Consistent – adjective, compatible or in harmony; not
contradictory
Congruent – adjective,
suitable, agreeable, coinciding exactly when superimposed.
Within the
framework of our society we are entitled to our own views on life, morality and
God, at least until our government becomes so big as to regulate what we can or
can’t think. At the end of the day we
all have to live with our choices and be prepared for any judgment after our
death. The one thing I would ask for is
a consistent and congruent view from others.
If you believe
in what is broadly stated as women’s rights, or the woman’s ability to choose
to abort a fetus then for Pete’s sake don’t get all teary eyed when some
homeless dog or cat is euthanized. Don’t
stride self-righteously into the debate on animal protective needs as if you are
morally outraged that such things can be allowed to happen.
When you
choose to support the destruction of a viable fetus and then claim animals need
our protection you show you have not thought through the moral issues or you
are incapable of establishing a consistent and congruent set of principles
necessary to keep society viable.
If you want to
be Pro-Choice then be pro-choice. Why
shouldn’t the guy who wants to use kittens as bait for shark fishing have the
same ability to choose what should happen to something in his care? What is the difference? Neither the kitten nor the fetus has a voice
in the decision. Yet when someone argues
for the fetus you get all uppity about women’s rights! What about shark fisherman’s rights? I have a very hard time with this outrage over
animal abuse or animal euthanasia from women who claim to be pro-choice.
7 comments:
I presume that the moral positions are arrived at using a different set of principles. It would be interesting to know what those principles are.
but kittens are cute, and have big eyes, and you hold them and hear them purr. a baby just makes you fat, tired and interupts your fun.
Maybe that's the different principle. That which does not fundamentally impinge on your life is good, no matter if it impinges on someone else's.
But that's not quite right. That which does not impinge must provide an opportunity for pleasure (either directly or by posturing.) The posturing is about moral seriousness, but the seriousness is imposed on others instead of on the self. So in effect, this kind of person buys license with someone else's coin.
Does that strike you as plausible?
I am having a hard time connecting the dots on the theory... but maybe after a big piece of angel food cake the sugar rush will make it clear... I'll sleep on and let you know.
:-) Let me try again. Take abortion for example. For person X, abortion is a good. The lack of freedom to choose abortion would impinge on the sexual freedom and pleasure of person X. S/he might get stuck with an unwanted child, unwanted expense, etc... To support abortion is logical if the principles in play are impingement and pleasure.
Animal rights is another example. For person X, it is logical enough to support animal rights since it doesn't impinge on him/her. Rather it impinges on someone else.
But why support animal rights at all? What's the point? Exhibiting moral seriousness is a pleasure, especially for one who manifestly lacks it elsewhere. It is a cover, a relief. "You accuse me of moral unseriousness because I support abortion, but there you are supporting the killing of mice! You are no better than I." To be morally inferior is uncomfortable, but to be on equal footing brings pleasure (or at least less discomfort.)
So then, as this shakes out, the person X is morally unserious (supports abortion.) But they are not fundamentally interested in moral seriousness for its own sake. What they actually want is pleasure. Unfortunately, the lack of moral seriousness can cause discomfort as it attracts the disapprobation of our peers. And so person X tries to earn some of that back by establishing his/her own moral seriousness. But it cannot be by impinging on him/herself. And so he/she imposes on others.
(to be continued)
So what about some other issues? Take taxation/charity.
Person X wants to keep his own money and thus isn't particularly interested in giving to charity. Giving would impinge on his own spending. But to be so nakedly greedy causes displeasure. And so he vociferously supports higher taxation... of the rich. He attempts to regain moral seriousness (the lack of which damages pleasure) by impinging on others, not on himself.
What about capital punishment? I think this is probably connected to abortion/sexual freedom. Person X buys back moral seriousness by "protecting life," the life of convicted criminals. This costs nothing, but allows person X to say to others, "See, I am just as morally serious as you. I support life."
By themselves, these positions can seem random or contradictory, but if they have a different set of principles that they are using, then they make sense. Or at least that's a theory of it.
Thanks for making this clearer. I agree.
Post a Comment