The slippery slope of relativism

Hursthouse mentions quite clearly she has no intention of solving the moral issue of abortion, rather she wishes to clarify virtue theory and explain away criticisms which come from an inadequate understanding. However, that seems to be the problem. She cannot find an answer within virtue theory to say whether abortion is moral. Instead, there are many examples as to the pros and cons of an abortion. Examples in which abortion can be morally correct, but she also states “by virtue of the fact a human life has been cut short, some evil has probably been brought about.” Thus, it seems that she has placed herself on the slippery slope of relativism. That each individual case depends on the situation a hand, and there is no correct moral decision.

How can virtue theory provide a correct way of living, if it cannot answer these questions? One example of an ethical abortion is if the mother worries the quality of her parenting will diminish for her current children if she chooses to have another. How is it here that a virtue of caring for her current children outweighs an abortion? While it is certainly virtuous of the mother to do so, is there any way to determine whether any virtues are more important than others? If so, what way is there to determine this? Hursthouse mentions practical wisdom, wisdom which comes with age to understand the consequences. She states that even if the intent was kind, the consequences can be detrimental. Is this how to make the best moral decision, through practical wisdom? Many different individuals value different virtues, thus would this moral issue then be deferred to the individual without any greater moral compass? And so, an abortion for an easier life is a valid choice. I don’t believe this is what Hursthouse attempting to state, but certainly a problem for virtue theory to deal with.