The positive golden rule does lead to absurdity, as I illustrated several times. The positive golden rule simply states treat others as you want them to treat you. A sadomasochist prefers pain from others and likes to deliver pain to others. The positive golden rule has two parts: the first part is about treating others as a sadomasochist prefers to deliver pain, and the second part is about whether a sadomasochist is allowed to deliver pain, which states, as you want them to treat you, what a sadomasochist prefers, namely, the pain. So, given this simple analysis, a sadomasochist is allowed to deliver pain to others, which is obviously not allowed. Therefore, the positive golden rule fails to convey the proper message to a sadomasochist.
It is not the fact that a sadomasochist always prefers delivering and receiving pain. The positive golden rule in its current form does not say anything about the mood of an individual to always be such-or-such, to conclude whether one is permitted to do such-or-such. The positive golden rule is pretty simple; it is about preference and whether you are allowed to do something based on your preference.
I’m curious how the rule of thumb applies to abortion.
I suppose a point of friction would be in defining if/when a fetus gains personhood and self-ownership. Personally, I believe complete personhood (and therefore self-ownership) is acquired at birth, and under this personal belief, with the rule of thumb, it follows that abortion at any point during pregnancy (perhaps for all reasons, but certainly for medical necessity) is ethically justifiable. However, of course, many argue personhood is gained at the point of fetal viability or conception. Under this belief, the rule of thumb would label abortion out of personal interest universally unethical.
My main curiosity pertains to abortion that occurs past the point of the fetus gaining personhood in order to save the mother. Following my understanding of the rule of thumb’s logic, abortion should be avoided because it violates the baby’s right to their own life. But at the same time, the baby’s birth would violate the mother’s right to her life.
Of course, one could say that the proper choice in this situation would be to allow the birth to happen — after all, there is a difference between doing and allowing. I am immediately reminded of the trolley problem, where I would justify not pulling the lever by saying I’m merely allowing the continuation of unfolding events rather than consciously choosing to kill someone. However, this situation differs in that either death would be at the hands of someone, and if it isn’t the mother (or surgeon) violating the baby’s self-ownership, it’s the baby violating hers. Personal biases aside, I’m inclined to say it’s preferable to allow the birth, because it doesn’t seem moral to kill a person to prevent a future outcome they have no say in causing.
To me, my thinking becomes even more muddled in a similar scenario where the baby would die whether or not medically necessary abortion occurs or the pregnancy is allowed to come to term. The fetus’ inevitable death in either scenario does not necessarily allow its abortion to save the mother, because all people will inevitably perish, and the rule of thumb would obviously be pointless if this fact allowed self-ownership violation. The baby has the right to their life during the time they’re alive in the womb, regardless of the outcome. Thus, a mother aborting their baby would be clear infringement upon this right. But on the other hand, allowing the pregnancy to continue would lead to the baby’s infringement upon the mother’s self-ownership, not to mention their own death. Reapplying my belief that the baby’s lack of a choice in their own momentary survival justifies abortion in this sense being immoral, it would be more morally justifiable to allow the pregnancy to continue and lead to the death of both the baby and the mother instead of the avoidable fate of just the fetus dying.
It just doesn’t sit right with me that this logical path forces the baby to technically violate the rule of thumb on their own mother. To me it seems like this rule does not have a clean answer to the ethical standing of abortion as you claim it should.
Although, perhaps this just shows that more people should adhere to my belief that fetuses gain personhood at birth, because the question of abortion’s morality is easily answered using the rule of thumb under this belief. This may also mean that the rule of thumb is truly useful in all moral discussions, because its contradictions may simply highlight separate fundamental misunderstandings.
What are your thoughts on this? Also apologies if this is long winded or unsound or otherwise low quality, I’m just getting interested in philosophy and this is my first post on this website
Hi and welcome to the forum!
Abortion is an act that is a little more difficult to discuss. To my understanding, abortion is not allowed because the fetus is alive and has the capacity to become a child. The process of life, from fetus to birth, to death, is a continuous process. We are dealing with a living thing always, which only changes as it grows. So it’s not about personhood, which is an ambiguous concept at best, since life is a continuous process. It is about respecting life in all its forms. So if we accept that morality is about how our decision affects life of others, we can conclude that abortion is wrong at all stages.
If the pregnancy comes with complications that threaten the life of the mother, then the abortion is justifiable, although it is wrong. It is justifiable if the pregnancy leads to the death of both the mother and the baby. We can save the life of the mother only by killing the baby. If the pregnancy is such that the death of the mother is not certain but only highly probable, then everything depends on the mother and whether she wants to accept a dangerous pregnancy to save the life of the baby by putting her life in danger. If she wants the continuation of the pregnancy, then abortion is not allowed; otherwise, it is allowed.
I provide my thoughts on the case of abortion to the best of my ability. I am happy to know your opinion on the matter.