AS Ethics: Kantian + right to a child

a) Explain how a follower of Kantian ethics might approach issues surrounding the right to a child. (25)

Immanuel Kant put forward his theory of ethics, which is deontological and absolutist, meaning we must base moral decisions on the act alone, and in order to do good, we must fulfil our duty for duty's sake alone, regardless of the individual situation, and without an ulterior motive. Kant's theory is also synthetic a priori, as while he believes that morality is a priori, we must also use some synthetic knowledge to understand how to act morally. In order to fulfil our duty, Kant stated that we must follow both the good will and the categorical imperative, of which there are three formulations: the principle of universability, the principle of a kingdom of ends, and the principle of treating humans as ends in themselves. When considering issues surrounding rights to a child, followers of Kantian ethics would generally be against fertility treatments, as they seem to contradict the three aforementioned formulae of the categorical imperative. 

Some may be tempted to argue in favour of fertility treatments, as with good intention, allowing an infertile couple to have children seems to be doing the right thing and fulfilling your duty. However, while Kant agrees that good will is an important factor to consider, ethics should be deontological, therefore the most important factor is whether the action itself is objectively good, rather than looking at the situation. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the categorical imperative to determine whether fertility treatment is a good action.

The first formulation is the Principle of Universability. Kant stated that we must "act in a way that actions might become a universal law", so here, the consistency of the action is also decisive. This means that while we may think an action seems good, it is only good if we could universally apply it to every situation and it would still be good. When looking at rights to a child, it is unlikely that this principle would justify any fertility treatments. For example, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) results in several 'spare' embryos being fertilised, which are then destroyed or disposed of if not needed. While initially it may seem moral to allow IVF to enable a couple to have a child, clearly it would not be moral if this was universalised, as there would be a huge number of embryos that would be killed, therefore this is not universally good.

The second principle of the categorical imperative is treating people as 'ends in themselves withal, not as means to an end'. This means we shoudl not use or manipulate people for an ulterior motive or to get what we want, but instead should treat people fairly, and as ends in themselves. Many fertility treatments go against this principle, so it forms another argument why followers of Kantian ethics would be against them. Treatments such as surrogacy and Artificial Insemination from a donor (AID) are not treating people as ends in themselves, as they both involve using a third party to help someone else have a baby, so attaining personal gain rather than the surrogate mother or donor being treated as ends in themselves. Therefore, followers of Kan t would not support these treatments.

The third and final formulation is the principle of the kingdom of ends. This states that we must all act as if we are a 'law-making member of the Kingdom of Ends', so while acting morally, we must also recognise that we are responsible for setting a good example to others. This is similar to the first principle in the way that when making a moral decision, we must consider whether it would still be right if everyone else in the world made the same decision. While fertility treatments may seem like the right thing to do in individual situations, it is unlikely that they would be justified as a universal rule. For example, in 1985, Kim Cotton was paid £6500 to have a baby for an infertile couple. While she may have been following the good will, with good intention to help, we must consider whether we would want to live in a society where it was acceptable to pay other people to have your children. Not only is this treating people as a means to an end, going against the second formulation, but it is also a contradiction of the law of nature, as reproduction/sex within a relationship or married couple would lose its value, as having children would no longer be seen as an intimate event within a relationship, but instead as something else which can be done with a third party. Therefore, again, followers of Kantian ethics would be against issues/treatments surrounding rights to a child.

Mark: 25/25