.g. It is enough that X is a triangle that it is a
polygon, X being a triangle is a sufficient condition for X to be a polygon. X could be a
square, X would still be a polygon.
 Necessity  “only if p, [then] q” or “p is necessary for q” For X to be a triangle, X
needs to have edges, otherwise X wouldn’t be a triangle  having edges is a necessary
condition for X to be a triangle. Unlike sufficient conditions, there cannot be any other
conditions for X to obtain, when we are talking about necessary conditions.
 When p is a sufficient condition for q, q is a necessary condition for p.
 Biconditionals
 If and only if  e.g. I have a triangle if and only if my polygon has only three
sides.
 Conditions are how we understand anything everywhere in any discipline
 For us to understand ethical and political concepts, that make up both our normative
claims and the reasons we give for those claims, we need to get at the necessary and
sufficient conditions for such a concept to obtain.

By defining the concepts clearly and by providing the necessary and sufficient
conditions, our reasons can be clearly understood by others. Only then can we have
any productive discussions in ethics and civics.
2. Cogency of reasons
 When providing reasons, the structure of your argument should be explicit. Merely
listing a number of reasons is not an argument.
 Logical structure, how your reasons relate to each other. When our beliefs are
rationally supported by our reasons, we have a cogent argument for them.




A pros-and-cons presentation of reasons is NEVER an argument because it does not
give us any sense of the logical relations of the reasons to each other – without any
sense of their relative weightage. That is, a pros-and-cons presentation provides zero
presentation provides zero support for any claim or position. We care NOT ABOUT
THE QUANTITY of reasons but only QUALITY of reasons.
More than soundness: “missing the point” fallacy
o Term is understood inaccurately
o To avoid this, start clearly with a definition and give the necessary and
sufficient conditions
Cogency means that your arguments involves 1. True premises 2. Have a valid logical
structure 3. Not commit any informal fallacies
Criticizing an argument  three approaches to establish if someone’s reasons are
inadequate 1. Verify that the reasons are false 2. Find that the reasons relate to each
other in an invalid logical structure 3. Realise that there’s an informal fallacy
Types of criticism
External criticism – how a certain standard(s) is not met.
Internal criticism – How the claims made/actions performed are contradictory (because
something cannot be both A and not A at the same time)
Criticism must themselves meet the standards of cogency if they are to be convincing.
3. Two types of reasons
Individual reasons
A reason that makes
references to properties(i.e.
attributes) of S as sufficient
conditions.
Structural reasons
Why is S a
certain way?
A reason that makes reference to
S’s position in a structure as
sufficient conditions.
Individual reasons
when we ask whether an action is morally good or bad we tend to use individual explanations
a. Fix the necessary and sufficient conditions of what a morally good/bad action is
b. Ask whether the properties of the action satisfy these conditions
Do general properties of agents quality as necessary and sufficient conditions for the agents
themselves to be morally good or bad?
Structural reasons
A structure has elements that are systematically related to each other according to principles
particular to that structure.
Argument is a structure, because: 1. It has premises and a conclusion – its elements 2. It has
a set of grammatical sentences – its systematic relation 3. It conforms to logical laws – its
principals
Importantly, neither individual nor structural types of reasons are necessarily more
reasonable than the other in themselves. It all depends on the inquiry and the type(s) of
reason(s) required in an inquiry.
The 2 reasons can nevertheless interact. Paying close attention to the various types of reasons
demanded and provided and how they interact will be very crucial in ensuring that we not
only answer questions precisely and clearly but also better understand and appreciate the
various approaches we can take to understand social or political phenomena.
In summary, in all part of this topic, we’ve looked at the importance of having clear reasons,
so that we can understand what each of us means in discussion; cogent reason, so that we
can rationally convince other of our beliefs or at least identify how our reasons might be
problematic; and we’ve looked at the importance of two types of reasons, those that concerns
the properties of individuals and those that concerns the relations between them.
LAMS QNA
Q1: Consider these three paragraphs. Which ones are arguments?
Paragraph 1: If bullying is wrong, then it's wrong of big brother to bully little brother. Bullying is
wrong. So, it's wrong of big brother to bully little brother.
Paragraph 2: It wasn't until after I left my office for lunch that I realized I'd forgotten my umbrella.
I thought it would be fine, but then the downpour started. It was one of those days.
Paragraph 3: All planets are round. The object I see through my telescope is round. Thus, the
object I see is a planet.
A1: PARAGRAPH 1 & 3
Q2: Is this argument deductively valid or invalid?
1. All humans are mortal.
2. Amia Srinivasan is human.
(Conclusion) Therefore, Amia Srinivasan is mortal.
A2: VALID
Q3: Amia Srinivasan is an Oxford philosopher. With this information, can you tell whether the
argument in the previous question is sound?
A3: IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TELL WHETHER THE ARGUMENT IS SOUND.
Q4: Is the following argument sound or not?
1. All felines are mammals.
2. All tigers are mammals.
(Conclusion) Therefore, all tigers are felines.
A4: THE ARGUMENT IS NOT SOUND BECAUSE IT IS INVALID
Q5: Is the following argument sound or not?
1. If new-born babies act in ways that are altruistic, we should be altruistic.
2. Experiments show that new-born babies act in ways that are altruistic.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, we should be altruistic.
A5: THE ARGUMENT IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT IS MISSING THE POINT IN AS MUCH
AS IT CONFUSES WHAT IS THE CASE WITH WHAT OUGHT TO/SHOULD BE THE CASE.
Q6: According to moral relativism, the correct moral position for a person is determined by the
society in which they are in. But a person can be simultaneously a member of two different societies
that determine two opposing moral positions.
A6: THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A PERSON POSES IS AN INTERNAL CRITICISM OF MORAL
RELATIVISM.
Q7: Is the following argument sound or not?
1. Being ethical requires that we think about what we do.
2. But I do not want to think about what I am doing.
3. (Conclusion) Therefore, I do not have to be ethical.
A7: THIS IS NOT A SOUND ARGUMENT
Q8: In a speech at the Institute of Policy Studies on 23 Nov 2021, Minister Lawrence Wong
stressed that “we cannot […] deny the rights of a variety of groups to organise themselves, so as
to gain recognition for their concerns, or seek to improve their conditions and well-being.” And he
lists the “concerns and anxieties” of “women,” “[p]eople with disabilities,” and “LGBTQ persons”.
Criticism 1: There are some citizens who believe that women receive more recognition at work
compared to men.
Criticism 2: There are some citizens who do not believe that LGBTQ persons have real concerns
and anxieties.
A8: CRITICISM 2 MISSES THE POINT OF THE MINISTER’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE
RIGHTS OF LGBTQ PERSONS.
Q9: Why does S not know the course information on NTULearn?
Consider the following reasons: S thought that the course information on NTULearn would be
what they already knew and thus decided not to prioritise reading it.
Is the reason an individual or structural one?
A9: THE REASON IS INDIVIDUAL
Q10: S has a significant visual impairment but the course information was posted as a nonscannable image.
Is the reason an individual or structural one?
A10: THE REASON IS STRUCTURAL
ADDITIONAL READINGS
Meta-ethics asks questions about the nature and existence of value and our knowledge of it.
Examples of meta-ethical questions include: are values objective? How do we know what things
or actions are good?
Normative ethics asks questions about what we should do and how we should live. Is there a
set of moral principles that I should follow, or perhaps some other decision procedure for telling
right from wrong?
Applied ethics asks questions about specific moral problems, such as whether abortion or
terrorism are sometimes permissible, or whether it was right to use the atomic bomb in the second
world war. Normative theories are often used to answer these questions, although different
normative theories may give different answers.
4 methodology of moral philosophy
1.
2.
3.
4.
Logical principles of reasoning that applies to all subject matter
Informal techniques of argument that also apply to all subject areas
thought experiments and moral institutions
specific methodological devices used in moral philosophy
Logical argument
An argument is a logical deduction starting from one or more premises and ending with a
conclusion
An argument is valid if the conclusion is correctly deduced from the premises. The argument is
invalid if the conclusion of the argument cannot be deduced from the premises, even if the
conclusion is true. If the premises are true, and the deduction is valid, then the argument is sound
and the conclusion must be true as well.
One way to test for validity is to ask whether it is possible for the conclusion to be false while the
premises are true. If the conclusion could conceivably be false while the premises are true, then
the argument is invalid.
Sometimes an argument has implied premise (a claim that is not explicitly stated), which must be
added when evaluating the validity of the argument. E.g. Premises one: Ryan is a baby. permisos
2: babies suck pacifiers and go “ga, ga, ga”. Therefore conclusion: Ryan sucks a pacifier and goes
“ga, ga, ga”. the second premise is not explicitly stated but is taken as background. Such
assumptions are often called implied premises, and in real life our discussions are full of them.
Logic shows you what follows from certain beliefs, or what is not consistent with them, but cannot
show you whether or not a belief is true. An argument only gives you reason to believe a conclusion
if you already have reason to believe the premises. Likewise, a false conclusion validity deduced
from a set of premises demonstrates that at least one of one of the premises is false.
LOGICAL TRAPS  one fallacy is equivocation, in which same word has different meaning in
different premises.
WEEK 3 – HUMAN RIGHTS
Explore and discuss relevant ethical concepts to do with human rights and human trafficking




What are rights?
 Entitlements  to be free to don something and to exercise a power our
right to be able to vote, get healthcare, receive education etc.
 To be provided with some benefit
Duties
 To refrain from interfering with others freedom
 To refrain from interfering with others ability to exercise a power
 To provide other with some benefit
Legal rights
 Described in the laws of a country's legal jurisdiction
 Government has the power to create, interpret and enforce the laws
 Subject to the laws of specific countries which vary from place to place and
time to time
Human rights

 Rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (UN Human Rights)
 Legal, moral and universal
 Define and protect fundamental freedoms and entitlements for all humans
Moral rights
 Morality, critical morality and conventional morality
 A moral right may exist without being the legal right  women for instance
and disabled people do not have the rights to vote and to receive education
in some parts of the world.
Universal rights
 Respect for the ‘Inherent Dignity’ of ALL humans, and equality
 Embodied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
 Adopted by the UN in 1948, and the succession of binding international
conventions that followed
UDHR as a statement of moral rights
 UDHR – not a law all by itself – does not enact any legal rights
 It asserts a number of moral rights
 It proclaims that these rights should be respected in all nations
Are all legal actions right? Legal
Right

7 CORE HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)



 Advantages of UDHR  1. Avoid discrimination 2. Improve the quality of human
beings 3. Set the standard for individuals to be treated equally 4. Procedure and
framework for governments to protect and promote human rights
 Disadvantages of UDHR  1. UDHR is not an international law 2. Lacks the power to
enforce any directives
 Limitations of UDHR  countries apply some form of Human Rights legislations but
at the same time also ignore and go against others: e.g. freedom of religion or
worship, right to education, right to vote, right to basic healthcare
 Some rights are not enforced and protected in various jurisdictions due to 1.political
context 2.limited resources 3. Cultural differences
Examine the ethical premises/foundations regarding the rights and responsibilities of
individuals, societies and governments towards vulnerable members of the society
 What is human trafficking?
 The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by
means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion... or other position of
vulnerability or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of
exploitation  action, means, purpose





Implications for Nation States
Criminal: use of force, coercion, fraud, exploitation
National security: Terrorism, drugs, political/armed conflict; border security
Human/social aspects: Physical and mental health consequences
Human rights: Protection, prosecution, legislation, advocacy

Human Dignity – Humanity Principle (Immanuel Kant)
 Article 1 all the Universal Declaration of human rights states that “All human beings
are Born Free and equal in dignity and rights”.
 The principle of humanity provides a rationale for this equal dignity shared by all
human beings
 All human beings are rational and autonomous beings, they are all entitled to equal
respect.
 Rights to life, liberty, security, and other things are old to all human beings, because
the things that people have human rights too are needed to preserve their
rationality and autonomy.
 Humans as Rational and Autonomous Beings
 Being rational: Using reason to figure out what to do in a morally acceptable way
(Shafer-Landau 2020: 120)
 Being autonomous: To be in control of one’s life (Shafer-Landau 2020: 120)
 Kant: Rationality and autonomy of persons makes them supremely valuable and
worthy of respect
 Thus, to treat a person as end and to respect them as they deserve,
one must support their rationality and autonomy
 Since al persons are rational and autonomous beings, this respect is
owed to every person equally
 Human trafficking – treating persons as mere means
 Treating people as mere means is to use them in a way that they could not rationally
consent to being used  deception, coercion, exploitation, violation of privacy
 Human flourishing – Eudaimonia (Aristotle)
 A good life can be attained by practicing virtues. Eudaimonia – highest good that
human beings can attain
 Leading a virtuous life guided by reasons lead to eudaimonia.
 The Golden Rule
 Treat others as you want to be treated
Explain the utilisation of and relevance to Singapore and regional social context
LAMS QNS
Q1: What are human rights?
A1: Those rights inherent to all human beings
Q2: Which of the following statements best captures Kant's Humanity Principle?
A2: Always treat rational beings as things that have value in themselves, as opposed to
things to be used for your own purposes.
Q3: What makes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so unique?
A3: 1. It has inspired more than 80 international conventions and treaties, as well as
numerous regional conventions and domestic laws. 2. It has been the catalyst for
improving human rights protections for groups such as disabled people, indigenous
peoples and women. 3. It was drafted by people from all over the world and sets common
standards on human rights protection.
Q4: The Universal declaration of human rights is applicable to
A4: every individual, regardless of religion, race, gender, or cultural background.
Q5: Which of the following is not considered a human rights violation in relation to human
trafficking?
A5: The right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely
chosen representatives.
Q6: Which is of the following is most true about Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia and living a
‘good life’?
A6: Living a virtuous life guided by reason leads to eudaimonia
WEEK 4 – Disability
Global Overview of Disability

People with disability are the world’s largest minority  650 million people around the
world  80% of people with disabilities live in poor countries  less access to physical
amenities, less infrastructure, less financial support, less social policies







United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
 Adopted in 2006, was the very first human rights treaty that was developed by
disabled people for disabled people, was 60 years after the UDHR
 The goal was to promote and protect the inherent dignity and equality of all human
being
 Goal of the UNCRPD is to promote protect and to ensure the full and equal
enjoyment of all human rights as well as the fundamental freedoms by all person
with disabilities, and to promote respect for the inherent dignity.
UNCRPD
 1. Marks a shift in the way societies view and treat person with disabilities compared
to the past
 2. Emphasises and enshrines the rights of PWSs as right holders and subjects of law
 3. Puts them in the center with rights to fully participate in formulating and
implementing policies that affect them
 4. Reflects the social perspective that sees disability as a universal human experience
not unique
 5. Shifts the lens from seeing them as just unfortunate few, the outliers of society
 6. Eliminates legal and social barriers that prevent PWDs from fully participating in
society
General principles of UNCRPD
 1. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make
one's own choices, and independence of person 2. Non-discrimination 3. full and
effective participation and inclusion in society 4. respect for differences and
acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity 5.
equality of opportunity 6. Accessibility 7. equality between men and women 8.
respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the
right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities
Disability in Singapore
 Those whose prospects of securing, retaining places and advancing in education and
training institutions, employment and recreation as equal members of the
community are substantially reduced as a result of physical, sensory, intellectual and
developmental impairments.
 developmental disability and compasses autism spectrum disorder as well as Down
syndrome and cerebral palsy
Social inclusion
 It encompasses and influences and shapes three main domains of a person's life,
social, economic and political. UNESCO defines it as “ a society for all in which every
individual, each with rights and responsibilities, has an active role to play”
Social exclusion
 Refers to systematic disadvantage or discrimination of an individual based on their
identity e.g. ethnicity, race religion
Implications of social exclusion
 Unequal access to resources, unequal participation and denial of opportunities


 Corrosion and breakdown of society because of poor social cohesion
 Entrench and worsen the marginalized conditions of segments of society
 Communities who are socially excluded face unemployment, poor educational
outcomes, low income, poor housing conditions, poor health and family breakdown
Human dignity
 Human dignity is the founding moral principle of the human rights framework.
According to the UDHR, dignity is the innate worth of human beings
 All human beings regardless of ability, physical appearance, race, religion, gender,
age, sexual orientation are persons with dignity and have innate value and worth as
human beings
 UNCRPD emphasizes the importance of human dignity
Four ways to protect human dignity
 prohibition of all types of inhumane treatment, humiliation, or degradation by one
person over another
 Assurance of the possibility for individual choice and the conditions for each
individual's self-fulfillment, autonomy, or self-realization
 Recognition that the protection of group identity and culture may be essential for
the protection of personal dignity
 creation of the necessary conditions for each individual to have their essential needs
satisfied
LAMS QNA
Q1: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is important because
A1: It highlights and explains what existing civil, cultural, economic, political and social
rights mean in situations faced by persons with disabilities. AND Persons with
disabilities, disability organizations and their allies played an active role in deciding what
would be included in the UNCRPD.
Q2: What is a disability?
A2: It is an impairment combined with barriers in society.
Q3: Which of the following constitute barriers that persons with disability might face?
A3: Stigma and discrimination. AND A physical environment that is inaccessible or
difficult to access and utilise. AND Lack of awareness and enforcement of existing laws
and regulations that hinder the involvement of people with a health condition in all areas
of life.
Q4: Which of the following is not considered a form of social exclusion?
A4: When a qualified candidate is not successful in their job search.
Q5: Which of the following is the most true about human rights and the rights and responsibilities
towards persons with disability?
A5: To respect the inherent dignity of all humans and equality.
ADDITIONAL READING
Social inclusion aims to improve participation in society for disadvantaged individuals based on
factors like age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic status. This involves
removing barriers and actively facilitating participation. Singapore has tended to prioritize
economic goals over socio-political understanding of disability, but international pressure from
the UNCRPD has pushed for change. Building an inclusive society requires a barrier-free
environment and empowerment of disadvantaged individuals.
Two essential building blocks to the construction of an inclusive society:
• A Barrier-Free Society – all those who are able to work are not prevented from doing so by
social or physical barriers; and those who are unable to work have a decent quality of life.
• Empowerment of the PWD – each and every person is encouraged and empowered to
participate and engage in all aspects of life in his/her society, to the best of his/her capability.
Physical barriers refer to not only the obstacles imposed by physical environment, but also the
design features, or a lack thereof, of modern age equipment and facilities that cause in
convenience or even impediment to PWD. Physical barriers usually stem from two reasons:(i) a
lack of awareness of the needs of PWD; (ii) limited resources.
The other barrier to an inclusive society results from social attitudes toward PWD. It is a common
misconception that disabled people are objects of charity, rather than citizens with equal rights,
opportunities, ability to contribute to and participate in society just as other non-disabled persons.
Such a mindset has hindered PWD in many aspects of their lives, such as education,
employment, housing, transportation, and even the willingness to integrate into society.
Government policies play a vital, if not the most important, role in a country’s quest of the
inclusive society ideology. Two basic policy approaches to disability worldwide – equality of
opportunity and equality of results. The former outlaws discrimination, while the latter
emphasizes special needs over equal rights and mandating quotas.
WEEK 5 – Reproduction Ethics
Reproduction ethics is a very broad area  abortion, contraception, IVF, egg donation,
surrogacy







statistics about banning abortion
number of unsafe abortions rise
estimated 47000 women die every year due to complications of unsafe abortion
does not prevent it from happening
abortion facts
abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women, safer than childbirth
there is o scientific evidence to support the idea that having an abortion is any more
dangerous to a woman’s long-term mental health
 early studies suggesting an increase in breast cancer among women who had
abortions have been found to be flawed and widely discredited
 having an abortion will not usually affect your chances of becoming pregnant in the
future
 Judith Jarvis Thomson
 The right to life is not an absolute right. In some cases abortion is morally
permissible. Having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be
given the use of or the right to the continued use of another’s body. Abortion is
morally permissible where pregnancy stems from rape. Abortion is morally
permissible when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.
 Don Marquis
 Killing someone deprives them of a “future like ours”. It deprives them of everything
they will ever have or experience. A good future, one with happiness and good
experiences will not be possible for them. A future like ours – one which you and I
have, which is one of value, will not be possible for them. Thus, abortion is wrong.
 Objections to Don Marquis
 We may be obliged to accept that it’s less wrong to kill an old person, since they
have lived most of their lives and have less of a “future” ahead of them
 Are we then obliged to accept that contraception and even abstinence is morally
wrong because any act of not procreating is depriving the potential for a “future like
ours”
 Is it less morally wrong to kill people who are severely mentally and physically
disabled who have less chance of a “future like ours”?
 Virtue Ethics  a family of moral theories according to which morally right actions
are explained by the nature of a good life, and the good character traits needed to
live such a life.
 A person who has chosen to terminate their pregnancy virtuously (not virtuous),
then by virtual theory, they have acted morally (immorally).
 By virtue ethics it’s morally permissible to have an abortion whenever a virtuous
might choose to do it
 To be virtuous, you would need to exercise reason, or practical wisdom to be more
specific, and work out the mean, which is to act neither rashly nor with cowardice,
but courageously.
 practical wisdom is the ability to reason well about how one ought to act in
particular circumstances. Aristotle held that reasoning consists of two kinds of
abilities: having practical wisdom and theoretical wisdom. the latter had to do more
with theoretical things like for example solving math problems or understanding how
something works.
Aristotle and abortion
is the person choosing abortion is exercising reason excellently? Are they assessing the
mean between the excess of their drives or emotions and the deficiency of those drives or
emotions excellently?
 Give the circumstances we may decide that:
1. They are being virtuous and their choice is a virtuous one
2. They have assessed poorly and are not being virtuous
3. There are circumstances where a virtuous person might choose to have an
abortion
4. of a trust person would never choose abortion under any circumstances.
AI Farabi four components of practical wisdom
 1.Deliberative virtue of foresight, which is the ability to work out how to get what
you want to get
2.Moral virtue, the ability to discover what is morally good
3. Natural virtue, that enables a person to want a morally good end
4.Theoretical virtue, the ability to gain knowledge about the world
AI Farabi and abortion
Is the person exercising practical wisdom in deciding to terminate a pregnancy? Given the
circumstances, is the person externally exercising all four components of AI Farabi’s
practical wisdom?
Given the circumstances, we may decide that
1. The person is virtuous insofar as they have excellently exercised their reason
2. there are circumstances where a virtuous person might choose to have an abortion
3. of a trespasser would never choose to have abortion under any circumstances