I won't try to prove that abortion is murder (in the moral sense, not the legal one). But I think it is sufficient to show that Roeder had good reason to believe that the abortions performed by Dr. Tiller were indeed murder. Everyone recognizes that killing a newborn fetus is wrong. We would probably say that killing a fetus two weeks before birth is also wrong (because what's so different between a 38-week old fetus and a 40-week old newborn?). Tiller conducted abortions on fetuses after the 21st week of gestation (during the 2nd trimester), when fetuses are generally considered viable. Moreover, viability seems to be a sufficiently reasonble line to draw saying that "fetuses after this point have the right to life." If the fetus can be removed from the womb after 21 weeks and survive independently of the mother, it is a separate human being and no longer merely an extension of the mother. Furthermore, if a 21-week old fetus were removed from its mother, it wouldn't make sense to say that only 19 weeks later (the presumable date of childbirth) would it gain the right to life. Therefore, that late-term abortions violate a viable fetus' fundamental right to life is an eminently defensible position.
The question now becomes whether murdering Dr. Tiller was a justifiable response to Tiller's medical practices. I'd ask, "Would murdering Adolf Hitler during World War II to stop the genocide of Jews be morally permissible?" I think so. But Hitler was responsible for far more deaths than Tiller could conceviably be. So what about just murdering a Nazi officer who ran a death camp that killed hundreds of Jews? I think (and hope you would agree) that this too would be permissible.
"Wait," you say, "the Nazi's knew they were doing something wrong by killing innocents, but Tiller didn't think he was doing anything wrong, so even if he was committing murder he wasn't aware of it." Yet I contend that Tiller's lack of mens rea isn't sufficient to condemn Roeder's actions. To illustrate, look to what philosophers call the "trolley problem": Imagine standing beside trolley tracks and noticing that five people are trapped on the track. A trolley is quickly approaching, and the only thing you can do is flip a switch that would divert the trolley onto another track. Trapped on the other track is one person, who will die if you flip the switch. The trolley problem asks: is it morally permissible to flip the switch?
Most people would answer "yes," illustrating their belief that it is okay to take the life of an innocent person if doing so saves the lives of five. If your answer is "no," then surely you would say "yes" at some other point: what if one thousand people were trapped on the track? I think that anyone who were actually in this position would feel compelled to flip the switch to save the thousand. So at some point (maybe between saving five and saving one thousand lives; the exact numbers aren't so important), people base their decision on utilitarian calculations. And that's exactly what Roeder did. He flipped the switch. He prevented hundreds of fetuses from being aborted, because Dr. Tiller was the end-of-the-line doctor who performed the abortions that other doctors wouldn't. With Tiller gone, those 21-week old fetuses will go unaborted and continue living to see childbirth.
If you've read closely, you'll notice that I haven't argued that Roeder was right. I don't know if late-term abortions really are murder, and I don't know if utilitarianism is the correct moral theory. But I do think those positions are entirely reasonable ones to take, and given this, it seems that Scott Roeder's killing of Dr. Tiller was indeed a morally defensible action.
8 comments:
Man that trolley problem is a very good analogy. I do agree taht Roeder's actions are defensible in the way you argued it, but I also think that in the end, Roeder's choice of action was the wrong way to approach this problem of Dr. Tiller's abortions. Why I think Roeder's actions were incorrect comes almost entirely from a religious stand point so no fancy analogies for me lol =)
interesting stuff...keep it coming!
Let's say Roeder operates under utilitarian principles. Is preventing abortions, particularly late-term abortions, justifiable under utilitarianism? I would argue it is not. One, people considering abortions in general are not the kind of people that make good parents. Unwanted children forced to term are subject to abuse and a life of strife. Two, parents sometimes find out that their unborn baby/fetus suffers from some horrible genetic defect well into the pregnancy. These parents make the difficult choice to spare their child from a life of pain and torment. So in general, under utilitarianism, abortions, especially late-term abortions, result in less harm.Therefore, Roeder cannot be defended using the Trolley Problem.
Utilitarianism and the belief that abortion is murder might be reasonable points of view, but the misapplication of these views only results in a weak defense of Dr. Tiller's murderer.
I considered that, but decided that allowing those fetuses to live would still provide a net gain in utility. Although their life might be more difficult than the average child's, I still think they're better off alive. The fact that most people don't commit suicide suggests that regardless of background, they feel their life is worth living.
hey jon this is really interesting reading and i think you make a compelling case, looking forward to your future posts!
I've already shown that there is more utility on allowing abortions. One, abortions allow people to be parents only when they are ready. Two, especially with late-term abortions, you are forcing children with defects to come to term. Let me elaborate. We are talking about defects that cause horrible disfigurements, paraplegia, and a general painful existence. Three, abortions create a net utility on society. Children who would be aborted but aren't are more likely to resort to a life of a crime. Under Roe v. Wade, America experienced a drastic fall in youth crime.
What all these points share in common is that abortion is not an easy decision. For this reason, people who choose to undergo the procedure usually for good reason. This good reason translates into more utility. This "good reason" comes in a number of forms. The mother may be poor, unfit to be a parent, or the child may have a defect. In summary, there is more utility on the abortion side.
You claim that children would be better off alive, but what is the alternative? In this case the alternative is non-existence, or death. Is life always preferable to non-existence? We both agree it is sometimes better not to have lived at all, than to life a life full of strife.
Regarding your last point: The fact that people generally don't kill themselves is not indicative of a life worth living, as much as it shows how humans are physiologically predisposed to live, regardless of the circumstances.
The point is, Roeder doesn't operate under utilitarianism, and even if he does, he is flawed in his conclusion.
After some consideration, I realize it was misleading to use the term "utility" or "utilitarianism" in my post, because Roeder's justification isn't necessarily utilitarian. For the trolley example, it is enough to say that there isn't a meaningful distinction between killing/letting die (doing vs. allowing). And one doesn't have to be a utilitarian to agree that five deaths are worse than one. I apologize for the lack of rigor in my moral analysis of that portion.
That said, my thesis was that Roeder's murder was morally defensible. Ed's argument seems to be that utilitarianism says the murder wasn't defensible. Thus, the burden is to prove that utilitarianism eliminates ALL reasonable justifications for Roeder (because if one reasonable justification remains standing, his position is still morally defensible).
The problem is that Roeder's defense isn't based on utilitarianism (or isn't solely based on it). Rather, it rests on 1. his belief that it's better to save these kids than to assume they'll live an unhappy life and let them die, and 2. his belief that the fetus' right to life (if it exists) outweighs Tiller's right to life as well as considerations regarding the utility of parents and society.
So Ed might be right on utilitarian grounds. But winning utilitarianism doesn't mean Roeder's position was indefensible.
(It's also not clear that Roeder would lose the utilitarian argument: half the country is against abortion, most potential fetuses will live to enjoy life, fetuses with the severest defects will likely die early, unhappy parents can give up the baby for adoption, etc. To be honest, I can't decide if utility would be increased or diminished, because it's just such a hard question--at least one I'm not smart enough to answer accurately.)
Anyone else should feel free to add to this discussion. I won't be saying more, so Ed, please have the last word.
Having read this post, this time, I had a difficult time thinking of what I would write. You question the moral defensibility of abortion and murder. Both deal with the issue of morality. The biggest issue with the topic of moral is that it is totally subjective. I suppose that would be the point to all of these posts, to show one's opinion on such subjects. I really stand undecided. It's hard to speculate what is exactly will happen to someone had they been born. Is it our right to make those assumptions for them? I was reading an article in Yahoo news regarding certain genes that would be able to determine whether a person was more likely to be aggresive and join gangs. I don't think it would be fair to deem someone a killer when they haven't even committed the act yet. That's why I see both sides of the abortion argument. I'll think about this post a little more and add to it...if something more coherent comes out of this. =/
In general, I'm inclined to deny the moral defenses supporting Roeder. The examples of utility, Hitler's potential assassination, and the trolley example are all good points. I agree with them individually, but not when applied to Roeder. Roeder enjoys much more freedom than any of the actors in the examples.
The trolley example presents two options: flip the switch/do nothing. Roeder's options comprised more than kill/do nothing. Similarly, Roeder enjoyed many options as opposed to Hitlers' would-be assassins who would never be able to reason with the Fuhrer. All the examples defending Roeder are of people between a rock and a hard place. I do not see Roeder in such a position. He could have done any number of things to reduce the incidence of abortions without resorting to violence. He could participate in protests, improve adoption services, or seek to ban late-term abortions through legislation.
Indeed, Roeder's actions are morally defensible insofar as anyone is justified to commit any action they feel morally compelled to do. But conviction is not enough, and that is why Jon provided more examples of justification. I am simply saying these examples are not adequate, and leave us with personal moral conviction alone. It is easy to set up an example where moral conviction alone may not be enough to justify an action. For, example, most of us in Western society look down upon honor killings, where rape victims are executed to preserve family honor, as a despicable practice.
But Roeder may be more easily defended because late-term abortions present a much more complicated situation, and I doubt society, even pro-choice advocates, would be eager to jump to defend Dr. Tiller's abortions. Depending on personal interpretations, one may view Roeder as a murderer, or a vigilante stopping someone akin to a serial killer. In one view he is much more justified than the other.
The actions of Roeder and Dr. Tiller challenge my personal views. I no longer feel I can easily rebuke Roeder, but now resign myself to simply feeling that what he did is wrong.
Post a Comment