Instead of a focus on an algorithmic method of determination, there is a focus on virtue ethics and on the questions of what makes a person virtuous and what choices that person makes in ethical situations. Historically, these virtuous positions have been considered stable and capable of leading to broadly held habits that transfer to general culture.
This theory, in my opinion, is flawed from the start for various reasons. As a Christian, I believe in absolutes that extend to mankind from a Holy God, but for this discussion, I will leave that thinking aside, and instead, stay firmly inside the idea of virtue ethics. I see, at first glance, three flaws. First, all virtuous persons do not generally think in terms of right or wrong when making decisions, and do not do it in the same way every time. For that to be the case, the idea of morality would have to be a large part of the fabric of society, and even that would not guarantee the consistency necessary. Second, this theory reduces virtue to a case-by-case situational morality, which is problematic. Morality, by its nature, is not and cannot be reduced to such pragmatism. And, finally, looking at morality through a situational lens will not produce collective morality as the idea of virtue will change in accordance with each situation, which brings us to the controversial issue of abortion. The next three paragraphs will reference abortion only as evidence in support of this idea regarding the erosion of virtue. It should not be misconstrued as an comprehensive examination of abortion and the moral dilemmas associated with it.
Judith Jarvis Thompson wrote a landmark paper on this subject back in the 70s. In this paper, she argued that the question was not whether or not the baby had a right to life, but whether or not the baby had a right to use the mother's body against the mother's will to sustain its own life. For Thompson, the major issue was this: does a baby have a right to demand that the mother submit her body for the purpose of the baby's life? Thompson posited that, yes, everyone may have the right to life, but they do not have the right to use another's body without the permission of that person?
Regardless of your position on abortion, this is where I see a line of bifurcation regarding virtue. Thompson mentioned nothing about the choice, and responsibility that comes with that choice, regarding the activity that produced life. And, an even more important issue, the baby did not force life upon the mother; it is actually, if we want to get truly technical about it, the other way around. Today, the situation is even more pronounced as there are multiple, safe and affordable ways to engage in this activity without the result being a life, and, yet we still struggle with this issue as an issue of choice. The issue strategically centers on choice, but not the choice of the baby, who, ironically, had no choice, initially, in this process; instead, the choice rests with those who had all the choices at the beginning. With the issue now being that of choice, and not life, the issue of life is no longer an issue of virtue.
If an unborn baby's life is no longer virtuous, what, then, will be next? Reducing that which has no power over anyone, and who, initially, had no choices over anything, even its own birth, to an issue of choice cannot be good news for the rest of us, especially when considering virtue. If the beginning of life is not a virtue, and according to our current views on abortion, a strong case could be made that it is not, then how long will it take before other aspects of life are reduced to choice and non-virtue status? It would seem that the choice regarding life is more virtuous than the actual life being decided. When an aspect of human life is no longer considered virtuous we have stepped onto a slippery slope regarding virtue. Historically, this step has been taken before by other civilizations. There is one consistent trait that all of them have in common; none of them are around today.
No comments:
Post a Comment