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.

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.

Rights-Based Ethics

Immediately I am drawn to the argument of rights-based ethics as it seems to provide me with more substance than many of the theories we’ve discussed thus far. The reading makes multiple references to the term “self-evident” which I feel is not particularly positive terminology for the argument of Natural Rights Ethics. The term itself implies that a meaning is understood without proof. Unfortunately, and similar to many of the other theories we have discussed, I see this as a potential downfall (although not detrimental to the argument.) If moral rights were truly self-evident and God given (as Locke claims), I presume that there would not be much left for discussion in regards to how we acquire our natural rights. At first, Rand seems to provide a more rational theory to consider by agreeing with Locke, with the exception being that God is not the source of our natural rights. What’s comforting about this is the fact that on the surface, Rand not only considers this theory, (minus a God) she whole-heartedly defends it. My initial thought is if an original theory such as the one proposed by Locke can be considered and agreed with (minus the inclusion of God such as Rand suggests) then the fundamental aspects of the theory must be somewhat structurally “sound.” The only major difference between Locke and Rand is their conflicting viewpoints regarding the origination of our rights (God or natural.) The common ground shared between these two perspectives is that natural rights do exist for humans, independently of duties. In his natural rights theory Locke is suggesting (meta-ethically) that humans can live in a state of harmony with each other and the environment, with the right to pursue our own destiny. Due to the fact that this theory can be accepted by believers and non-believers of God, I feel the fundamental aspects (that we all have natural rights) are much more universal than some opposing theories.
One disagreement I have with both Locke and Rand is in regards to their claim that natural rights exist independently of duties. Although I understand the principle that a natural right (by definition) should not impose a particular duty on another, I do not understand how any right does not impose some sort of opposing duty. For example, Boss defines a liberty right as “the right to be left alone to pursue our legitimate interests.” In order for our right to be fulfilled, it would require a duty on others to not interfere with said right. I realize this is not a duty where someone is forced to do (or give) something, instead it is asking that someone not do something (interfere) which in my opinion is a duty nonetheless. I feel that as long as there is the option to interfere with the rights of another, we are obligated by duty to make the correct moral choice of not interfering. I’ll use the (liberty) right to privacy to help clarify my point. If an individual has a right to privacy (which I’m assuming we all agree with) and is pursuing their right, I (as an opposing individual) have a duty to allow that person to pursue their right without interfering.