One cannot be moral without the choice to be immoral

[rpgamerd00d]

I was thinking about pro-life vs pro-choice.

It seems to me that conservatives always focus on the deaths of fetuses and how morally wrong that is as if every single woman that considers an abortion actually has an abortion.

Just because a woman has the right to choose, does not mean all women who consider abortion choose abortion. A considerable number of women do not, they choose to have the child. Even though its legal to have the abortion. Those women are ignored by the conservatives. And that made me think of something. If I put mind control helmets on all woman and forced them to have children rather than abortions, no woman could claim morality, since the choice was removed.

How can someone claim to be moral when they are not given the choice to be immoral?
Answer: they can't.

If immoral acts (or acts some people consider immoral) were made illegal, then those same people could not claim to be moral due to not engaging in those acts, because everyone would not engage in those acts since they are illegal. In order to claim morality, you must be given the chance to be immoral and then choose, of your own free will, to refrain from engaging in the immoral act.

Only choice allows morality.
Without choice, there is no morality.
The elimination of choice is the elimination of morality.

[slackmaster]

1. Sorry but I have to point out the glaring fallacy in your post

If immoral acts (or acts some people consider immoral) were made illegal, then those same people could not claim to be moral due to not engaging in those acts, because everyone would not engage in those acts since they are illegal.

Incorrect. Laws don't stop people from doing that which has been outlawed.

Elective abortion was illegal in California back in the 1960s. My mom has assured me that women did get them, without having to leave the state.

[rpgamerd00d]

4. True. Technically, no act can be "stopped" if one will break the law

They can only be punished.

[CottonBear]

2. Interesting argument.

Are there any DU philosophers who want to weigh in on this idea.

It could be a good argument against the Fundamentalists.

[sweetheart]

6. Freedom to choose is the drugs war ending argument as well

When the neocriminals declare choice to be legislated,
they take away all the moral power of "your" choice in
to their police state. Then the police are the dictates
of what choices are moral and immoral. The citizens are
just amoral animals that have no moral reasoning without
the police.

It is a police-state rationality, that laws make better
morals than human choice, empowering indiviuals to make
mistakes and recover from them, to learn from them and
evolve, so we become, like a tree, very strong for as the
wind blows a young sapling, the tree trunk grows strong to
not be taken in the storm. In every test is the fear that
we might be immoral, and not live up to the pillar in white
image of childhood myth. The fear, perhaps is that we will
turn out to be human and tempted all to often.

Then my choices and my temptations are between me and my god,
between me and my inner better, not some ill-conceieved
moral nanny given the right over my sovereign life force.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. this very issue was hinted at in "The Book of Daniel" AND in

"Bruce Almighty"-

Adian Quinn asks why we have free will if we are not expected to stumble on occassion-
Bruce says to Morgan, that not being able to control people or force YOUR will on them makes the 'job' of being God really frustrating and nearly impossible- Morgan's priceless response is "Tell me about it".

Choice is exactly that- Laws seek to abolish choices.
And, I'm not a inerrant-bible-believer. The 'laws' attributed to 'god' in the bible, are, in my personal belief, ones that mankind declared that 'god' required.-

My reasoning is, that God wouldn't leave room for 'man' to mess up or manipulate laws,- If indeed they were imposed by an all-knowing- benevolent- all powerful entity.

That doesn't deny the existance of a very 'real' god- just puts into question the 'messengers' agendas.

[JVS]

9. I'll toss in a couple thoughts on this

If choosing to do right over wrong is only a moral accomplishment in absence of negative re-inforcement for choosing to do wrong, then why is it only seen as such in the context of this topic (abortion) rather than in other areas , for example traffic laws or tax law? Does enforcing tax collection rob the citizen of the opportunity to exercise true virtue?

Also, do rewards for good behavior nullify the decision to do good? If not what is there about rewarding good behavior that does not corrupt the moral decision making process the way that punishing does?

[bloom]

3. I think so as well.

It is funny that some religious people get so gung-ho about taking away morality choices.

But part of that is - they want to punish people for making choices they do not think they would make.

[sui generis]

5. Well if you believe that individuals have a right to their own bodies

then what they choose to do or not with their own bodies is beyond morality.

Once subjective "morality" becomes a standard for human rights and individual freedoms (so long as they harm no one else) you have lost your rights and freedoms.

For instance, I don't even believe the father has ANY rights to the fetus at all, although he does bear financial responsibility for fathering a child.

Morality is too subjective to be used as a measuring stick for anything but morality.

Similar to what you are saying, music without the silence and time between the notes is just noise.

[unblock]

7. a few problems with this view

first, making something illegal doesn't usually prevent you from doing it. the vast majority of the law simply puts a punishment after-the-fact on illegal activity, it doesn't prevent you from doing it beforehand.

for instance, the illegality of murder doesn't prevent me from killing anyone, it merely punishes me if i were to do so.

this is less true of some regulation, e.g., restrictions on trade such as making the distribution of marijuana illegal or of requiring licenses for practicing in certain fields. it might be difficult to find the opportunity to make such "choices" due to it being illegal. though, even there, one can atttempt to practice law without a license or certainly find some weed.

abortion is de facto regulated against, because the anti-abortionists have made it so difficult to even find a place to get the procedure done. you are correct that the "choice" is removed for many, and one could argue that they are not making a moral decision to carry the baby to term so much as a practical decision not to travel 3 states away for the procedure.

having said that, banana republicans and right wingnuts are not interested in letting everyone make moral decisions. they want morally "wrong" decisions to not exist, and they want the government to step in and take away that option. some of these fascists would prefer to see the government simply kill "bad" people rather than let them make morally "wrong" choices such as homosexual activity, etc.

[Bake]

10. Another Q: Is one truly "moral" if the motive for obeying law

is fear of punishment?

I tend to think not. True morality is the free choice of the "moral" over the "immoral," not the obeying of law out of fear of punishment if captured.

Discuss.

Bake