Andersons argument for the wrongness of commercial surrogacy rests largely upon the idea that through surrogacy, both the women’s labor and the child the labor produces, are treated as a commodity, which devalues both said things (Anderson,1990). She presents the Kantian thesis against the ‘commodification of persons’ to support this stating ‘to fail to value things appropriately is to embody in one's life an inferior conception of human flourishing’ (Anderson, p73, 1990). Further arguing that if a transaction occurs which involves something that it is not supposed to be commensurable (like a child’s life), then according to Kantian reasoning this transaction is immoral.
However, Wertheimer suggest a flaw in Andersons argument relating to her Kantian deductions. Stating that we make transactions all the time in life that involve commodities that may be described as incommensurable, but this does not always render the transaction immoral (Wertheimer,1992). He uses the example of memorabilia, to portray an object that has sentimental value to some and not as much to others (Wertheimer,1992). Further suggesting that transactions that could normatively be suggested to incommensurable can become commensurable through contracts and agreements through both parties in the transaction (Wertheimer,1992).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Which perhaps shows that as long as the transactions between the surrogate mother and the actual mother are agreed without moral guilt, the incommensurable women’s labor then becomes commensurable. However, it is arguably hard to equate the sentimental and moral value of pregnancy and a child, to that of memorabilia. Anderson further uses Kantian ethics in the explanation of why surrogacy is wrong, relating it to the wrongness of slavery. ‘In Kantian theory, the problem with slavery is that it treats beings worthy of respect as if they were worthy merely of use’ (Anderson, p72,1990). Kant says: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (Kant, 1785).
Arguably in the case of commercial surrogacy women are treated as a means, to another person’s ends, which through Kantian deduction is wrong. However, this is not dissimilar to other paid labor jobs in society for example, when a fight fighter is sent into a blaze to rescue another person. Arguably the firefighter is used to a means to the social good of helping another person, but in this case, it would be wrong to say this degrades or devalue the practice of saving someone all together. The case of surrogacy can be regarded as a similar social good for society helping couples to have children, who otherwise way not be able to.
To conclude I would Andersons use of Kantian ethics in her discussion of commodities in commercial surrogacy can be deemed useful for its promotion of the awareness of humanity and the respect required for humanity in relation to surrogate mothers. However, the Kantian argument used by Anderson is not always tenable. For example, in relation to the opinion treating a human perceivably as a means in surrogacy is always wrong. This is because the service of surrogacy can be compared to other common social services to society that for example that of a person in the armed forces or the fire service which are essential for society. Additionally, it can be deemed argued that incommensurability of objects does not always lead to immoral transactions.
Stuck on your essay?
