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 this approach criticize this rule: "Killing a child is permissible until it exercises rationality."
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 this approach criticize this rule: "Killing a child is permissible until it exercises rationality."
Nonconsequentialists might object in this way -- but not rule utilitarians.
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 this approach criticize this rule: "Killing a child is permissible until it exercises rationality."
When does a child reach the "point of rationality"? Does this happen when it begins to talk, or enters the first grade, or graduates from high school? Since children develop gradually in their rational powers, it's arbitrary to pick a "point of rationality" at which it becomes wrong to kill your children. A vague rule like this would lead to a large amount of killing, and respect for human life at all levels would erode.
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 this approach criticize this rule: "Killing a child is permissible until it exercises rationality."
Nonconsequentialists might object in this way -- but not rule utilitarians.