Ethics 14 - Synthesis Chapter

What is your answer?

Let's suppose that killing innocent human life is seriously wrong starting from when the child becomes rational. Then it's intuitively clear that fetuses or infants who haven't reached the point of rationality have

{ 1 }

{ 2 }

{ 3 }

{ 4 }

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.

1 is wrong. Please try again.

{ 1 } - a lesser but constant right to life.

{ 2 }

{ 3 }

{ 4 }

On this option, a fetus or infant of any age has the same weak right to life and can be killed for the same reasons.

Few people have firm moral intuitions about which option is the most plausible.

<= back | menu | forward =>

2 is wrong. Please try again.

{ 1 }

{ 3 }

{ 4 }

On this option, the right to life increases gradually. So it's more seriously wrong (and requires more justification) to kill a fetus who is six months old than one who is three months old.

Few people have firm moral intuitions about which option is the most plausible.

<= back | menu | forward =>

3 is wrong. Please try again.

{ 1 }

{ 2 }

{ 4 }

On this option, a human fetus or infant has no right to life. So killing it is permissible for minor reasons or even no reason at all.

Few people have firm moral intuitions about which option is the most plausible.

<= back | menu | forward =>

4 is correct!

{ 1 }

{ 2 }

{ 3 }

Few people have firm moral intuitions about which option is the most plausible. So again, appealing to moral intuitions won't lead to any firm conclusion. We need a better way to argue about moral principles.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.

the end