What is your answer?
Rule utilitarians approach abortion by asking, "What rule about killing (including abortion) would have the best consequences for society to adopt and try to follow?"
How might rule utilitarians criticize this rule: "Killing a fetus is permissible, but killing an infant is wrong."
{ 1 } - The rule violates our inherent right to life.
{ 2 } - Since a late fetus and a newborn infant are practically identical except for their spatial location, this rule is irrational.
{ 3 } - A society following this would tend to move toward accepting infanticide, and thus to the "rationality" rule (with all its problems).
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Rule utilitarians approach abortion by asking, "What rule about killing (including abortion) would have the best consequences for society to adopt and try to follow?"
How might rule utilitarians criticize this rule: "Killing a fetus is permissible, but killing an infant is wrong."
{ 1 } - The rule violates our inherent right to life.
{ 2 } - Since a late fetus and a newborn infant are practically identical except for their spatial location, this rule is irrational.
{ 3 } - A society following this would tend to move toward accepting infanticide, and thus to the "rationality" rule (with all its problems).
Nonconsequentialists might object in this way -- but not rule utilitarians.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Rule utilitarians approach abortion by asking, "What rule about killing (including abortion) would have the best consequences for society to adopt and try to follow?"
How might rule utilitarians criticize this rule: "Killing a fetus is permissible, but killing an infant is wrong."
{ 1 } - The rule violates our inherent right to life.
{ 2 } - Since a late fetus and a newborn infant are practically identical except for their spatial location, this rule is irrational.
{ 3 } - A society following this would tend to move toward accepting infanticide, and thus to the "rationality" rule (with all its problems).
Rule utilitarians wouldn't argue in this way.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Rule utilitarians approach abortion by asking, "What rule about killing (including abortion) would have the best consequences for society to adopt and try to follow?"
How might rule utilitarians criticize this rule: "Killing a fetus is permissible, but killing an infant is wrong."
{ 1 } - The rule violates our inherent right to life.
{ 2 } - Since a late fetus and a newborn infant are practically identical except for their spatial location, this rule is irrational.
{ 3 } - A society following this would tend to move toward accepting infanticide, and thus to the "rationality" rule (with all its problems).
This norm is clear (except for partial-birth abortions), but unstable. It's arbitrary to permit killing a fetus about to be born but forbid killing a newborn. So societies that adapt thus norm will tend to move toward accepting infanticide -- and thus to this rule (which has a lot of problems): "Killing a child is permissible until it exercises rationality."
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end