Archive for the ‘Pro-Choice’ Category

I am going to briefly explain three scenarios, as the reader it’s important to remain in the logical mind using the facts to answer a question regarding moral and ethical decision making. There are numerous philosophical doctrines one can use to aid them in making ethical decisions. In order to keep this as simplistic as possible I am going to use Kant’s categorical imperative as our moral compass. When faced with a moral or ethical dilemma is the answer as black and white as in Kant’s categorical imperative, or does morality exist in a subjectively grey area determined by praxeology? 

Let’s examine three ethical dilemmas:

A.) Stealing

B.) Lying 

C.) Murder

I know there are multiple facets and complexitys to Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, but to keep it simple let’s focus on the question is it ok for someone to steal, lie, or murder you? I imagine our answer would be no, therefore stealing, lying, and murder is universally wrong. In its simplicity there are no variables to alter or justify this outcome. 

When looking at these dilemmas using decision analysis any variable added creates an action axiom where “If a condition holds, then the following should be done.” Decision analysis is based on the maximum expected utility (MEU) action axiom. The action-axiom is the basis of praxeology, and it is the basic proposition that all humans purposefully utilize means over a period of time in order to achieve desired ends. 

Using these two options is morality as black and white as Kant’s categorical imperative, or is it possible that all moral and ethical decisions exist in a grey area where the difference between right and wrong is subjective depending on the situation. Let’s see what happens when variables are added to our three examples.

  • A.) Stealing in order to feed your family. In this scenario does the categorical imperative trump the action axiom?
  • B.) Your partner asks you if their outfit makes them look fat. Are you morally obligated to answer “yes” or would you use praxeology to determine your answer.
  • C.) Due to the nature and complexity of our final example it requires more detailed information than the other two. 

    I apologize if the details are vague so try to stay with me in your logical mind looking at just the facts. 

    Gary is an “associate” of an organized crime syndicate. Gary did or didn’t do something bad enough to warrent a $5k contract on his life. The moment it was decided Gary had to go his fate has been sealed and Gary is a Deadman walking. His end is as unavoidable as our own, so does the means to his end matter? I am going to use a similar variable as the first scenario. What if the future well being of your family is so bleak you are unable to even meet any of Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs.

     The only option in front of you is to accept the 5k and murder Gary. You are just the means to his end, if you didn’t do it someone else would. We can deduce that Gary willing chose to be a part of a criminal organization, therefore accepted the risks associated with his line or work. Gary’s life ended long before the trigger was pulled. Despite my foggy mind and poorly explained variables, where do you stand when faced with being the means to end an already condemned man’s life to save your family.

    The debate over abortion continues to rage on, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life this subject generates many emotions among the people. Politicians use this topic to get votes, while others avoid it so they don’t lose votes. I remember watching an Obama/McCain debate in 2008. The platform was held at some big church. When McCain was asked about abortion his response was pro-life, the crowd cheered. When it was Obama’s turn to go, he skated around the issue, but you got the feeling he was pro-choice. The crowd did not respond favorable.

    I have a possible solution to this problem, which may improve our society by creating more jobs, boosting the economy, and improving our armed forces. The following is my proposal. I will use a common scenario people find themselves in to explain.

    A woman gets pregnant she is neither pro-choice nor pro-life. She realizes she would be unable to support a child at this time. She contemplates having an abortion, but is unsure how she would feel about it.

    The government would set up a massive call center, for people to call to learn about their options. Staffing this call center would create government jobs. This woman would call in, and explain her situation. The call center representative would go over her options.

    The options would be this; the government would pay her $30,000 to $40,000 to follow through with her pregnancy. Once she delivered the child would be handed over to the United States government. This would stimulate the economy; because the woman would spend the money she was given. Since pregnancy is a bonding experience for women, the mother could back out at anytime resulting in her keeping the baby. If you had people getting pregnant just to collect money would be favorable to the United States, because we would have more trained soldiers.

    The child would be sent to one of many different care facilities, where the child would stay until the age of six. There would be one facility in each state; these facilities would need to be staffed creating more jobs. Once the child hit six years old they would be transferred to a military school, again creating more jobs.

    Once transferred the child would attend school during the day, and military training at night. The curriculum at this school would be the best in the nation. The military training the child would receive would shape them into a future solider. This would vastly improve our armed forces, because the people coming out of these schools have trained their entire lives to become elite soldiers.

    Personally I think this is a great idea, I also feel this would curb the abortion debate, why would the woman I used earlier choose to have an abortion when she could be paid $40,000 to follow through with the pregnancy? I am sure there would be human rights activist jumping all over this idea, but these government adopted children would have the best of everything. There lives would be rich with experiences.

    The funny thing I see in the abortion debate is this; someone may be pro-choice, until they are pregnant, since this is happening to them, abortion is not an easy choice. Someone may be pro-life until they get pregnant and realize they cannot properly care for the child. The solution I outlined above could do so much for our nation. I know this may come off as a radical idea, but if you look at it closer it may just be a perfect solution to the abortion debate.