The Abortion Issue(s)

I am certain that this is an extremely delicate matter that i am beginning to write about . Therefore , i should first include a disclaimer that may come in handy later : If anything written following this paragraph offends you , i challenge you to calmly and honestly consult your conscience and reason whether , where and why it is false and then attempt to explain it to me . There may be moments when my language projects hostility and i may sound harsh but i chose not to edit these because they make you stop and think although you may develop initial hate prejudices against me .

As usual , i source most of the following ideas from Peter Kreeft’s many expositions . Some may feel that i plagiarize his work , but the truth of the matter is that i always listen to his relevant audio track(s) , read the relevant transcript(s) and take time to understand them (so i can remember them in case i get into an argument – which has increased in frequency) before i type them out word by word or word for word . Why then do i do this when he’s around ? Think of a good book everyone should read . Why should there only be one copy when two makes it easier to find ?

Most of you who read this probably already concede the fact that every human being is precious life and also that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being . I suspect most of you have problems when it comes to exploring the situations that surround the act and applying moral relativism . For those who fit these criteria , please feel free to skip ahead to the arguments on absolutism versus relativism (second half of this exposition) .

 

Role , rules , structure and criteria of arguments

Now , i shall begin with a few essential preliminaries . Firstly , the role of argument is not to win or to proclaim superiority over another . It is a means (not the only way) of progressing from ignorance to knowledge . Arguments are convincing not because they are irrefutable but because the facts line up .

As for the structure of argument , moral arguments consist of two premises ; value and fact . For example , when we say ‘X’ (with ‘X’ being an act) is wrong , that is a value premise . When we apply that principle to situations (X is wrong , this is a case of X , therefore it is wrong) , it becomes empirical fact . You can choose to disagree with either of the two premises , but they are different .

Every argument is a proposition which consists of premises , terms and logic from which a conclusion is formed . Thus , there are only a certain number of possibilities . Either we agree on every part of the argument and therefore the conclusion or we disagree on either that the premises are false , or the terms are ambiguous or the logic is invalid which results in that you disagree with my conclusion . The only other possibility is that you agree with all three constituents but disagree with my conclusions which is pure stubborn nincompoopery . Another important point is that argument abstracts from feelings (that , however , doesn’t mean that feelings are ignored) .

The value premise

Thus , let me begin with my first premise . This is an important premise . Every argument follows this . If anyone disagrees with this premise , then you don’t have to agree with me : It is always morally wrong to deliberately (intentionally , knowingly and willingly) to kill (force death upon by an act of violence – not necessarily letting die) an innocent person (that does not deserve death or done anything to justify death) .

Then , are all humans persons (human beings) ? There are three possibilities . All humans are persons and vice versa , some persons are non-humans or that ‘person’ is a subset of ‘human’ (for example , the Nazis believed that Jews weren’t persons) .

That is my value premise .

The factual premise

Secondly , my factual premise . An unborn human being , a product of human conception , is an innocent human person . Embryo , fetus , child , adult . They’re all developmental terms for an identical entity : human beings .

The apple discourse on human rights

1. My first premise is simple : We know what an apple is . I’m almost certain that this is non-controversial and agreeable . Unless of course you were never exposed to the idea of an apple , then you’re excused .

2. Next , we really know what an apple really is . Some philosophers like to argue that we know , but not really , what an apple is , but not really . Thus , the second premise is simply to enforce the first . Unless of course , you confuse apples with pineapples although you know what an apple is .

3. We really know what some things really are . An apple is an example of a thing . This is a repudiation of skepticism . Skepticism is logically self-contradictory ; to say “i do not know” is to say “i know i do not know” . Or more directly , to say “there is no truth” is to use the very thing you’re trying to disprove . All talk about right and wrong , about justice , presupposes this principle : that we really know what some things really are . We cannot argue about anything at all – anything real such as words and arguing – unless we accept this principle . We can talk feelings without it but not justice .

4. We know what human beings are . If we know what an apple is , we should know what a human being is . Why? We aren’t apples yet we know what an apple is . Thus , we should be more clear about knowing ourselves over something that we are not . We don’t experience the growth and development of an apple yet we know what an apple is . Granted there is more mystery in a human being , but there is also more knowledge . This isn’t a claim that we know all there is to know about human beings but it is nevertheless a fact that we know much about us than we do of an apple .

5. We have human rights because we are human . Do you really believe (or want to believe) that human beings have rights because human beings say so ? Human beings possess rights for what they are – not because some other human being have the power to enforce their will .

Then , when do we ‘become’ persons ? Does it happen suddenly or gradually ? Let’s try suddenly : When the doctor cuts your umbilical cord with his scissors , you become a human being ? So then , a pair of scissors makes you a human being? External environments determining our ‘person-ness’ simply doesn’t make sense .

Perhaps it’s a gradual process . Maybe we gradually become more of a person . That inevitably means that an adult is more of a person than a child . Is it then more morally acceptable to kill a child rather than an adult? I doubt many will concede that stand .

Every textbook before Roe V. Wade had no hesitations in answering the question “when does an individual life of any mammalian species begin ?” . The answer is “when the genetic code is complete” . In other words , when haploid becomes diploid . Or simplified , from the moment of conception , when sperm meets ovum .

Anyway , no one can be entirely sure when this ‘moment’ is . However , is it fair then to take any chance ?

The Conclusion

The conclusion is simple : If it is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being , and if abortion is deliberate killing , then abortion is always wrong . Just as rape is always wrong .

There comes a point when someone might say “I agree with the arguments but i do not believe in imposing my will on others” . Fair enough . My question is why then do you oppose abortion ? Because it involves a human life . If abortion does not involve a human life , i agree with the pro-choicers: it is an intolerable oppression of women’s freedom and women’s bodies to tell them what to do . If that’s their body and not somebody else’s body , you have no right to tell them what to do . But if it’s somebody else’s body , they have no right to kill that other person . Isn’t the unborn baby another body ?

Most pro-choice philosophers have stumbled on the factual premise because of the cumulating comprehensive scientific evidence so much so that it is no longer a popular stand as it used to be . Thus , most resort to attacking the moral premise ; that there is nothing intrinsically wrong . When you ask them “do you really think that cannibalism , or rape or genocide are not intrinsically wrong?” , most of them back down . Some will attempt to say “no, you can’t make that judgment” . So you’re personally opposed to holocaust , but you wouldn’t try to stop Hitler if you could ?

A final escape hatch is the charge that pro-lifers are dogmatizing : “You have a good case , but who knows ?” Fair enough . Let’s play skeptic .

Then there are two possibilities . Either we know what this argument claims or we don’t . And then there’s another two following possibilities ; either you’re right or you’re wrong .

These then , formulate four options :

(a) The fetus is a person , and we know it and we’re right .

(b) The fetus is not a person , you know that and you’re right .

(c) The fetus is a person , you don’t know that (you think it’s not) and you’re wrong .

(d) The fetus is not a person , and you think it is , you don’t know the truth and you’re wrong .

What is abortion in these cases then ? Let’s examine all four logically .

(a) The first case is murder . In fact , first degree murder . The fetus is a person , and you know it but you deliberately kill . That’s the legal definition of murder : knowingly and deliberately imposing death upon an innocent person whom you know is an innocent person .

(b) The second case is manslaughter . The fetus is a person , you don’t know that so you think otherwise . You sincerely believe that “Well , maybe it’s not a person . I don’t know whether it is or not” and you kill it . It’s like running over an overcoat that has a human shape on a dark night in the middle of a highway . It could’ve been an old drunk who was lying there or it might be just an overcoat . The difference is that you don’t swerve , you deliberately run over it . It’s also like shooting at movement in the jungle when it could be a deer or a hunter and fumigating a school when you’re not sure that it’s completely evacuated and fumigating kills them . You might be lucky . There might not be a man , it might not be a hunter and there might not be any students . Nevertheless , you ran over , you shot and you fumigated . You didn’t know that persons were there but you didn’t know that there weren’t either . You didn’t care . You were just irresponsible . So your act was the height of irresponsibility .

(c) The third case is criminal negligence . You’re lucky . You didn’t run over a man , shoot a hunter or killed any students . That doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t care . You’re still as irresponsible as in the second case . You can’t legally be charged with manslaughter , but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence .

(d) This seems like the only acceptable option for abortion . Reasonable , permissible and responsible . However , note that what makes this case permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not , your overcoming of skepticism . Only if you are certain that the fetus is not a person .

This undercuts even our weakest , least honest escape : to pretend we don’t even know what a human being is , just so we can have an excuse to pleading we don’t know what an abortion is .

“Pro-lifers are dogmatists . Who knows ?”

Isn’t that all the more reason not to shoot ? Precisely because we don’t know .

 

The main reason people deny morality must (or even can) be based on metaphysics is that they say we don’t really know what reality is and that we only have opinions . They point out correctly that we are less agreed on morality than science of every day practical facts . We don’t differ about matters like whether we need to eat to survive but we differ about things like abortion and capital punishment .

But the very fact that we argue about it – a fact that the skeptic points to as reason for skepticism – is a refutation of skepticism . We don’t argue about how we feel , about subjective things . Both pro-lifers and pro-choicer philosophers radically disagree on how to apply that human life is valuable , but they both appeal and assume that same principle .

Many people refuse to think or argue about abortion because they see that the only way to remain pro-choice is to abort their reason first . Or since many pro-choice philosophers insist that abortion is just about sex , not about the babies , the only way to justify their scorn of virginity is their scorn of intellectual virginity . The only way to justify their loss of moral innocence is to lose their intellectual innocence .

 

Absolutism versus Relativism

As i realized prior to typing this , the arguments are usually reduced to relativism (as all apologetic issues eventually do) . Many pro-choice believers respect that human life is valuable and the act of deliberately killing an innocent human being is wrong , but that this is subject to conditions or situations that surround the act ; that there should be some leeway for reason . To me personally , that is like saying that the Holocaust is not acceptable but if it wasn’t Hitler who was responsible for it or if it happened today , the Holocaust is acceptable . I shall discuss absolutism versus relativism here , but know that it is also found here as a separate exposition .

C.S.Lewis calls this the poison of subjectivism ; that people try to convince themselves of the absence of absolute truth . Morality has become a fog of feelings . Principles mean moral absolutes . Moral relativism is a philosophy that denies moral absolutes .

How important is this issue ? After all , it’s just philosophy , and philosophy is just ideas . But ideas have consequences . Sometimes these consequences are as momentous as a holocaust , or a Hiroshima . Sometimes even more momentous . Philosophy is just thought , but sow a thought , reap an act ; sow an act , reap a habit ; sow a habit , reap a character ; sow a character , reap a destiny . This is just as true for societies as it is for individuals .

 

How important is the issue ? The issue of moral relativism is merely the single most important issue of our age , for no society in all of human history has ever survived without rejecting the philosophy that I am about to refute . There has never been a society of relativists . Therefore , our society will do one of three things : either disprove one of the most universally established laws of all history ; or repent of its relativism and survive ; or persist in its relativism and perish .

C.S.Lewis doesn’t exaggerate when he says that relativism “will certainly end our species and damn our souls” . That’s coming from an Oxonian who are not given to exaggeration . Why does he say “damn our souls” ? Salvation presupposes repentance and repentance presupposes an objectively real moral law . Moral relativism eliminates objective moral law , trivializes repentance and imperils salvation .

Thus let us examine the arguments for relativism first , and then refute them . Then , i shall refute relativism itself .

Before we begin , it is essential to define objective truth . The word ‘objective’ in the phrase ‘objective truth’ does not refer to an unemotional , detached or impersonal attitude . Truth is not how we know truth but rather what we know . Objective does not mean “known by all” or “believed by all” . Even if everyone believes a lie , a lie is still a lie . Nor does it mean “publicly proved” . It could be privately known , like the location of a hidden treasure . It could also be known without being proved ; to know is one thing , to give good proofs or reasons for your knowledge is another . What “objective” does mean is “independent of the knower and his consciousness” . “Truth” simply means “telling it like it is” .

Moral relativism usually includes three claims about morality . First , that it is relative to changing times ; you can’t turn back the clock . Secondly , it is relative to what we subjectively think or feel ; there is nothing good or bad , thinking makes it so . And thirdly , that it is relative to individuals ; different rules for different people . Moral absolutism , on the other hand , claims that morality is unchangeable , objective and universal .

1. Argument for Relativism : Psychological

What is the main motive for preferring relativism ? It is fair to say that our deepest desire is happiness , and since fears correspond to desires , it is probably the fear that moral absolutism would make us feel unhappy because it makes us feel guilty . So , we resort to calling absolutism unloving and/or uncompassionate . Turned into an argument , it looks like this : Good morality has good consequences (happiness and self esteem) , but bad morality has bad consequences (guilt and unhappiness) . Moral absolutism produces the possibility of bad feelings whereas moral relativism allows the good feelings . Therefore , relativism is good and absolutism is bad .

This seems irrefutable . The answer to this argument is first of all that absolute moral law exists not to minimize but to maximize happiness . Removing moral absolutes may remove the sense of guilt and thus provide happiness in the short run , but guilt , like physical pain , may be necessary to avoid greater unhappiness in the long run , if it is realistic that is , that is in tune with reality and not pathological . So the question is , does reality include objective moral laws ? If it does not , guilt is an experience as pointless as paranoia . But if it does , it is as proper as pain , and for a similar reason : to prevent harm . Guilt is a warning in the soul , analogous to pain as a warning in the body .

The relativist’s argument also has a question-begging assumption . It assumes that feelings are the standard for judging morality . I believe that is a serious mistake we often forget : that it is morality that is the standard for judging feelings . Furthermore , if the argument from self-esteem versus guilt rings true , then we’re saying that if rapists , cannibals , terrorists or tyrants feel self-esteem , they are better persons than if they feel guilt .

2. Argument for Relativism : Cultural Influence

This argument seems impregnable . The claim is that anthropologists and sociologists have discovered moral relativism as empirical fact rather than just a theory . Different cultures and societies , like different individuals , simply have different moral values .

There is no practice so strange that some society has not legitimized it . So anyone who thinks values are not relative to cultures is simply ignorant of the facts , so goes the argument .

To see the logical fallacy of this argument , we need to look at the unspoken assumption – which is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values . That it is always right to obey your culture’s values . Without exception . Only if we combine the hidden premise with the stated premise – that values differ with cultures – can we get to the conclusion that moral rightness differs with culture . Surely , this hidden premise begs the question . It presupposes the very moral relativism it is trying to prove .

The absolutist denies that it is always right to follow your culture’s values . He has a trans-cultural standard by which he can criticize a whole culture’s value . This means that whilst the relativist sits and watch the genocide happen (“different strokes for different folks , i just hate your strokes and prefer mine , that’s all”) , the absolutist is responsible enough to be socially radical and progressive .

The second logical weakness of the argument is its equivocation of the word “values” . The absolutist distinguishes subjective opinions about values from objectively true values . Just as he distinguishes objective truth from the subjective opinions about God , or about things as simple as numbers . It may be difficult , or even impossible to prove these things but that does not mean that they aren’t real . Even if these things could not be known , it does not follow that they are unreal . And even if they could not be known with certainty , it does not follow that they could not be known at all by right opinion . And even if they could not be proved , it does not follow that they could not be known with certainty . And even if they could not be proved by the scientific method , it does not follow that they cannot be proved at all . They could be real , even if unknown ; known , even if not certainly known ; certainly known , even if not proved ; and proved , even if not scientifically proved . For example , the existence of God .

The basic equivocation in the cultural relativist’s argument is between values and value opinions . Different cultures may have different opinions about what is morally valuable , just as they may have different opinions about what happens after death . But this does not entail the conclusion that what is really right in one culture is really wrong in another , any more than different opinions about life after death entails the conclusion that different things really happen after death , depending on cultural beliefs . Just because I may believe there is no Hell does not prove that there is none and that I will not go there . If it did , a simple and infallible way of salvation would be simply to stop believing in Hell . Similarly , just because a good Nazi thinks genocide is right does not prove it is , unless there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so . But that is the relativist’s conclusion .

Just when you think this argument is impregnable , it seems that just about everything that can possibly go wrong with an argument goes wrong with this one . The argument from facts doesn’t even have its facts right . Cultures do not , in fact , differ totally about values , even if the term ‘values’ is taken to mean merely value opinions. No culture has ever existed which believed and taught what Nietzsche called for : “a transvaluation of all values” . There have been differences in emphasis , for instance , our ancestors valued courage more than we do , while we value compassion more than they did . But there has never been anything like the relativism of opinions about values that the relativist teaches as factual history .

Just imagine what that would be like . Try to imagine a society where justice , honesty , courage , wisdom , hope , and self-control were deemed morally evil . And unrestricted selfishness , cowardice , lying , betrayal , addiction , and despair were deemed morally good . Such a society is never found on Earth . There are indeed important disagreements about values between cultures . But beneath all the disagreements about lesser values , there always lies an agreement about more basic ones . Beneath all disagreements about applying values to situations — for instance , should we have capital punishment or not — always lies agreement about values — for instance , murder is evil since human life is good . Moral disagreements between cultures as well as between individuals would be impossible unless there were some deeper moral agreements , some common moral premises . Moral values are to a culture’s laws something like what concepts are to words . When you visit a foreign country , you experience initial shock . The language sounds totally different . But then beneath the different words you find common concepts . And this is what makes translation from one language to another possible . Analogously , beneath different social laws , we find common human moral laws . We find similar morals , beneath different mores . The moral agreement among Moses , Buddha , Confucius , Lao Tzu , Socrates , Solomon , Jesus , Cicero , Mohammad , Zoraster , and Hammurabbi is far greater than their moral differences .

3. Argument for Relativism : Social Conditioning

This is similar to the second argument , but more psychological than anthropological . This argument is based on the supposed fact that society conditions value into us and that is the sole source of our values . The origin of values thus seems to be human minds themselves , parents and teachers , rather than something objective to human minds . And what comes from human subjects is , of course , subjective , like the rules of baseball , even though they may be public and universally agreed to . This argument , like the previous one , also confuses values with value opinions . Perhaps society conditions value opinions in us , but that does not mean society conditions values in us , unless values are nothing but value opinions , which is precisely the point at issue , the conclusion . So the argument again begs the question .

There is also a false assumption in this argument . The assumption is that whatever we learn from society must be subjective . That is not true . We learn the rules of baseball from society , but we also learn the rules of multiplication . The rules of baseball are subjective and man-made . The rules of multiplication are not . Of course , the language systems in which we express any rules are always man-made . But the human mind creates , rather than discovers , the rules of baseball , but the mind discovers , rather than creates , the rules of multiplication . So the fact that we learn any given law or value from our society does not prove that it is subjective .

Finally , even the express premise of this argument is not fully true . Not all value opinions are the result of social conditioning . For if they were , then there could be no non-conformity to society based on moral values . There could only be rebellions of force , rather than principle . But , in fact , there are many principle non-conformists . These people did not derive their values wholly from their society , since they disagree with their society about values . So the existence of moral non-conformists is empirical proof of the presence of some trans-social origin of values .

4. Argument for Relativism : Freedom

A fourth argument is that moral relativism alone guarantees freedom , while moral absolutism threatens freedom . People often wonder how they can be truly free if they are not free to create their own values .

The most effective reply to this argument is often an “ad hominon” . Say you demand the right to be free to create your own values and that i too demand that right . And that the value system that i choose to create is one in which your opinions have no value at all . Or , a system in which i am God , and rightly demand total obedience from everyone else . I’m certain that you will quickly protest in the name of truth and justice , thus showing that you really do believe in these two objective values after all . If you don’t , if you protest merely in the name of your alternative value system , which you have created , then your protest against my selfishness and megalomania is no better than my protest against your justice and truth . And then the argument can only come down to brute force which is hardly a situation that guarantees freedom .

A second refutation of the relativist’s argument from freedom is that freedom cannot create values , because freedom presupposes values , as does feelings is based on objective morality rather than the other way round . Why does freedom presuppose values ? Well , first because the relativist’s argument that relativism guarantees freedom must assume freedom is really valuable , thus assuming at least that one objective value . Second , if freedom is really good , it must be freedom from something really bad , thus assuming some objective good and bad . And third , the advocate of freedom will almost always insist that freedom be granted to all , not just some , thus presupposing the real value of equality , yet another objective value .

However , the simplest refutation of the argument about freedom is experience . Experience teaches us that we are free to create alternative mores , like socially acceptable rules for speech , or clothing , or eating , or driving . But it also teaches us that we are not , in fact , free to create alternative morals . Like making murder , or rape , or treason right . Or making charity or justice wrong . We can no more create a new fundamental moral value than we can create a new primary color , or a new arithmetic , or a new universe . Never happened , never will . And if we could , if we could create new values , they would no longer be moral values . They would be just arbitrarily invented rules of the game . We would not feel bound in conscience by them , or guilty when we transgressed them . If we were free to create “Thou shalt murder” or “Thou shalt not murder” as we are free to create “Thou shalt play nine innings” or “Thou shalt play only six innings” , then we would feel no more guilty about murder than about playing six innings .

 

As a matter of fact , we all do feel bound by some fundamental moral values , like justice . We experience our freedom of will to choose to obey or disobey them , but we also experience our lack of freedom to change them into their opposites . We cannot creatively make hate good , or love evil . Try it , you just can’t do it . All you can do is refuse the whole moral order . You cannot make another one . You can choose to rape , but you cannot experience a righteous moral obligation to rape .

5. Argument for Relativism : Tolerance

A fifth argument , equally common today , is that moral relativism is tolerant , whilst absolutism is intolerant . Tolerance is one of the few non-controversial values today . Nearly everyone in our society accepts it . So it is a powerful selling point for any theory or practice that can claim it . What of relativism’s claim to tolerance ? Well , I see no less than eight fallacies in this popular argument :

First , let us be clear what we mean by tolerance . “Tolerance” is a quality of people , not of ideas . Ideas can be confused or ill defined , but that does not make them tolerant , or intolerant , any more than clarity or exactness could make them intolerant . If a carpenter tolerates 3/16 of an inch deviation from plane , he is three times more tolerant than one who tolerates only 1/16 of an inch , but he is no less clear . One teacher may tolerate no dissent from his fuzzy and ill-defined views — a Marxist , let’s say — while another , say Socrates , may tolerate much dissent from his clearly defined views .

 

Secondly , the relativist’s claim is that absolutism , belief in universal , objective , and unchanging moral laws , fosters intolerance of alternative views . But in the sciences , nothing like this has been the case . The sciences have certainly benefited and progressed remarkably because of tolerance of diverse and heretical views . Yet science is not about subjective truths , but about objective truths . Therefore , it is unfair to suggest that absolutism generates intolerance .

 

Third , the relativist may further argue that absolutes are hard and unyielding and therefore the defender of them will also be hard and unyielding . But this is another non-sequitor . One may teach hard facts in a soft way , or soft opinions in a hard way .

Fourth , the simplest refutation of the tolerance argument is its very premise . It assumes that tolerance is really , objectively , universally , absolutely good . If the relativist replied that he is not presupposing the objective value of tolerance , then all he is doing is demanding the imposition of his subjective personal preference for tolerance . That is surely more intolerant than the appeal to an objective , universal , impersonal , moral law . If no moral values are absolute , neither is tolerance . The absolutist can take tolerance far more seriously than the relativist . It is absolutism , not relativism , that fosters tolerance .

 

Fifth , it is relativism that fosters intolerance . Why not be intolerant ? There is no answer to this . Because tolerance feels better ? Or because it is the popular consensus ? Well suppose it no longer feels better . Suppose it ceases to be popular . The relativist can appeal to no moral law as a dam against the flood of intolerance . We desperately need such a dam , because societies , like individuals , are fickle and fallen . What else will deter a humane and humanistic Germany from turning to an inhumane , Nazi philosophy of racial superiority ? It is unborn babies today , born babies tomorrow . Homophobes today , perhaps homosexuals tomorrow . The same absolutism that homosexuals usually fear because it is not tolerant of their behavior is their only secure protection against intolerance of their persons .

 

Sixth , examination of the essential meaning of the concept of tolerance reveals a presupposition of moral objectivism , for we do not tolerate goods . We only tolerate evils in order to prevent worse evils . The patient will tolerate the nausea brought on by chemotherapy in order to prevent death by cancer . And a society will tolerate bad things like smoking in order to preserve good things like privacy and freedom .

 

Seventh , the advocate of tolerance faces a dilemma when it comes to cross-cultural tolerance . Most cultures throughout history have not put a high value on tolerance . In fact , some have even thought it to be a moral weakness . Should we tolerate this intolerance ? If so , if we should tolerate intolerance , then the tolerance objectivist had better stop bad-mouthing the Spanish Inquisition . But if we should not tolerate intolerance , why not ? Because tolerance is really good , and the Inquisition was really evil ? In that case , we are presupposing a universal and objective trans-cultural value . What if instead , he says it is only because of our consensus for tolerance ? But his history’s consensus is against it . Why impose on ours ? Is that not culturally intolerant ?

 

Eighth , finally , there is a logical non-sequitor in the relativist argument too . Even if the belief in absolute moral values did cause intolerance , it does not follow that such values are not real . The belief that the cop on the beat is sleeping may cause a mugger to be intolerant to his victims does not follow that the cop is not asleep . Thus , there are no less than eight weaknesses in the tolerance argument .

 

6. Argument for Relativism : Situationalism

 

This is , from personal experience , by far the most popular argument from relativists ; that situations are so diverse and complex until is seems unreasonable and unrealistic to hold them to universal moral norms . Even killing can be good if war is necessary for peace . Even theft can be good if you steal a weapon from a madman . Even lying can be good if you’re a Dutchman lying to the Nazis about where you’re hiding the Jews . The argument is essentially this : Morality is determined by situations , and situations are relative ; therefore , morality is relative . A closely related argument can be considered together with this one that morality is relative because it is determined by motive . We all blame someone for trying to murder another , even though the deed is not successfully accomplished , simply because its motive is bad . But we do not hold someone morally guilty of murder for accidentally killing another . For instance , like giving sugary candy to a child he has no way of knowing is seriously diabetic . So the argument is essentially that morality is determined by motive , and motive is subjective , therefore morality is subjective .

So both the “situationist” and the “motivationist” conclude against moral absolutes . The situationists because they find all morality relative to the situation , the motivationists because they find all morality relative to the motive . Let’s reply with a common – sense distinction . Morality is indeed conditioned , or partly determined , by both situations and motives , but it is not wholly determined by situations or motives . Traditional common sense morality involves three moral determinants , three factors that influence whether a specific act is morally good or bad ; the nature of the act itself , the situation , and the motive . Or , what you do ; when , where , and how you do it ; and why you do it . It is true that doing the right thing in the wrong situation , or for the wrong motive , is not good . Making love to your wife is a good deed , but doing so when it is medically dangerous is not . The deed is good , but not in that situation . Giving money to the poor is a good deed , but doing it just to show off is not . The deed is good , but the motive is not .

 

However , there must first be a deed before it can be qualified by subjective motives or relative situations , and that is surely a morally relevant factor too . The good life is like a good work of art . A good work of art requires all its essential elements to be good . For instance , a good story must have a good plot , and good characters , and a good theme . So a good life requires you do the right thing , the act itself ; and have a right reason or motive ; and that you do it in the right way , the situation . Furthermore , situations , though relative , are objective , not subjective . And motives , though subjective , come under moral absolutes . They can be recognized as intrinsically and universally good or evil . The will to help is always good , the will to harm is always evil . So even situationism is an objective morality , and even motivationism or subjectivism is a universal morality .

 

The fact that the same principles must be applied differently to different situations presupposes the validity of those principles . Moral absolutists need not be absolutistic about applications to situations . They can be flexible . But a flexible application of the standard presupposes not just a standard , but a rigid standard . If the standard is as flexible as the situation it is no standard at all . If the yardstick with which to measure the length of a twisting alligator is as twisting as the alligator , you cannot measure with it . Yardsticks have to be rigid . And moral absolutists need not be judgmental about motives , only about deeds . When Jesus said , “Judge not that ye not be judged” , he surely meant “Do not claim to judge hearts and motives , which only God can know” . He certainly did not mean , “Do not claim to judge deeds . Do not morally discriminate bullying from defending , killing from healing , robbery from charity” . In fact , it is only the moral absolutist , and not the relativist , who can condemn judgmentalism of motive , since he alone can condemn intolerance . The relativist can condemn only moral absolutism .

 

 

Refuting relativism is not merely enough , as comprehensive as our case may be . The problem with most problems is not providing a solution or an alternative . Thus , it is also essential to include arguments for absolutism as well :

7. Argument for Relativism : Consequences

Firstly , the pragmatic argument from consequences . If the relativist argues against absolutism from its supposed consequences of intolerance , we can argue against relativism from its real consequences . Consequences are , at least , a relative indicator . They are clues . Good morality should have good consequences , and bad morality should have bad ones . Well , it’s exceedingly obvious that the main consequence of moral relativism is the removal of moral deterrents . Just as the consequences of “do the right thing” are doing the right things , so the consequences of “if it feels good , do it” are doing whatever feels good . You don’t need a PhD to see that . In fact , sometimes , it takes a PhD to miss it .

All immoral deeds and attitudes , with the possible exception of envy feel good . That’s the main reason we do them . If sin didn’t seem like fun , we’d all be saints . Relativism has never produced a saint . That is the pragmatic refutation of relativists . The same goes for societies . Relativism has never produced a good society , only a bad one . Compare the stability , longevity , and happiness of societies founded on the principles of moral relativists like Mussolini , and Mau Tze Tung , with societies founded on the principles of moral absolutists like Moses and Confucius . A society of moral relativists usually lasts one generation . Hitler’s thousand-year Reich lasted not even that long .

8. Argument for Absolutism : Tradition

Secondly , the argument from tradition . This argument should appeal to egalitarians who argue against absolutism because they think it is somehow connected with snobbery . It is exactly the opposite . Absolutism is traditional morality , and tradition is egalitarianism extended into history . Chesterton called it “the democracy of the dead , the extension of the franchise to that most powerless of classes , those disenfranchised not by accident of birth but by accident of death . Tradition counters a small and arrogant oligarchy of the living , those who just happen to be walking around the planet today .

To be a relativist , you must be a snob , at least on this centrally important issue . For you stand in a tiny minority , almost totally concentrated in one culture : the modern west ; that is , white , democratic , industrialized , urbanized , university – educated , secularized , apostate , post-Christian society . To be a relativist , you must believe that nearly all human beings in history have ordered their lives by an illusion . Even societies like ours that are dominated by relativistic experts’ popular opinion still tends to moral absolutism . Like the Communists , relativists pretend to be the party of the people , while in fact scorning the peoples’ philosophy . In fact , for a generation now , a minority of relativistic elitists who have gained the power of the media have been relentlessly imposing their elitist relativism on popular opinion by accusing popular opinion — that is , traditional morality — of elitism .

9. Argument for Absolutism : Moral Experience

Third , there is the argument from moral experience . This is the simplest and , I believe also the strongest argument for moral absolutism . In fact , it is so strong that it seems like an unnatural strain to put it into the form of an argument at all — it is more like primary data . The first and foundational moral experience is always absolutistic . Only later in the life of the individual or the society does sophistication sometimes suggest moral relativism . Every one of us remembers from early childhood experience what it feels like to be morally obligated . To bump up against an unyielding moral wall . This memory is enshrined in the words “ought” , “should” , “right” and “wrong” .

Moral absolutism is certainly based on experience . For instance , let’s say last night you promised your friend you would help them at 8:00 this morning . Let’s say he has to move his furniture before noon . But you were up until 3:00 am . And when the alarm rings at 7:00 , you are very tired . You experience two things — the desire to sleep , and the obligation to get up . The two are generically different . You experience no obligation to sleep , and no desire to get up . You are moved , in one way , by your own desire for sleep , and you are moved in a very different way by what you think you ought to do . Your feelings appear from the inside out , so to speak , while your conscience appears from the outside in . Within you is the desire to sleep , and this may move you to the external deed of shutting off the alarm and creeping back to bad . But , if instead you get up to fulfill your promise to your friend , it will be because you chose to respond to a very different kind of thing : the perceived moral quality of the deed of fulfilling your promise , as opposed to the perceived moral quality of the deed of refusing to fulfill it . What you perceive as right , or obligatory — getting up — pulls you from without , from itself , from its own nature . But the desires you feel as attractive — going back to sleep — push you from within , from yourself , from your own nature . The moral obligation moves you as an end , as a final cause , from above and ahead , so to speak . Your desires move you as a source , as an efficient cause , from below , or behind , so to speak .

All this is primary data : fundamental moral experience . It can be denied , but only as some strange philosophies might deny the reality immediately perceived by our senses . Moral relativism is to moral experience what teaching of Christian Science is to the experience of pain and sickness and death . It tells us these experiences are illusions to be overcome by faith . Moral absolutism is empirical . Moral relativism is a dogma of faith .

10. Argument for Absolutism : Ad Hominem

Fourth , there is the ad hominem argument . Even the relativist always reacts with a moral protest when he is treated immorally . The man who appeals to the relativistic principle of “I gotta be me” , who justified breaking his promise of fidelity to his own wife , whom he wants to leave for another woman , will then break his fidelity to his relativistic principle when his own wife uses that principle to justify leaving him for another man . This is not exceptional , but typical . It looks like the origin of relativism is more personal than philosophical . More in the hypocrisy than in the hypothesis . The contradiction between theory and practice is evident even in the relativist’s act of teaching relativism . Why do relativists teach and write ? To convince the world that relativism is wrong and absolutism wrong ? Really right and really wrong ? If so , then there is a real right and a real wrong . And if not , then there is nothing wrong with being an absolutist , and nothing right with being a relativist . So why do relativists write and teach ? Really , for all the effort they’ve put into preaching their gospel of delivering humanity from the false and foolish repressions of absolutism , one would have thought they really believed this gospel . Perhaps all that is done is to convince themselves rather than convincing others .

11. Argument for Absolutism : Moral Language

Fifth , there’s the argument from moral language . This is a very obvious argument , used by C.S. Lewis , at the very beginning of “Mere Christianity” . It is based on the observation that people quarrel . They do not merely fight , they argue about right and wrong . This is to act as if they believed in objectively real and universally binding moral principles . If nothing but subjective desires and passions were involved , it would be merely a contest of strength between competing persons . Or between competing passions within a person . If I’m more hungry than tired, I’ll eat ; if I’m more tired than hungry , I’ll sleep . But we say things like , “That isn’t fair” or “What right do you have to that?” . If relativism were true , moral argument would be as stupid as arguing about feelings . “I feel great” . “No , I feel terrible” .

In fact , the moral language that everyone uses every day — language that praises , blames , counsels , or commands — would be strictly meaningless if relativism were true . We do not praise or blame non – moral agents like machines . When the Coke machine steals our money without delivering a Coke , we do not argue with it , call it a sinner , or tell it to go to confession . We kick it . So when some of our psychologists tell us that we are only very complex machines , they are telling us that morality is only very complex kicking . This is so absurd it hardly deserves an argument . I think it deserves a spanking , which is only practicing what they preach : kicking , but more honestly . The argument is simple . Moral language is meaningful , not meaningless . We all know that . We know how to use it , and we do . Relativism has no adequate explanation for this .

 

I have also realized that when the relativist has understood their fallacies , most of them attempt a final escape point : skepticism ; that no one really knows objective truth . As relativism believes that we all know the ‘truth’ albeit different ‘truths’ , the skeptic denies the possibility of truth or the possibility of knowing it . I have already addressed this earlier that skeptics are self – contradictory in the fact that they are presupposing the very thing they refuse to believe in or are trying so very hard to disprove .

After all is said and done , some may wonder how this applies to our issue on abortion . Needless to mention , most grapple with the argument of ’situationalism’ . I agree and fully sympatize with the fact that there are many situations where we have to be in another’s shoes to understand the emotions and circumstances . That is utterly undeniable .

But , and this is a very big ‘but’ , this doesn’t change the point that every abortion involves the deliberate killing of an innocent human being . That is the only reason why i personally do not support abortion under any and all circumstances with the exception of the principle of double effect where the act is actually preserving life , and thus , still pro-life , and does not contradict any moral absolutes .

As for the charge of being judgmental , i have already mentioned earlier that moral absolutists need not be judgmental about motives , only about deeds . When Jesus said , “Judge not that ye not be judged” , he surely meant “Do not claim to judge hearts and motives , which only God can know” . He certainly did not mean , “Do not claim to judge deeds . Do not morally discriminate bullying from defending , killing from healing , robbery from charity” . In fact , it is only the moral absolutist , and not the relativist , who can condemn judgmentalism of motive , since he/she alone can condemn intolerance . The relativist can condemn only moral absolutism .

If anyone can ever prove to me that the fetus is not a human being , or that life does not begin at the moment of conception and thus abortion does not involve the deliberate killing of a human being , then i shall concede that there is nothing wrong with abortion . For then , my conscience will find rest .

Until then , i am thoroughly convinced of my current stand on the issue .

Postscript : The final question that begs is then , how do we find absolute objective truth ? My answer is that i do not know . However , i do know that it is an innate gift  that He has already given us (whether or not we are conscious of it and choose to understand and follow it is another matter) but left incompletely explored and that we can disprove everything else that isn’t and by His grace , all that will eventually be left will be the very thing that we are pursuing .