Flawed Reasoning in being Pro-Choice/Morally Relativistic

     Relativism is the belief that there is no universal justification for moral actions or objective truth. Furthermore, since there is no moral standard for actions, moral conduct becomes relative to the beholder of the action. This presents three main problems: first, by invalidating the sense of right and wrong, one becomes tolerant to thoughts and actions of others that may be objectively evil; second, truth transforms from natural law to a delineated expression of one’s personal beliefs; and third, by disconnecting oneself from any sort of objective reasoning, any action or thought becomes justified.

     As I have already alluded to, moral relativism presents three main concerns. Although these concerns may start moderately, they gradually clunk into precarious thoughts that are susceptible to individual desire, as well as threatening to modern day thinking. The first thing moral relativism implies is the tolerance of ideas based upon beliefs from personal experiences. This leads to statements such as: “I am Pro Choice, but personally opposed,” in which one believes something to be wrong, but does not impose their beliefs upon someone who thinks differently. In their minds, this does not fault the personally opposed to the same degree as the abortionists themselves; however, it still indirectly allows what they believe to be murder to be permitted. In an attempt to avoid dispute, they take the ridiculous stance of allowing something they believe is wrong. Assuming that abortion is actually murder, as they believe, then this would be the equivalent of stating “I am Pro Child-Murder, but personally opposed.” Regardless of whether those who are personally opposed murder children, murder the children themselves, the indirect allowing of the action is still morally wrong. These stances, therefore, become a failed attempt at trying to appeal to both sides of an altercation without actually taking a position.

     Once one submits to the tolerance of evil actions, such as murder, the mind will develop the idea or relativism even further. The relativist will soon see that there is little difference between oneself tolerating others, and others tolerating them. This is to say that as long as one shows beliefs that can be delineated by flawed logic and personal feelings, those beliefs are personally justifiable. This idea is even more dangerous than someone who is pro-choice but personally opposed, for it allows abortionists themselves to exclaim in defense: “Abortion is right for me, if it is not right for you do not have one.” Using the same example from above, one can discern see why this statement would alarm someone who personally believed abortion was murder. “Murdering children is right for me; if you don’t like it, don’t murder children.” Again, regardless of whether the action is actually right or wrong.

     Once one’s logic gets them this far, it is not hard for them to rid themselves of objective reasoning all together. The thinking transforms from justifying their own actions into justifying others. These result in statements such as: “Who am I to judge.” If one wants to kill their two year old daughter, who are you to judge their decision? At this point, not only ideas that are contended topics become permissible, but rather, any action that can be explained through any form of reasoning. “I shot my wife because she didn’t make me dinner.” Although this does not seem like a legitimate excuse to shoot ones wife, since it is the man’s personal belief, ‘Who am I to judge.’ While someone who is ‘pro-choice but personally opposed’, might not believe these statements, they are indirectly accepting the premises and are prone to believing in the ideas themselves. By doing this, moral relativists get to pick and choose the time and circumstance for which two + two equals four, and also the times which it does not. Rather, moral relativism is just for controversial ideas such as: abortion, homosexuality, cloning, child pornography, cage fighting, drugs, polygamy, euthanasia, man and boy relations, family relations etc. But, not okay for obvious crimes such as murder. 

Views: 155


You need to be a member of Rattle With Us Tea Party to add comments!

Join Rattle With Us Tea Party

Comment by Austin J Mulka on March 23, 2013 at 12:26pm

Simply, moral relativist believe that there is no right or wrong. They believe there is a right for me and right for you or a wrong me and wrong for you. They use it with ideas like abortion and gay marriage: Gay marriage is right for me, but wrong for you. Abortion may be wrong for you but right for me.  But it is ideally no different from saying: Murder is right for me but wrong for you. By doing this, they pick and choose in what instances moral relativism works and when it doesn't. "It doesn't work with murder it only works with abortion and gay marriage. Thus, they choose the time and circumstance when 5 + 5 = 10. Regarding those who are pro-choice. Many people claim they are: "Pro choice but personally opposed" I argue that if you believe that abortion is murder but allow it anyway, it is no different then one claiming " I am pro-murder, but personally opposed. The further you read into this, the more and more it makes sense. I can see how the first two paragraphs would be hard to follow. Thanks for the feedback! 

Comment by ed cassi on March 23, 2013 at 11:25am

I'm not that well educated so I'm really having a hard time understanding what you are trying to explain.  I would really like to make a better comment.  Perhaps shorter explaination using language that everyone can understand may make your theory more clear.  you may have some great thoughts but they are hidden by a very techincal vocabulary.  my advice would be to rewrite and resubmit.  But don't feel bad if no one replys.  Many of us have zero comments.

© 2020   Created by Liberty Belle.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service