Morality and LibertyPosted By: Mary Hunton

Religion is a very predominant part of many people’s lives, and organized faiths, as we know, have their own set of moral code and conduct. What is and is not okay according to them–in other words, morals. Being born and raised Roman Catholic (and still going by that title even today), I was raised with a very firm set of moral beliefs. Things that were acceptable and things that were not. Many of these I still hold true to: murder is still bad, no matter what way you look at it, and I definitely can’t steal your stuff. However, growing up I realized something. Many of the “moral” codes set down by my denomination were a far cry from what my political outlook was. This is what I call the “moral dilemma.” What do I hold onto? Faith or freedom?

There are many different questions that can pose this problem, though not all on a political level. Premarital sex, divorce, polygamy, abortion, and gay marriage, to name a few. In the mind of a devout Catholic, completely and utterly dedicated to their faith, the answer to the question, “is any of this okay?” would be a simple, concise, “No.” However, I, and many others, find ourselves thinking, “Wait. What’s the BFD?”

Morality and liberty are two very different mindsets and codes, and they should be taken as such. For example, on a moral level I am against abortion, and yet I am pro-choice. Why? Just because I would never get an abortion does not mean that you shouldn’t have the right to if you so choose. The same goes for many political controversies that I find myself on the more “liberal” side of. Gay marriage? I am not gay, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they should have the same rights straight couples do. I do not smoke pot, but that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. I wouldn’t really walk around naked (sorry, guys!), but if I DID want to, I think I should be able to. It is the same on a moral level: my morals are personal. You have no right to push your morals on me, and I have no right to push mine upon you.

For me the solution to this “moral dilemma” was simple. My faith and my morals are on a completely different level than my political outlook, and holding them in complete disregard to one another did nothing to discredit the merit to either of them. Religion, as with most things, is a choice, and the moral code that goes along with that is not something that can be forced upon any individual. If something does not infringe upon the rights of others, even if morally it is considered “evil” by your faith, what right do we have? Is the fact that we consider something “sinister” enough for us to condemn it without taking into consideration that it may not actually be violating another’s rights?

I don’t think so. You have your morals and I have mine: let’s keep it that way.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
Comments Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , ,
  • I think this makes two simplifying assumptions that cannot, in good faith, be granted.

    1. It assumes that religion determines morality. I believe the link between morality and religion is often over emphasized. It goes without saying (yet is about to be said) but one does not need religion to be moral. Conversely, even if one is religious, one is not necessarily moral.

    2. It assumes that morality determines action. This, too, is not necessarily the case. One can believe abortion to be horrendously wrong and still not do anything to stop it or justify pot use on utilitarian grounds and fail to smoke. These actions (or inactions) are not hypocritical but rather show that morality and action, while correlated, are not at all times causally related.

    Though I am interested, how can one be morally against abortion and politically for it? It would seem that what is morally impermissible about abortion is the taking of a life. How can "pro-choice" be anything but "pro-killing" and how can anyone be "pro-killing" without being, likely, non-moral?

    This isn't to say I disagree with you, but I am interested.
  • Mary Hunton
    I see what you mean, and I would have to agree with you that the link between morality and religion is overemphasized, but the fact remains that it is still there. I would also have to agree with you that one does not need religion to be moral and same vice versa. Perhaps I overused my reference to religion in my article. However, that does not necessarily undermine what I'm trying to get across. Morals (with or without religion) should not always come into the picture when considering the wider, political scope.

    My stance on abortion is simply the way I've always felt about it. Though I do consider a fetus a life, and do consider abortion the killing of said life, I am very aware that not everyone views life in the same way I do. Regardless to whether or not abortion is legal, women are going to have it done. I don't have to like the idea of it to believe that people should still have the right to do it.

    (Pardon the rather short and perhaps a tad incoherent response. It's been a long couple of days).
  • But if you think abortion is killing nd killing is wrong then how can you possibly accept it? Serial killers and mass murderers don't think killing is "wrong" but we wouldn't shrug and say "well, it takes all kinds..." No, we would say they are not allowed to harm/kill other people. We're not imposing our morals, we're protecting the rights and liberties of ourselves and others.

    I know there are differences of opinion in this world, but there is also right and wrong. Anyone who thinks taking the life of an innocent person is ok is wrong. And this folds back onto the Analog Dilemma I posed last week: How are we to respond to people holding incorrect ideas?
  • Mary Hunton
    I guess you could say it is I am not imposing my belief to the origin of life on other people. Serial killers and mass murderers are killing beings that no one can deny are people. A fully developed human being is one thing, a fetus is quite another. Whereas I DO view a fetus as life, not everyone does. This goes back to your Analog Dilemma: who is right and who is wrong? Am I right in that life begins at conception or is someone else right that life begins at the very moment the umbilical cord is cut? I believe I'm right, as you stated I would in your Analog Dilemma. At the same time, however, they believe they're right, too. Who am I to say they aren't and vice versa? I can't change the way people think.

    That is one reason I told you I liked your Blatant Falsehood Analog Dilemma so much: it made me think more. The reason abortion is such a big deal isn't only because of the "killing" involved (depending upon which side of the fence you sit on), but because of the question: when does a "fetus" become a"person." Should we allow people to believe blatant falsehoods when, no matter what we say or do, we cannot change the way they think? If everyone in the world agreed that the moment sperm met egg, the being conceived was a person with rights then there would be absolutely no question as to whether or not abortion was killing. However, that is not the case, and there are just as many people who believe that as who do not. Do those who are pro-life have the right to force those who are pro-choice into their manner of thinking by making abortion illegal? I don't believe they do.
  • I believe that an important point is being missed entirely. The idea of "not imposing your beliefs on someone" is, in fact, a form of imposing your beliefs on someone. If you think everyone is entitled to their own opinion then you you would clearly disagree with: "no, people are not entitled to their own opinion" and this is seen easily to be self-defeating.

    This is why I believe your conclusion is slightly off-kilter. You say that "killing beings that no one can deny are people" is easily seen as "wrong" and can thus be legislated against and hold that there is a fuzzy area associated with a fetus for instance. Well the same applies for coma patients and mentally retarded children, but no one but the sickest individuals would say that they are "pro-choice" in killing mentally retarded children.

    Fuzzy areas do not necessarily justify respecting differences of opinions. For example, if it turns out that fetuses are "people" with human rights, pro-life people have a 0% chance of killing a "child" with their decision not to abort, whereas pro-choice people may have let's say a 1% chance of killing someone. Or even a 0.1% chance. Or a 10% chance of killing someone...the numbers are arbitrary. Well, how much are you willing to risk on the life of an individual?

    Not even the click of an empty chamber justifies putting a gun to someone's head.
blog comments powered by Disqus