Garrett Wise Philosophy 231

Rosss Theory and Abortion

Abortion is a major debate in society today. The argument of abortion mainly comes down to two points: the interest of the child versus the interest of the mother. Many people take an absolute stand on their beliefs of abortion (it is either completely permissible or completely impermissible) and the argument does not move forward. W. D. Ross came up with a theory that may allow for a better argument for or against abortion (Landau, p. 233). In this essay we will explore what Rosss theory is and how it affects the abortion debate. W. D. Ross believed that if you were to hold absolute moral values then inevitably you are bound to face contradiction in your moral beliefs. As a result, Ross came up with a list of duties that he believes are the basis for making moral decisions. These duties are considered to be fundamental and cannot be derived from any other duties (Landau, p. 232). The duties that Ross specifies are: fidelity, reparations, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-malfeasance (Landau, p. 233). Ross also acknowledges that there may be more duties, but that these are some of the most important. Since Ross did not make these duties absolute then any conflict between them due to contradictions can be resolved. I believe it is safe to assume that when comparing actions, the one that follows the most prima facie duties is the one you should go with. These duties can be applied to many actions so perhaps they can help in the debate over abortion. Abortion has been in debate for years without coming to a general consensus. Neither side wants to lose because they both see loss of rights. Using Rosss theory of not having absolute moral

duty, it may be possible to find a satisfactory decision for both sides of the argument. One side of the argument is that the child has a right to live because it is a human being and we dont have the right to end its life. The opposition claims that the embryo is a human but not a person because it is not selfaware and therefore does not have the rights of a person (Cohen, p. 15). Neither argument takes under consideration different circumstances to which someone would need or want an abortion. If we use Rosss theory of prima facie duties and look at different examples to which someone would want an abortion I believe we can clearly determine whether it is morally permissible. First let us look at the state of the embryo. It has been widely debated as to what point the embryo has the full rights of a human being. Some believe that at conception, since the embryo is programmed to mature fully, it is considered a human being and deserves full rights (Cohen, p. 13-14). The defense is that the embryo is not self aware and therefore not a person (Cohen, p. 14.). Ross did not specifically say that his theory was limited to person to person interactions; therefore we can use Rosss theory to try to conclude this argument. For this argument killing the fetus is the main concern, one side thinks it is permissible and the other does not. Under Rosss theory it would seem that this falls under non-malfeasance regardless of whether the fetus is considered to be a human being or not because it is still causing harm to it. Since preventing harm is a basic duty under Rosss theory, it would seem we have a moral obligation to not harm the fetus. Next lets look at an argument in regards to the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. Many people who want an abortion are teenage girls who find themselves unprepared to have a child. In their defense many people argue that it is the girls body and what she does with it is her decision. Those who argue against say that the child has rights as well and that if the mother gets an abortion it infringes the rights of the child to life. So whose rights are more important? If the she decided to get an abortion she would not be non-maleficent or self-improving. By killing the child she

would not be making herself virtuous and would be causing harm to the child. By keeping the child it may cause self-improvement in that she would be learning how to be a parent. If religion is a factor it could also be considered reparation for having sex (assuming the girl isnt married) by which bearing the child would be the consequence of the action. The only risk of keeping the child is the physical dangers of bearing a child which may compromise self-improvement. When looking at the argument in this way it seems clear that the moral choice is to keep the child unless it is certain that the mother cannot physically carry the child and it puts her in immediate danger. One may argue that the mother may not be ready to be a parent but with the option to have your child adopted you could argue that it doesnt matter and that the mother would be benefiting others who cant naturally have a child to be parents. Another argument from pro-choice advocates is that if a girl is raped then she should be able to have an abortion because she didnt choose to engage in acts that could lead to pregnancy. In this case if the mother decided to abort the child she may only be facing non-malfeasance. If she keeps the child she may not improve her own well being. On one hand it would seem that to abort the child is killing it and on the other keeping the child could lead to many emotional and physical problems for the mother. A situation like this doesnt have as clear of an answer as the previous situation and so the problem arises of if prima facie duties seem to be equally important then how do you decide? Although it is possible to become pregnant after being raped, an article from Troubled Teens Help states that it is actually very rare. This is due many factors such as the psychological impact of the event changing the hormones in the body and also if the victim seeks medical attention immediately after the event they can have the semen removed from their bodies or receive hormone treatment in order to prevent pregnancy. Some would argue that removing the semen to prevent pregnancy is the same as an abortion, but they are not the same at all when you consider the differences between sperm cells and embryos. Sperm are programmed for one purpose: find the egg. If they dont then they die. An embryo is essentially a human in its early stages (Cohen, p. 15). Since treatment is available, if it is

refused or if the victim does not seek treatment it could be considered their choice as to not prevent getting pregnant and thus lead back to the previous argument. Someone may argue that if the victim was held captive for a time and could not get treatment then she should not be held responsible for becoming pregnant and this argument may be true, but because it is now a different situation it would have to be viewed that way and go through Rosss tests to see what action is the best one. With careful analysis Rosss theory could be a huge aid in the abortion debate. The main reason for this is that it allows for multiple situations to have their own moral standing instead of one moral rule governing all situations and sometimes contradicting itself. I believe that it is necessary to view all situations for abortion separately and factor in all outcomes to Rosss theory in order for there to be a decision specific to that situation. Someone can always argue it happened that way, but what if it happens this way and the beauty of Rosss theory is that it doesnt hold that situation to the same moral rules of the previous situation. While there are many things to consider in the abortion case, I believe that Ross would be mostly pro-life following his own theory when you weigh the physical and emotional risks of the mother to the rights of the child. When it is possible for both the mother and child to live then I think Ross would side with life. If only one could live because of physical complications Ross may be pro-abortion.

Works Cited
1. Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics . New York, NY: Oxford Univ Pr.

2. Cohen, A. (2005). Contemporary debates in applied ethics . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.