Rosalind Hursthouse on rights of fetus. Literature & Language Essay

Running head: HURSTHOUSE ON RIGHTS OF FETUSES & PREGNANT WOMEN1
Hursthouse on Rights of Fetuses & Pregnant Women: A Critique
Student Name
College/University Affiliation
HURSTHOUSE ON RIGHTS OF FETUSES & PREGNANT WOMEN

2

Hursthouse on Rights of Fetuses & Pregnant Women: A Critique


I. Main Argument
Critical of criticisms against Virtue Theory, Hursthouse (1991) presents nine claims made by supporters of action-oriented propositions, namely Deontology Theory and Utilitarian Theory. In her presentation, Hursthouse frequently asserts she does not mean to offer any solution to abortion problems, particularly issues, or considerations, of fetus status and women’s rights. Instead, Hursthouse consistently expresses her support of Virtual Theory, by refuting all nine claims, without claiming to offer a solution to a “main criticism” in question about pluralism and cultural relativism as well as conflicting requirements of different virtues.
Virtue Theory gives no moral direction whatsoever, argue action-oriented propositions, virtue/ vice concepts are hardly, if at all, enough to inform anyone of what practical action could be made, let alone in which direction and to what degree, by merely prescribing, as Virtual Theory does, moral principles, or virtues, a virtuous agent adopts as virtuous (and hence prescribable for all virtue-seeking individuals). Moreover, Virtual Theory, action-oriented propositions go on, could be centered on different premises about virtue/vice – and, for that matter, what is worthwhile – and hence resulting in different conclusions. In response, Hursthouse argues that normative moral rules, albeit offering “clear” and prescriptive actions, are informed by a prior conception of what is right or wrong – without any distinction between different matters of varying degrees of significance including, in current case, abortion.
Virtual Theory is not, argues Hursthouse, contrary to what action-oriented propositions claim, about what a virtuous agent does, or will do, in a given situation but, rather, about different conceptions of virtue/vice in different situations – exactly as action-oriented propositions claim. That is, a condition of adequacy, presupposed in all action-oriented approaches such as Deontology Theory and Utilitarian Theory, fails to justify, for example, a claim about an individual who, failing to find proper moral
HURSTHOUSE ON RIGHTS OF FETUSES & PREGNANT WOMEN

3

solution in a given situation based on prescribed norms, seeks someone else whose moral views, or understanding of what is worthwhile in life, are so different from advice-seeker. As such, action-oriented approaches fail, based on claims of strict adherence to a priori normative virtues (and actions), to argue for variability of moral experiences (and hence relativity of virtue/vice in different situations), on one hand, conflicting views of different virtues – claims Virtual Theory still needs to give more plausible account of as well. Thus, Hursthouse can be said to be a supporter of Virtual Theory whilst also admitting caveats raised by opponents. The case for how supporters of action-oriented propos...