Harm and Morality

I came to some insights tonight while considering the arguments of proponents of the so-called "reproductive health" and "responsible parenthood" bill. I tend to argue from the perspective of harm because that is more readily tangible and simpler to describe. It is also easier to support on the basis of many scientific studies available online. On the other hand, a staunch advocate of contraceptives has convinced me of one thing: they can always argue from their relative perceptions of benefits that outweigh the risks. If the notion is completely subjective, then there is no way to show that the harm is too great, since neither one is objectively quantifiable, nor even objectively understandable. In other words, they may well understand the incredible risks the face with STDs and unwanted pregnancy leading to divorce, but shrug that off as being "worth it". It's a scary thought, but that is how many people think these days. On the other hand, such rationalizations will probably treat arguments on the basis of morality in the same way. What a horrible beast relativism is. A truly insidious undermining of truth.

Honesty is the best policy

So I have no problems with Tony Abbott as others seem to when he gave straight answers to straightforward questions -- in an interview. Instead, I have a problem with politicians who duck for cover under the I-don't-tell-you-what's-right-and-wrong, or that's-really-old-fashioned. I also have a problem with politicians attacking another politician for imposing his views when answering questions in an interview, but that's an obvious point anyway. My point is that I like my leaders forthcoming about what they think. Guts and integrity beats patronizing and chickening out in my book, and I actually expect my leaders to be capable of original thought.

And I must confess being amused at the naysayers who take issue with Abbott's opinion that virginity is a precious -- sacred -- gift. They end up saying more than they might intend to, I think. In in objecting to that opinion .. well, they reveal a disturbing attitude towards virginity, and by implication, sex.

Now if they could just imagine themselves verbalizing that attitude in front of their mothers, sisters and daughters, they might actually come around and realize that Abbott is right.

What sort of world arises when there is no concept of right and wrong?

Something like this, perhaps. The 60s and 70s folks took up the fight for no taboos, no rules, no boundaries, and what did they expect to happen? Can peace, order or love flourish without the notion of good and bad? When all they teach children are consequences and how to escape or suppress them, then we can expect no less than this sort of insanity.

Oz Conservative talks about the same problem here, concerning the Christchurch woman who consented to a night out with seven football players at once. His point is simple and correct: obtaining consent cannot take the place of morality. He cites Andrew Bolt in his Herald Sun column who states what should be obviously alarming:

Consent also means it’s every man for himself. That you can do whatever you can force some silly or intimidated woman to agree to, however much it will hurt them.

It isn't just that concepts of objective good and evil are relevant to society. They certainly are, but so those concepts make sense, there should be love -- charity. If that had won out over lust, perhaps one or more of those football players might have spared a thought about the woman herself, her welfare, whether they would be causing harm to her -- or themselves.