Morality in Kant and Foucault Slogan: Find two moral dilemmas present and analyze them from the views of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill
_________________________ 1.
Clarín: 30/08/2007
abort again prevent a disabled person who was raped
A court order prevented an abortion to a mentally disabled girl who was raped four months ago in Paraná. The measure, which became public yesterday, returned to rekindle the controversy with similar cases reported a year ago in Mendoza, La Plata and Corrientes.
The Criminal Code allows termination of pregnancy in a situation like that without involving penalties for physicians attending the patient. However, the champion juvenile of Paraná, Marcela Piterson, filed an injunction claiming to be protecting the rights of the unborn child. His stance was echoed by Judge Claudia Solomon, and that prevented the abortion was practiced in the San Roque and pediatric wards.
(...)
From Kant:
The fact that the act is good or bad will depend primarily on whether you may or may not lead to universal law. In this case, if you think so, you should think of what would happen if all rape cases banning abortion pregnancy. The most likely consequence would be immediate increase in the number of clandestine abortions and thus malpractice deaths, as is currently the case in Argentina and many other countries where abortion is punishable by law. The event will then bad when viewed from the categorical imperative of Kant.
The situation changes if one considers the fetus as a living, since there is an intersection of interests and priorities which should be encouraged to preserve life, does the fetus or the mother? Thus posed, bring any of the links universal law cause evil in any of the parties, so you should think otherwise. Kant also ran a series of three categories to determine whether an act was good or not (acts of duty, acts against the duty, and acts in accordance with the duty). Among those categories correspond to the case referred to an act of duty, as the law banning such abortions is supported by the church, serving as what he believes is right, regardless of their inclinations, and does not involve the individual interest. The intention is good, regardless of the consequences, as in Kant's intention is all that counts, the event will good too.
From Mill:
To determine whether the action was good or bad, when viewed from Mill's theory, should be analyzed initially if it succeeded or not happiness. For this, the prohibition of abortion in the case referred to should have caused more pleasure and less pain, in which case it would have been a good deed. But seeing what happened, you can see that not happen, it is unlikely that the possession of the child to be born as a reason of joy for the girl raped, either spiritually or physically, especially considering his mental state. And between the delivery and the rest of the process, pain is certainly present in more than one occasion, therefore, the resolution of justice will have been a bad action .
However, as with Kant's theory, should be considered a second point of view, the child. If you think so, you wonder if his own existence (the child) will result in him happiness, looking for signs of pleasure or pain. But how will provide a child's life after being born is not viable, and therefore the answer to the question of whether the measure taken by the justice cause happiness or not is uncertain. Between the two resolutions (uncertainty, and high probability of unhappiness in the mother), justice should be guided by what is safer, primarily considering the case of the mother. As the resolution passed, as already mentioned, bad .
2.
The Nation: 30/11/2005
The Senate passed the bill alleged donor
now becoming Senate unanimously law reform Act ablation and implantation of organs that introduces the concept of "tacit consent", better known as "donor alleged" that requires any person over 18 to donate their organs unless it has gone on record expressing its opposition.
(...)
"This will save lives and shorten the huge waiting list is currently six thousand people, of which we know to die two days," said González García, minutes after the passage of the Act submitted by the Executive.
(...)
From Kant:
As in the previous case, the first thing you should ask to see if the act is good or bad according to this theory, is whether it is possible to universal law and keep their positive characteristics (good), but in this case the situation is slightly different as the fact that it has been law (justice) implies that has been universalized, so that should be analyzed directly by its immediate and future consequences to determine whether it was a good move. Its main consequence, as clarified in the news González García above, is the salvation of hundreds of people waiting for a transplant to stay alive, and that prior to the law in question had very little chance of receiving it. That's who get the organs do not suffer negative consequences, since, as expressed in law, must be dead to be considered by it, precluding any possible consequence, good or bad. The action (in this case the law of presumed donor) is therefore good .
The law here mentioned correspond to an act of duty, and that justice itself is not acting on their own interests, but others, in itself, the law does not get anything for their progress or their good performance, and not optimally tilts, acts as the common good.
Finally, the intention the presumptive donor law is good, as it seeks to reduce the number of deaths due to lack of donors. Viewed from the theory of Kant, no doubt in this case the action is good. It would only be bad if you consider the possible psychological consequences of the relatives of the deceased, but would incorporate the emotional interests of a third group upon which the law does not act directly. This is what is often called "collateral damage", which could hardly be considered by kanteana theory, since in most cases is present, and make all these bad deeds.
From Mill:
As regards the donor that the law lacks life, and therefore also the possibility of pain or pleasure, can only analyze the reduction or increase of happiness in who receives the organ (always excluding the "collateral damage" mentioned recently). Well designed, can be considered to obtain an organ for the applicant it will generate increased pleasure, generated by an improvement in life expectancy and a reduction in pain, as will a critical condition a stable y progresivamente mejor. Provocará entonces felicidad en él, lo que hará de la ley una buena acción que genera felicidad en la mayoría de los casos (el transplante no es siempre fructuoso, pero en general lo es). Además, según Mill la felicidad de un individuo conducirá a la felicidad de la sociedad en su conjunto.
* Yo no soy ni kantiano ni millista, soy relativista.
