Utilitarianism Vs. Deontology

In life, there will be many times where you get presented with a choice. A choice where you have to decide if it is for the greater good of the entire world, or if it is a selfish act, and simply demeaning of someone. To make it more clearer, when you choose it will determine what you are for, whether for the theory of utilitarianism or deontology. To begin, we will have to understand every aspect of utilitarianism. In the words of Julia Driver, “utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The History of Utilitarianism”). To break it down, utilitarianism is when you do something for the greater good of everyone, and despite what happened throughout the process, your intentions were for the “better” outcome. This theory in my opinion, is more of a selfish way to look at life. Because even though your end goal is to bring out the most happiness and success, you take any risk that comes with, without even thinking twice about how it can hurt something in the way. With the theory of utilitarianism, there are many others with the need to mention about. For example, consequentialism, which is a bigger moral theory, everything else that follows from it would just be the subcategories. When you read the word consequentialism, you might notice that it looks like “consequences”. Which already gives so much definition to the word. It is an ethical theory that basically lets you judge an action on whether it is moral or not, based on its consequence (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Consequentialism”). Other concepts that are important are the principle of utility, the use of people and the value of human life. To touch, the value of a person can mean many different things to different groups of people. For example, the most common idea would be how everyone has the same value and no one should be treated more than others. Others might say that depending on the person and how they contribute to society, is how you determine their value. Here is also when things get controversial, like the discussions between pro-life and pro-choice. If a fetus is a life or not, if it is valuable or not.

Like mentioned before, the theory of utilitarianism is when the action you choose is the one that makes the best outcome (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The History of Utilitarianism”). Not everyone will always have the same opinion, so even though some might believe that their belief is the better way, the others might believe that their belief is the way. Now, imagine that you and your significant other are having a baby. Everything is going great, until the checkup with your doctor, where you find out that your baby has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. For many, this will be a hard moment because you start to picture the difficult life that your child might experience. And for others, you might be saddened by the news but it does not affect anything. For those who do have a problem, they start to think that maybe you wouldn’t want your child to go on with their life like that because as harsh as it is, they wouldn’t be at their “full potential”. So in that case, for them, it would be better to abort it. Now if they go on with it, here is where utilitarianism comes to play. Was that the better choice, and did it bring the most happiness with it? According to an estimate of 67% of Americans with diagnosed fetuses, it did (The New York Times, “The Ethical Case for Having a Baby with Down Syndrome”). In order to talk about subjects like these, we must be very open minded. So, what would be the advantages for this ethical issue? It would take away the worry and concern from parents, which could eventually bring out happiness but it would probably take some time for them to have that perspective since they did just lose their baby. Some might say that it can also help decrease human population, because humans are overpopulating then it means that not everyone has the fair chance of resources that they should get. Which also means that people would start benefiting from that, for the better good. As for disadvantages, you would not get to see your child grow. If people around the world started to abort their fetus because of a disability, then that would cause a huge conflict since many would get offended by it. Almost like when during the Holocaust, they would kill innocent people simply because they had one disfunction. It would be like that all over again.

Moving over to Kant’s Principle of Humanity. According to Robert Johnson’s definition, “we should never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Kant’s Moral Philosophy”). This basically means that we shouldn’t hold back from doing what we are supposed to do. To just go for it, despite what it is. For a new person trying to understand the basics of philosophy, it can be quite difficult to comprehend what an “end” is. To compare and contrast the differences between treating someone as a means to an end and by only using them. Treating someone as a means to an end means that you use what they give you, what they teach you, for your benefit. Although sometimes that can be normal because people like teachers, is what they expect you to do. Comparing it to only using them for that, means to deceive the person and lie to them while taking advantage of them. So what Kant is also implying, is that we shouldn’t abuse somebody else’s power without their knowledge, if you can do it yourself then do it the proper way.

Furthermore, if we continue to talk about the ethical issue of the abortion of babies with disabilities, and apply the principle of humanity, how will it’s views be like? To start, this principle is all about humanity. Humanity means to feel for others, to simply help those around us because we are all humans. If we were to apply this principle always to abortions for babies with down syndrome, then there wouldn’t be such thing. All of the 67% of Americans, as mentioned earlier, would essentially be a 0% (The New York Times, “The Ethical Case for Having a Baby with Down Syndrome”. Why? Because we can not use those helpless fetuses, just for our own benefits. The advantage of using this principle would be that we aren’t always questioned about wanting to abort it, and that we aren’t hurting anyone in this process. Now, the opposers (disadvantages) would believe that it’d be a waste of resources just because those with down syndrome are probably going to live a short time, so there would be no point in trying to help.

Choosing in between Deontology and Utilitarianism can be a very thoughtful process, although I would have to choose deontology. Because I personally believe that every single life has purpose. That despite how you look, what you have or do not have, or what your IQ is, your life has as much value as your neighbor. I’ve always been thought to do the right thing, and even if the right choice isn’t the one that’s the best, you have to make that decision. Here is when it starts to get difficult, we should only use people if that person has personally allowed us to. For example, if one wants to donate their organs after their passing. That seems like it’s the right thing to do, but not one is essentially forcing you to donate them. To finish this topic although, no life is worth more than others. Everyone’s the same, we all have the same potential, so why should that be taken away from us?

If this were to impact me in such a way, hypothetically, this is how I would take it into account. If I were to be having a baby with down syndrome, obviously I would be worried about how it can affect my child later in the future. But that isn’t a valid reason to abort the baby, in my opinion. A life is a life, and a disability/illness does not make the baby or anybody else a lesser person.

To conclude, the abortion of down syndrome fetuses will always be a hard topic to have a conversation over. Mostly, because it is so controversial, starting with the pro-choice and pro-lifers. This issue doesn’t just affect them when it comes to debates, but also the family and the doctors because they have to make a hard decision. Those who live in such a conservative or judgeful communities, because they know how much it would affect their child while growing up. It also affects those already with disabilities, for example Nicole Lee, who said “As a disabled woman, to the outside world my choice to end a pregnancy was seen unquestionably as the “right” decision. This view potentially stems from fears around passing on genetic disorders” (Quartz, “As a disabled woman, my abortion wasn’t questioned—but my pregnancy was”). As harsh as it is, people are afraid that disabilities can pass through genetics, and although some can, down syndrome isn’t one of them. It affects way more people than we can even think about.