Logical Progression

I wrote recently about consistency. We ought to be consistent in our lives and message. The standard word for this is "integrity" -- one. If I hold that all the world is blue, I must not argue that some of it is red or I am inconsistent. I do not have integrity. In that piece I gave examples of inconsistency. There were those who say that wealth is bad and being poor is a blessing, but they remain wealthy and either ignore the poor or try to eliminate poverty (not recognizing that they are eliminating a blessing, apparently). There are those who argue that life is a cosmic accident and we're just the result of godless evolution, and then they complain about moral issues like people killing people as if there is some rational basis for such a complaint. That sort of thing.

Consider, then, what the logical progression of a consistent line of thinking might produce. Take, for instance, the "pro-abortion" stand. You may prefer "pro-choice", but the stand remains the same. It is premised first and foremost on the position that the highest consideration is that women get to choose on matters of their health. Fathers are irrelevant. Babies are not the point. Human life is not the question. "Women's choice" is the only important concern. Take that idea down its logical progression. Women, then, are certainly free to terminate the life of a baby in the womb. Consistent. At what point, though, is this no longer the case? Some have argued that only as long as the fetus is not "viable" -- cannot survive outside the womb -- is it a matter of choice. Others say, "No, no, as long as it's inside the mother, it's her choice." That means that a full-term baby, even in the process of birth, can be killed if the mother so chooses. And, that's consistent with the premise. But why does it stop there? Is not a woman deeply impacted when she has a child outside the womb? Why is it okay to kill a baby inside the mother and not outside? Why doesn't the mother have the choice as long as the child affects her health? And when does that stop? I know mothers with adult children who are physically stressed by their kids. Shouldn't she be able to terminate those lives as well if a "woman's choice" is the prime issue? That's consistent. Obviously no one will argue for it (or almost no one), but if integrity/consistency is the issue, you'll be hard-pressed to figure out why. And while you're thinking I'm exaggerating here, consider this. In the Journal of Medical Ethics you'll find a new "peer-reviewed" paper filed for your perusal. The abstract goes something like this:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Okay, exactly like that. This is not illogical. It is the reasonable progression as outlined in the abstract. Abortion is okay for a variety of reasons. Therefore the earliest stages of human life don't have the moral status of actual persons. Since "potential person" is irrelevant and adoption may be inconvenient, why not kill them? Why not? The title of the piece is "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" This is the logical progression of this line of thinking. And I'm not the only one following the logic.

Take, for instance, the "born that way" concept. The argument goes like this. People are born with their "sexual orientation". How do we know this? Well, the science of it has failed (given the lack of a "gay gene", the failure of identical orientation of identical twins, and the like), but we know it because the public thinks so and, if that's not enough, Lady Gaga has said so. What else do we need? Okay, so we're all "born that way", whatever way we are. If we're "born that way", it must be good. (Often the argument here is even religious in nature. "If God made me this way, it must be good.") Thus, we are born to sexual orientation and, therefore, it is good. Now, without refuting the "born that way" scenario, let's go down that logical path. "Born that way" equals "good". "Is" equals "ought". So where does this logic train take us? Well, modern medical science tells us that some people are born with a propensity to breast cancer. Instead of trying to counter that, why don't we embrace it as good? But that's not a "moral issue". How about alcoholism? Science says they believe that some people are born with addictive personalities, making them susceptible to alcoholism or gambling addiction or sexual addiction. How much time, energy, and money do we spend fighting off these horrible things only to discover now that "is" equals "ought" and "born that way" means "good"? There are also those in the scientific community that argue that some people are born with other inclinations like murder or criminal tendencies. If we are following the logic train, here, we must conclude that those people are, by virtue of birth tendencies, being good when they follow through on their alcoholism or their murder sprees. How dare you suggest that it's immoral? They don't choose to be this way. We should embrace their birth heritage and allow them free expression because "born that way" means "good" and we embrace good. Another example, then, of thinking logically and consistently down the reasonable path to the wrong conclusion.

Take, for instance, the Darwinian Evolution position. Even some who classify themselves as Christians buy into Darwinian Evolution. Sure, when it comes to moral issues it's possibly acceptable to claim "the Bible tells me so", but when it comes to the origins of the species, science tells me so. Darwinian Evolution, by definition irreligious ("natural selection", "survival of the fittest"), has a natural logical course to follow as well. For instance, given neo-Darwinian Evolution, whence comes morality? There is, of course, "empirical morality" -- what people do. This is easily explained by evolutionary theory simply by suggesting "what works". As such, it becomes pragmatism rather than morality. But the broader question, "normative morality" -- "how then shall we live?" -- is much more difficult to find in evolutionary theory. For instance, while "survival of the fittest" would seem to demand being prolific and, therefore, eliminate the concept of marital fidelity, we cling to a nearly universal notion that adultery is wrong. People ought to be faithful to their spouses, even though this defies evolutionary theory. Most people will say that we are morally obligated to take care of the weakest of the species even though evolutionary theory would cry out against it. Thus, if we are looking for integrity from a neo-Darwinian Evolution position, normative morality -- how we ought to live -- will have to be thrown out in favor of pragmatism -- what works for me. Indeed, some of our pet projects would have to go. Saving species of animals who are nearing extinction makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. Caring for the elderly or the sickly infants doesn't fit. Indeed, Peter Singer argues that we ought to be using these types for medical experimentation. Just because they're human doesn't mean they should have special treatment. That, according to Singer, is speciesism. And, while this seems horrific to your casual observer, it is also perfectly consistent with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Without even going to Singer's extreme, you may recall the "lifeboat" exercises of days gone by -- "values clarification". "You're on a lifeboat designed to hold 15 people and there are 20 people on board. If you don't get down to 15, you will all perish. How do you decide who lives and who dies?" In this scenario the sick, elderly, handicapped, or very young are sacrificed for the sake of the healthy -- those who might survive. Consistent with social evolutionary theory and neo-Darwinism, but not with normative morality. Darwinian Evolution cannot provide any basis for a moral code that transcends personal preference or pragmatic concerns. Still, they want to hang on to both a rejection of religious influence and a binding transpersonal moral code. It's not rational. It is not consistent. It lacks integrity.

I would like to point out that nothing I have said here calls on people who disagree with my views to change their basis of thinking. Do you want to favor "women's choice"? Fine, do so. But do so consistently rather than irrationally. Do you want to argue "born that way"? Go ahead and do so, but do it with integrity. Are you in favor of "marriage equity? Then why aren't you favoring polygamy and polyamory, too? Be consistent. Are you going to argue Evolution over a biblical perspective of the origins of our universe? That's perfectly okay. I'm not asking you not to. I'm simply suggesting that you do so consistently and rationally. After all, making rational arguments irrationally just doesn't make sense, does it? And if you're not willing to follow your line of thinking to its rational conclusions, perhaps your line of thinking needs some correction. All of us should keep that in mind.