Browsing by Author "Hall, Susan"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Difference, disability and discrimination : a philosophical critique of selective abortion
    (Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch, 2008-03) Hall, Susan; Van Niekerk, Anton A.; University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy.
    The practice of abortion continues to provoke controversy and disagreement. However, within the context of this wider debate, a greater level of consensus appears to have been reached as to the moral acceptability of the practice of prenatal screening, and selective abortion following the detection of foetal abnormality. This study seeks to interrogate whether justifications of this practice lend credence to the moral permissibility of selective abortion. In particular, it considers whether justifications for this practice amount to, or perpetuate, discrimination on the basis of the characteristic of disability, as selective abortion entails choosing against a particular foetus because of its characteristics. This study poses this question in two contexts – where the moral permissibility of selective abortion is regarded as an exception to the general moral impermissibility of abortion, and where selective abortion is regarded as one distinct justification within the context of the general moral permissibility of abortion. This study attempts to show that while justifications of selective abortion are directly discriminatory in the former case, they are not necessarily discriminatory in the latter case. This latter conclusion, however, recommends maintaining vigilance against the possibility that such justifications could rely upon or perpetuate prejudice, or restrict reproductive autonomy. These conclusions are considered within the South African context; in particular, with regard to their application to the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From inequality to equality : evaluating normative justifications for affirmative action as racial redress
    (SUNMeDIA, 2014-11) Hall, Susan; Woermann, Minka
    We investigate whether, and to what extent, Nozick’s entitlement theory and Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness can normatively ground affirmative action policies. Our findings are that, whereas the Nozickean project offers no guidance for large-scale redress, the Rawlsian position supports affirmative action as redress, but only in its softer forms. Therefore, if one accepts the assumptions of equal liberty and fairness upon which Rawls’s theory is based, one is left with two alternatives: either to reject Rawls’s theory because it fails to support quota systems, or to accept Rawls’s theory and reject quota systems as a legitimate form of redress. We argue for the latter option.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Harm and enhancement : philosophical and ethical perspectives
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2012-12) Hall, Susan; Van Niekerk, Anton A.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The distinction between treatment and enhancement is often considered to be a morally significant boundary, which, at the very least, marks the limits of our moral obligations. This conviction holds despite the fact that treatment and enhancement are situated along a continuum of interventions that are directed towards the improvement of human functioning. The distinction between these two sorts of interventions is based upon a notion of normative normality, which suggests that we are morally obligated to provide interventions which are directed toward the achievement of normal functioning, but that no obligation exists to improve functioning beyond this point. This dissertation will subject this position to critique by examining the constitution of normal functioning, and by suggesting that this kind of functioning cannot operate as a normative standard which determines the limits of our moral obligations. The moral desirability which we attribute to the achievement of normal functioning is based upon the independent ethical imperative to promote the possibilities for well-being of moral agents. This motivation, however, equally suggests that we will be obligated to provide certain kinds of enhancement interventions which will be likely to promote the welfare interests of moral agents, when these become available. This argument also implies that the development of enhancement technologies will require us to rethink our ethical conception of harmful non-benefits. We currently think of the non-provision of medical treatment and some environmental enhancements, such as education, as harmful to the extent that state intervention is justified to rectify this. We recognise that such non-provision, and the resultant failure to promote the welfare interests of moral agents, where such promotion is possible, harms persons by putting them in a worse position than they could have been in, with regards to their chances of leading a good life. The new technological possibilities offered by the prospect of genetic enhancement mean that we might soon have a better alternative, in terms of our chances of leading a good life, to the level of functioning that we have thus far been able to achieve. This implies that the non-provision of these enhancements would be harmful to the extent that intervention to bring about this provision would be justified.