The Immorality Of Having Children By Stuart Rachels

Virtue Theory is one of many different moral theories that exist today. It is based off of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics which focuses on having an ideal character. The main focus of Virtue Theory is the role of one’s character, which is closely related to its roots in Aristotle. A Virtue Theorist would do things because it is who they themselves are, not because it is good to do them or because they will get something good from doing them.

In Peter Singer’s 1972 article titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he suggests that wealthy nations have an ethical duty to contribute much more than they do to other nations who are suffering through a natural disaster, extreme poverty, famine or other issues. In this paper, I will describe Singers objective and give his argument with regards to this issue. I will describe three counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he addresses, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counterarguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument. I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I

Purdy defends surrogate mothering from a consequentialist point of view. Her case is founded on two premises: firstly, that surrogacy is favourable (that is, it brings about pleasure and reduces pain), and secondly, that the practice is only non-traditional and not morally reprehensible. She thus concludes that "appealing to the sacrosanctity of traditional marriage or of blood ties to prohibit otherwise acceptable practices that would satisfy people 's desires hardly makes sense", and thus, surrogacy should be permissible (Purdy, 1999).

In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal

In the article, “Why Abortion Is Immoral”, Don Marquis begins his discussion by arguing that standard arguments or standard explanations for and against abortion are rather similar and fairly unsophisticated. He states that the debate has become “intractable.” In the sense that the two sides of the issue have become a dug-in and no one is willing to listen to the other side at this point meaning that it is an entrenched opinion. He argues that we need a fresh start to the issue a better way to think about wrongful killing, in the philosophical literature is something debated that whether wrongful killing such as murder is bad because of the effect on the murderer or the effect on the society or the effect on the victim.

In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Don Marquis argues that abortion is immoral because it denies the victim, which is the fetus or embryo, of their right to a future-like-ours. He argues that killing is prima facie wrong, and that this logic can be applied to a fetus. In this paper, I will address the ambiguity within the future-like-ours theory, which I will refer to as the FLO theory, and argue that the fetus’ right to a future of value does not override and should not be prioritized over the right to a future of value for the fetus’ host, which is the mother.

The right to have children is understood in very different ways and people’s ethics and values are put to the test each and everyday when they find out they not only must take care of themselves but the lives of another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted this statement regarding the right to bear children “men and women of full age, without any limitations to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”[1]. This concept has been viewed in multiple ways and according to ethical theorists; they agree that no rights are absolute. However, it is said that for women at least, there is a fundamental privilege to have children. The right to

The modern world is in the midst of reconstructing gender roles; debates about contraception, reproductive freedom, and female inequality are contentious and common. The majority now challenges the long established assertion that women’s bodies are the eminent domain of patriarchal control. In the past, a woman’s inability to control her reproductive choices could come with ruinous consequences. Proponents of patriarchal control argue against reproductive independence with rhetoric from religious texts and with anecdotes of ‘better days,’ when women were subservient. Often, literature about childbearing fails to acknowledge the possibility of women being uninterested in fulfilling the role of motherhood.

It was only three days after being born that I was flown to my new family in Illinois. If I had not been for a one woman’s unselfish decision, I would not be writing the words on this page right now. Abortion is an ethically wrong decision and option for a parent. It is illegal to take the life of another human being; by choosing to have an abortion, legally a parent is not willingly killing a human life. However, this choice is still seen as a murder to most people. Women should be forced to place their children up for adoption instead of a choice have an abortion.

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.

John Arthur and Peter Singer have different views when it comes to Famine Relief and the “Ideal Moral Code”. Both theories are intuitive; yet clash heads at the idea of an opinion other than their own. They essentially both argue for what is our true duty.

Who is to say that if all children ever conceived were born they would live happy, healthy lives? There are plenty of commercials on television proving that the world is full of starving children. So should we add to the population of starving children? For many women, the choice could be related to their own health. Women have the right to choose their own life over a child they would never see if they went through with the birth.

Since their development, contraceptive techniques and their widespread use have caused some controversy between groups with different views on the issue. Contraception is defined as any method that is used to prevent pregnancy and it can come in a few different forms. Barrier methods prevent sperm cells from reaching the ovum so fertilization cannot occur. Other methods that have received more criticism are those that use hormones to prevent implantation of the already fertilized ovum. There is also a post-coital contraceptive pill, more commonly known as the morning after pill or emergency contraception, that can be taken if other methods of birth control have failed or were absent. It works by causing the lining of the uterus to shed,

In these days, when society is changing, the functionalistic statements lose their strength. For example, the sex outside the marriage, in these days of easily available contraception, is no more the taboo. Margaret Mead argues Murdock’s and Parsons imply that nuclear family is biologically necessary and natural. She stated that the nuclear family is based on culture, not biology.

Peter Singer said; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.