Max writes:
Everybody I've know who had an abortion or went to term, didn't think of themselves as free to decide--they felt imprisoned, determined somehow in advance. In that sense there was no moral dilemma, but rather all sorts of practical questions (CG)
mbs: I don't understand this at all. Of course, one can be confronted by an array of unappealing choices. That's the rule more than the exception. But there is still free will. We are not 100% dehumanized. (MS)
----------------------
I am not looking for the last word. The point to this response is to clarify the position I am trying to define. So, I'll give it another go.
"Of course, one can be confronted by an array of unappealing choices"
How is it that we find ourselves confronting one bad choice after another? These confrontations are the result of existing economic, political, and social conditions and the determinations of the institutions and policies that have created and maintain those conditions.
>From an individual point of view, these conditions force a
confrontation with moral and ethical dilemmas over and over. One or
two bad decisions taken and you can end up suffering for the rest of
your life or end up dead. What kind of moral or ethical arena is it
that places all of the consequences and punishments for bad decisions
on the individual, and all of the authority to change conditions and
therefore relieve the burden in the hands of some institution? Such an
arena is amoral and inhumane in advance. At some point, conditions are
bad enough so that any concept of free will is morally
meaningless.
In other words, how is it that the worst moral and ethical choices are confronted by the most vulnerable or poverty ridden, and oppressed? Choices like do we kill the baby girl or sell her, or keep the boy because we can lease him out to work to death. How would such questions ever be confronted by an economically secure, moderate sized family? In other words, take away the material oppression and most of these so-called moral dilemmas disappear.
So, with that thought in mind, then if a change in material conditions erases a moral dilemma, what is the point of discussing these dilemmas as if they were the problem? In my view, the point of retracing moral ground is a diversion that obfuscates the source of the problems we face.
"In fact, I think these arguments form a kind of authenticating lotion, a palative of reassurance that our sensibilities and feelings have social and political meaning in the world. They don't. It is probably that thought, that you find repulsive." (CG)
"mbs: You're right on that last point. Sounds nihilistic to me." (MS)
I don't consider it nihilism. It is how I see conditions. So, this position isn't about moral thought at all. The reason sensibility has no concrete meaning is because material conditions are not determined by what we feel or think about them. They are determined by money and power, ie. economic and political institutions and their policies.
Here is something from another thread on the death penalty that can be re-worked to fit this context:
"To illustrate that with a real life example, instead of "endorsing abortion on demand" which is a controversial formulation of a broader social problem women face - the Labor Party (in the US) stated its position as "support for a full range of reproductive care services." This is tantamount to saying that they refused to address the problem as a choice between two alternatives dictated by the current system, but instead they opt for a "systemic" solution to address the root causes of the problem.
In the same vein, instead of opposing or supporting the death penalty, the issue can be formulated as a support for social and criminal justice policies that reduce crime and crime victimization, and at the same time guarantee a fair trail regardless of the economic status." Wojtek S.
The reason I am trying to define positions that ignore individual responsibility for moral and ethical choices, is because this focuses all the attention on the individual, and completely absolves the socio-political and economic institutions and conditions that create the larger context within which individual decisions, choices and actions are taken. I consider the shift to the individual a political maneuver by the political establishment, particularly the Right. This is the political meaning of all the family values talk.
By insisting on the idea that abortion is murder, all of the discussion then turns on definitions about individual conduct, with absolutely no attention to the context of this conduct.
Chuck Grimes