An example of my confusion.

I've been doing so much damn studying lately and it seems the subject I was least interested in: "metaphysics" has become the most consuming subject to date.

I'm taking 16 pretty tough units this semester and I just got a part-time job; needless to say, I don't have too much extra time to be wandering around like a space cadet wondering if there is a God or not. Herein lies the problem.

I finally am beginning to see how difficult it is take anything seriously without having had answered these metaphysical questions. They seem to be not only the largest questions we have, but the most important questions we have as well. Surely we all can all understand the inherent magnitude behind questions like "Does God exist?", "Does life have meaning or purpose?", and "What happens when we die?" But what is the importance of these questions? Why should we discuss these questions openly rather than keep them bottled up as personal conundrums? I for one always felt it was a good idea to keep the metaphysical as intimate as possible. In other words, nobody needs to know where I stand in regards to God or reality or whatever. After all, shouldn't our belief in God be for us and not for others? Well what I'm beginning to realize is that while the acceptance of God/no God (or any other metaphysic) may be personal for some, the necessity of identifying your own metaphysic is great, as the ability to answer any questions with any degree of certainty in any field or subject seems inescapable the fact that the eventual reduction to or reference of a particular metaphysic will occur. What the hell does that mean? To me it means you can go no further until you figure it out. You have to know what you believe in order to do what you think is right in all situations. Let's use myself as an example; I am likely to pursue ethics beyond my bachelors degree, I find it to be of great value and importance. Well what is ethics? The study of right and wrong is basically what it boils down to. We all live our own lives guided by some sort of ethic. Some believe God is in control and sets the rules for us to follow, others believe there is no God and hence no such rules. Some believe that making calculations based on outcomes will give you the ethical answers, others believe we have an inherent duty simply to do the right thing. So I ask, Can you believe there is no God and still believe there are universal rules to adhere to? If there is no God does anything matter? Is there even such a thing as the right or wrong thing? Belief in a certain metaphysic is where we derive the guiding principles we need to answer the more practical questions. It's difficult to imagine people and consider they live their life by a certain metaphysic; it's a bit interesting to think about what actually is guiding everyone? What do our teachers believe? What does Obame believe? When you walk passed someone on campus are they thinking about "what is" or are they thinking about their grades and their bills?

It's beginning to make more sense now that I need to really develop my own metaphysics. All my questions have been kept to myself up to this point and that is where I believe we come to a stand still. We can only think about things so much, we need to discuss them, we need to hear how we sound saying what we think we believe. I think the ability to discuss rather than think on these issues is what elicits the juciest thinking. Gotta run...

Plato's Allegory of the Cave

SCW#4- In paragraph 61, Socrates outlines a program that would assure Athens of having good rulers and good government. Clarify exactly what the program is, what its problems and benefits are, and how it could be put into action. Then decide whether the program would work. You may consider whether it would work for our time, for Socrates’ time or both. If possible, use examples (hypothetical or real) to bolster your argument.

If we asked a sampling the American population to rate their satisfaction with the overall performance of the government, we would likely encounter a range of differing responses, all stemming from an array of attitudes, cultures, religions, and beliefs. Ironically, as we learn from history we discover these attitudes have probably been around since the first societies. The attitudes of those in Plato’s era are no different, especially after the loss of his beloved Athens government to the Spartans (Jacobus 447). In his Republic, Plato uses the allegory of the cave to introduce his idea of the dualistic nature between mind and body. Through the dialogues of his characters Socrates and Glaucon, Plato reveals a program for political success and uncovers a very strong argument for how his plan, if followed correctly and adhered to by everyone, could assure the success of Athens. If we deconstruct examples using Plato’s theory, we find his argument to be structurally sound and applicable to not only the Athens of his time, but to current societies as well.

In his allegory, Plato reveals to us his idea of the perfect ruler or leader. To understand these ideas we need to understand what Plato is attempting to sell us with his metaphor of the cave and its components. Plato’s first step is to describe (via Socrates) that man are slaves; they are born and grow in the cave “with their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads” (Plato, 450). Socrates goes on explaining that because they were born to the cave, the only view the slaves have ever seen is what has been reflected by the fire on the wall in front of them. The shadows seen on the cave walls are the only truth the prisoners know. To Plato, we (humans) are like the prisoners of the cave, depending only on our sensory experiences to tell us what is real. The easiest way to bring this to life is to refer to the film, “The Matrix.” If we remember from the movie, all human beings are basically born connected to a computer, and immediately placed into a coma. The computer creates a digital world (the Matrix) that sends signals to the brain that simulate sensory perception in the coma patient. In other words, a fake life is created and sent directly to the brain without any need for the use of a conscious body. Most people live in the Matrix and never stop to question the reality of the life they currently live. Like Plato’s cave, many may die in the Matrix. The “philosopher” to Plato, is the one who realizes that perhaps what he sees portrayed on the walls in front of him does not encapsulate all of life. The philosopher is the one who escapes the cave because of his persistence in questioning the reality of what was in front of him, and it is he who has an ethical obligation to seek the truth and try to educate those who have yet to break the chains that bind them to a life of lies. To Plato, these philosophers are the ones who are best fit to lead a society via government or politics. Although the symbolism in his allegory does not stop there, our knowledge up to this point of the philosopher and his duties will allow us to proceed.

Now that we have put into context Plato’s symbolism, let’s examine his suggestions for the ideal philosopher. The first of Plato’s explanations is introduced when Socrates tells Glaucon “there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others” (Plato, 456). Think of this like a set of rules or even a checklist of must-have duties for the philosopher (ruler); Plato is saying that first and foremost the leader must possess the ability and desire to care for the well being of everyone else. He understands the importance of the human connection and the imperative role it plays for a successful leader and society. The fact that this is the first requirement he gives us, may reveal its priority or in relation to the next. Of course living by this rule could yield a number of positive benefits such as increased feelings of patriotism, brotherhood, and compassion. A perhaps Machiavellian counterargument, could claim that too much love for fellow man by the leadership could result in a “soft” government, therefore jeopardizing (weakening) the state as a whole, rendering it “at-risk.” I think if we are to take Plato seriously here, we should at least consider the idea that if we are truly caring for everyone, perhaps there are no real risks to consider after all. It is my contention that although Plato is identifying necessary characteristics for leaders of the state, he is not limiting the leaders to consider the lives of only those in said state; I believe Plato feels a true philosopher ought to care for all men, regardless of nationality. If all mean are cared for equally, the strength of the state in regards to safety should be irrelevant. Socrates goes on to tell Glaucon that “Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark” (Plato, 456). Plato understands that the philosopher, knowing what he now knows of truth, will have a daunting task ahead of him due to the fact that many people (if not most) will not share his recent enlightenments. Plato is saying that the leader, just because he is leader, cannot make the best decisions on everyone’s behalf if he himself is not skilled at deciphering between lies and truth. The great leader has to know how everyone will be impacted by every decision. Just because the philosopher may recognize that the antithesis of truth exists, does not necessarily give him right to make decisions without using the same logic that led him to the truth in the first place. By going back to the cave, not only will the philosopher hone his skill of distinguishing between truth and lies, he will also gain perspective on the potential lies that everyone else may perceive as truth. This allows the leader to see all points of view and have empathy for his fellow man (as unenlightened as he may be). By demanding these traits be present in our leaders, we can easily distinguish between those who are leading to increase the good of all, and those who are leading to increase the good for themselves. “And philosophy is not for everybody, but only for those gifted people who are capable of it, and who can safely be entrusted with the running of the educational process, and indeed of the entire state” (Hare, 50). In review, Plato’s two main rules of his program are to understand the duty of caring for your fellow man, and actively seeking out the truth in the world based on lies. This is a most important dynamic because “he [the philosopher] knows the Good and everything which depends on it, can really educate people instead of just pandering to their desires and ensnaring them.” (Hare, 50) The bottom line here is that a leader who makes the decisions ought to spend time analyzing people and the world they live in, if he is to make decisions based on their best interests. In review, we have two fundamental requirements for leaders set forth by Plato, which in his opinion will assure success of the state. His two requirements are, to care deeply for others and to remain familiar and close to lives of those who are entrusted to your care.

The strength in Plato’s argument lies in his ability to create a check and balance system if you will, that ensures the good can be attained and prolonged. If we were to look at various events in our world’s history, we may find that many of the atrocities that have occurred can likely be attributed to the leadership lacking in one of the areas previously outlined. I particularly enjoy Plato’s plan because if it were to be strictly adhered to, many of the blunders in our history could have been avoided. Both in slavery and the Holocaust, people were used as means to ends rather than ends in themselves. Although Hitler thought he was doing "good" by his country, he failed to recognize that a true leader would have considered and empathized with the Jews on the same level as the Germans and everyone else. With slavery, it wasn’t until our leaders realized that slaves needed to be cared for and considered equally to non-slaves. Once this consideration was in place, leaders saw the situation for what it really was and abolished slavery. If we look at an offense on a lesser scale as the aforementioned, we can still find applicability in Plato’s doctrine. For example let’s look at President Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Without diving into all the details of that event, let’s ask if Nixon’s actions were done out of the necessity to comply with “the Good” that Plato has outlined for us. Were his (Nixon’s) actions based out of deep caring and compassion for others? Were his actions an attempt to educate people on the truth while sympathizing with their situation? The answer to both is clearly: No. Nixon’s actions were based not on the good (as Plato would say) but on himself, something Plato recognized long ago as not effective for leadership. It is not the conclusion that these historical events and the respective leaders were deliberately opposing Plato’s advice, simply that had they considered the advice of Plato, they simply may not have happened.

For Plato’s program to work, it has to be taken seriously and carried out diligently. The true leader (philosopher) does not lead for personal gain, “being neither pleasure-seeking nor ambitious, the true philosopher, alone qualified to rule through his knowledge of the good, can leave the pursuit of material pleasures to the lower orders” (Hare, 60). If leaders were to follow these guidelines, success of the state could be attainable in any time, past current, or future. The obvious challenge is finding the leaders that can actually follow the guidelines set forth by Plato.

Rawls, Theory of Justice. (Part II)

SCW#4- The utilitarian position emphasizes a form of justice in which the greatest good for the greatest number of people dictates social decisions. Since the nineteenth century, this view, sometimes called the principle of utility, has been fairly dominant in Western democracies. However, Rawls condemns this view because it does not improve the condition of the least advantaged members of society. In fact, it may even harm such people. What is your position on Rawls’s rejection of utility? How carefully must a society that values justice work to prevent enacting laws that might make worse the lives of the least advantaged?
Rawls and Just Society

Utilitarian theory states that morality is achieved through efforts that seek to promote the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical theory remains prevalent in modern political philosophy as it aims to satisfy a society’s majority. Philosopher and ethical theorist John Rawls rejects utility theory on the grounds that loss of freedoms incurred by a society’s least advantaged, does not justify any greater good; in other words, the mere fact that only a minority of people may suffer does not warrant the result of true justice. Like Rawls, it is my contention that the sacrifice of a few is not a worthy victory in the battle for justice; in order to achieve true justice, a society or government must meticulously and diligently transcend the mentality that pleasing the majority is a goal sufficient enough to label that society as just.
Rawls’s rejection of utilitarian theory is based on the fact that the lives of the least advantaged members of a society do not improve; in order to understand the implications of Rawls’s standpoint, we need to first understand the principle of utility. The principle of utility or greatest happiness principle states that choosing an act or policy that produces the greater amount of happiness over the alternative, is the morally acceptable choice. “In deciding which action or policy is the most morally compelling, we need only measure the total amount of pleasure and the total amount of pain involved in the alternatives, and choose the alternative with the greatest net pleasure” (Boss, 23). Let’s look at the principle of utility in a practical setting. During the Second World War (WWII) there was a perception of threat of impending nuclear attack on America by Japan. In order to neutralize this threat, it was decided that the best way to eliminate said threat was to initiate the use of nuclear weaponry against Japan. It can be said that a utilitarian methodology was used to decide whether this was the best course of action. Had the American government not isolated this threat and had Japan attacked with nuclear weapons, the loss of many American lives would have been certain. In this case, in order to provide the greatest amount of happiness (minimal loss of American life) it was decided to attack the Japanese to eliminate the threat. Using this example, a strict utilitarian can successfully rationalize how the act of using nuclear weaponry was not only justified, it was in fact moral. This may be easy to accept for some, but for me (and perhaps Rawls) the fact that we may have limited the number of American deaths, does not seem worthy enough a reason to label that particular act as moral. What about the death and destruction caused to the Japanese people? Is the intrinsic value of American life worth more than the life of the Japanese? Do the ends justify the means? Although extreme, this is a perfect example of how utility theory can fall short in the quest for post-conventional moral wisdom. Let’s look at utility in a different situation. One of our country’s most shameful facts is that we utilized, legalized, and promoted slavery. One idea behind slavery was that the use of slaves by owners contributed to individuals by means of productivity as well as contributing to society by increasing commerce and trade. At the time, the use of slavery was seen as “good” because the overall outcome to society outweighed resulting injustices. Certainly nobody would want to excuse the act of slavery as being morally justified however, there was a time when this act was not deemed immoral. Nuclear warfare and slavery, as sensitive of subjects they may be, are both good examples of how this theory has the ability to justify horrific acts that can have potentially devastating outcomes.

In order to prevent injustices that become possible through typical utilitarian thought, a truly just government will seek not only to please the greatest amount of people, but will also aspire to ensure that justice is attainable by all members of its society. For Rawls, a just society begins with the notion that all its members are equal and “…no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like” (Rawls, 238). This original position or “initial status quo” is what allows those who decide the policies of the society to create “just” policies that are of equal fairness to everyone. It is at this starting point that fair and just policy making must begin in order to “ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (Rawls, 238) . Rawls understands that self-preservation and self-interest are innate in humans; instead of insisting that we ought not to act on those instincts, Rawls asks us (or those making policy) to recognize those qualities and act in such a way that promotes the pursuance of those qualities by all peoples. This is a crucial element to Rawls’s theory, and one that seems could be commonsensically applied while formulating law and public policy. In other words, those charged with creating the laws of the land, should recognize that their own interests, while subjective, are no more or less important than the interests of others; therefore, since the pursuance of interests remains subjective in nature, the best law ought to be one that allows everyone the fair and equal ability to pursue their best interests. If a society truly values justice and equality, the need of this basic understanding is paramount to achieve the desired results. Without the basic understanding of this concept, those charged with creating the policy of a society will neglect to capture the basic needs (and/or rights) of all individuals.

Many opponents of utilitarian theory contest that “it is not so much wrong as it is incomplete” (Boss, 25). It is clear in Rawls’s work that he does not oppose the theory on the notion that it is wrong, but more so because it is simply not good enough. While utility may seek a quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) goal to justify the morality or “rightness” of an act, for many of us, a higher level of moral doctrine is needed. In short, the many social injustices that occur to the minority cannot be justified simply because the majority does not have to suffer. If any society is to be considered as just, that society should aim to provide equality for all its members.

My email to Congresswoman Capps in regards to DADT being blocked by the Senate

Congresswoman Capps,

My name is Josh Davila, I am a Marine Corps Veteran residing in Santa Maria, California and I currently attend Allan Hancock College as a full-time student. Today, Senate republicans voted to block the repeal of the seventeen year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is with clear mind and heavy heart that I reach out to you as my congressional representative in hopes that my frustration with this matter will not go unheard. As a former military member and combat veteran, I feel a great connection to fellow service-members- past, present, and future. Regardless of my religious or political beliefs, being afforded the opportunity to serve our great nation both in wartime and in peacetime was undoubtedly the single greatest opportunity I have had to date. Serving my country not only changed my life, it quite possibly saved it. Thirteen years ago when I was seventeen, if you had met me on my way to boot camp and asked me how I felt about this polarizing issue, I probably would have mustered up an uneducated, egoist response. To be frank, if it didn’t have anything to do directly with me, I probably could not have cared less. I am not the boy I once was; and sometimes I wish that a person of your position would ask me how I feel about this and many other pressing issues of today. It’s with great degrees of frustration and despondency that I think about how many men and women of this great country will not get to enjoy the same tremendous opportunities and benefits which were afforded to me. To think that some of our nation’s sons and daughters may be denied these opportunities based on their sexual orientation only solidifies my disdain for this debate.

Congresswoman Capps, it is with great certainty I claim that the current policy which dictates the acceptable sexual orientation of service members is unjust and immoral. Furthermore, the refusal by some government officials to consider the revision of this bill is in direct opposition of the forward-type thinking that I feel our nation needs to possess in order to progress successfully. As a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all, negating the rights of select groups of individuals not only contradicts the ideology of our nation, it opens the door for future injustices and warrants implications of unknown degree. I have heard many arguments on both sides of this debate and I empathize with those who voice their concerns with strong personal conviction. For me, this debate is not about sexuality, it is not about homophobia, and it is not about the armed forces. Instead, this is clearly an issue of rights, equality, and justice. The fact that our elected Senate prefers to avoid seeking a “just” decision on this issue is disheartening to say the least. Through slavery and women’s suffrage, our history shows us how our perceptions and treatment of the “minority” have yet to be accurate. It is my great hope that collectively we can realize the truth that unfair treatment is simply not an ingredient in the recipe for a successful society. Mrs. Capps, I would like to ask what is your position on this issue? Furthermore I would like to know what it would take to get you, as the representative of California’s 23rd district, to advocate that this bill receive the fair and just consideration it deserves. I understand that change does not happen overnight, I can only hope that we can all agree that this issue deserves the attention of the highest degree. Please feel free to let me know how I can be of help as an advocate for this issue. Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people of your district.

Best Regards,

Josh Davila

United States Marine Corps 1998-2006

My response to a lady on facebook who spoke out against gays in the military

@Kathy- First of all what section of the constitution references the sexual preference of service members? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Since we are using political doctrine to help validate our points, what about the Bill of Rights ..."Right to bear arms" or perhaps the Declaration of Independance- "All men are created equal?" I gather that references don't mean that much anyway, if the Constitution began with "Gays should be allowed to openly serve", there would undoubtedly still be people like you contesting your point. Secondly your statement "How uncomfortable would it be for all other males to have a guy checking them out, watching them shower!" only proves to everyone that you, like other opponents, are more worried about your own feelings and perceptions than the real unjustice of the matter. If the true intent is to avoid "harassment" then the military ought to eliminate all possible forms of potential harassment and make it a uni-sexual military. How would you feel if our government said "allowing women in the military creates more problems than it is worth?" Also, the fact that you would associate a gay man with a cross-dresser only shows yours unreasonable logic and true inner bigotry. Not all gays are cross-dressers, not all cross-dressers are gay, and believe it or not, not all gay people want to check you out in the shower. Our country has a proven track record of not doing the right thing; let's not forget how we treated african-americans (during the time the Constitution was written) and perhaps more applicable to you, how we treated women until the 1920's. We have proved time and again that while we think we are doing the right thing, we clearly infringe on the rights that we all have equal access to. Dr. King said "Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" What he meant by this was that regardless of how we feel about something, at the end of the day we have to choose between right and wrong, unfortunately there is no in between. I hope that one you can realize the true implications of the choices you make. I hope you understand the true message you send to the world when you openly support the infrigement of basic human rights. Thank you for serving in the military, and thanks to the government who gave you the freedom and option to do so.

Euthanasia

This topic is similar to the abortion debate in that I find myself in the middle of an argument that is clearly not as black and white as I assumed. We have four different types of euthanasia, each which its own arsenal of situational thought experiments and rationalizations, and subsequently each with its own ethical justifications. Like the abortion debate, I was mainly concerned with the autonomy of the individual, claiming that we should have the ultimate control over our own bodies…no matter what. While I still tend to be more pro-euthanasia than not, I find my reasoning do not rely solely on the autonomy of the individual. My biggest roadblock with writing about these ethical dilemmas is that while I may have a lot of thoughts or opinions, I do not know what underlying beliefs these opinions are tied to. Boss does a good job explaining how the “Philosophers on Euthanasia” felt about the topic, but I feel that is merely the starting point for evaluating dilemmas like this. I have yet to see how the relationship between ethics, dilemmas, beliefs, laws, and public policy all come together; and if I can be honest, sometimes I feel like taking the “what’s the point” approach to these issues as they seem to have no clear answers or resolutions. The best option I can come up with is one where I use ethics to help me decide which beliefs I really hold true. Whether my beliefs are the practiced or agreed upon beliefs is irrelevant, what matters here is that I have come to a comfortable conclusion based on reason.
For the purposes of this journal I would like to focus on physician-assisted suicide (PAS), one of the types of active euthanasia. PAS is when the physician assists the patient in bringing about his or her own death; according to Boss, a situation most Americans are “split over” in regards to the ethics. Like abortion, the end result will ultimately be a reflection of the beliefs of the individual. One argument against PAS is the sanctity of life argument that states “human life has intrinsic worth.” The proponents of this argument claim that legalizing euthanasia will weaken the respect for human life. On the surface this seems like a sound, philosophical, argument and it advocates a certain amount of humanity. But is this argument realistic? While I understand the concern that legalizing euthanasia may be a shock to some, I think it is a slippery slope to claim that respect for human life will be weakened as a result. We’ve talked about this in class in regards to other situations; if we choose not to make a decision (such as legalizing PAS) only because of the fear of a particular outcome, then we will find it very hard to make progress in not only moral dilemmas, but social, scientific and political arenas as well. Boss states many “western philosophers” hold the sanctity of life position, but how many western philosophers are the ones directly affected by the act of euthanasia? What I mean here is, because this is such a delicate subject, wouldn’t it be more pragmatic to allow people to follow their own beliefs rather than creating an imposition of ours? An easier way for me to defend this argument is to assume the position of a terminally ill patient who is seeking a “good death.” Let’s assume I have become ill with brain cancer and subsequently diagnosed and given a meager prognosis. If I requested information on PAS and denied by a doctor that claimed human life has intrinsic worth, I would probably reflexively question the intrinsic worth of my life and dying body. I can’t say for certain, because I don’t know. I don’t know what it’s like to be in an incredible amount of pain or suffering, but something tells me, based on everything I currently believe in, that I don’t think I would want to endure the long and painful death.
Part of me feels that the dying should be treated with a certain amount of respect and an understanding that life has come to its inevitable end. As of now I don’t agree that the end of a person’s life is the time to inject moral debate, personal beliefs, or social norms. Because of this, I think PAS should at least be considered as an option for those in need. With that said, and much like my position on abortion, I feel that this particular issue should be looked at from the moral perspective to discuss, but from the social perspective to solve.

Abortion

After reading the section on abortion and allowing some time for thought, I realized that I’ve previously taken the ethically lazy route by having an opinion on this issue without knowing all the facts. I cannot think of a better personal example that illustrates how easy it can be at times to not fully understand the implications involved with a particular ethical position in a moral dilemma.
I think it’s safe to say that since the moment I was able to comprehend abortion in the sense of its definition, I have taken the stance of pro-choice. It’s not to say that I took that position with any particular amount of ease, but instead that I took that position based on my rationalization of the information I was familiar with. The question I would (in the past) ask myself is “do we really have the right to tell another person what they can or can’t do with their bodies (based on our own objectives, personal morality, or religious beliefs?)” It always made sense to me that the one thing we should have complete control over is our own bodies. My concern was definitely focused on the consequences of making abortion illegal. For example, if by taking a woman’s right to an abortion away, what other precedents do we set? By allowing ourselves to live a life that is guided by the rules and doctrine of others, are we really allowing ourselves the autonomy we claim to have right to? Are we really “free”? Someone might want to argue that we do live like that based on social contracts and rules and regulations. I agree with that however, where do we draw the line? At what point does the contract or accepted behaviors of a group become infringement on personal rights? I realize now that not only was I making a “slippery slope” argument, I wasn’t even basing my decision on facts related to the ethical issues of abortion. I like looking back on this now because it helps gain more perspective on Utilitarian theory, a theory I had come to like because it focuses on consequences. I realize now that not only was I making the hasty argument of: the act of abortion could lead to something, I was also completely basing my decisions only on the consequences and pretty much putting the blinders on the morality of the actual issue. After trying to formulate a position in this argument, I found that a utilitarian approach didn’t get at the crux of the issue, leaving me ethically thirsty. Because of this I have seen a working example of how Utilitarian theory can be a bit “light” for those trying to get at the core of ethical problem solving. I began to doubt myself after I read Boss’s definitions and explanation of abortion. How could I have previously chosen my pro-choice position without really understanding all the information related to this subject? At the very least I have been forced to look at the issue from a different perspective. First and foremost, this is not a simple issue of yes or no; like other debates we have plenty of situational criterion and circumstantial clauses to consider. People who are pro-life are saying that the act of abortion itself is morally wrong while the pro-choice advocates claim that it is wrong to not let a woman have control over her body. (Now obviously there is a lot more to both sides of this argument, I’m simplifying for the purposes of this journal).

If these are the two arguments we consider for the time being, it seems as if these two issues aren’t even in the same category; one side is based on morality (killing is wrong) while the other is based on legality (right to choose). This already seems convoluted to me in that we are arguing morals against laws or rights. The pro-choice argument seems to naturally exude ethical egoism by claiming that the ability to choose should be paramount to those involved. However, a true ethical egoist would want egoism to be universal which would mean they would want everyone else to take the position of egoist to pursue their own rational self-interests. This acceptance of pursuing self-interests does not seem to be the actual interests of those supporting the pro-choice argument (regarding the pro-life position.) One of the more difficult facets of the argument for me, is the consideration of a potential life. Whether the life is human, fetus, or viable, seems very irrelevant to me. I understand the importance of this portion of the pro-choice argument here however, to me it doesn’t really matter how or what we classify the fetus as. Does calling the fetus a baby, or an embryo or a human have anything to do with the actual morality of the act itself? Most references of the sanctity of life reference just that, life. It shouldn’t matter if it is a clump of cells, a fetus, a tree, or a whale; it seems to me that we are only arrogant when we assume that we can willingly end the life of any other organism. It simply doesn’t sound right that we currently have laws that protect a myriad of other “life forms” on the planet, but when it comes to human life forms, we are reduced down to what seems like semantic debates.
So how do we proceed with this argument? The only thing that makes sense to me is to accept the fact that on a moral level, this debate will always be a controversial one and we should try to actually solve the issue from a social perspective. I’m not suggesting that we throw in the towel or become subjectivists, rather I’m suggesting that we consider other viewpoints (social factors, psychological effects), in addition to morals, that will hopefully help us solidify our beliefs and hopefully provide the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.