"I have no give in this area either but I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me on this or in general is incapable of serious moral reasoning."
It does seem like an extreme comment on first review. However, in the contexts of other comments from that post regarding "personhood," it does seem to carry some validity.
Throughout history we have seen a tendency to discount personhood for political expediency: during times of war, slavery, political unrest, etc. This seems like one more opportunity to either claim humanity or deny it. Those who are quick with the denials, clearly do so as a convenience to political cause. I simply can not imagine that it would have become popular (which it has) if there were no associated politics.
So, from my point of view which may or may not be in line with Neo's, it is a question of how serious people are in taking a moral stand. I have an acquaintence who claims to be founding his life fundamentally and religiously on the highest morality in the universe. One day he says to me, "you have to lie sometimes just to get by." He knows that I have a personal policy to tell the truth, even when it means I will have to deal with some difficulty. So, he gave me some examples of white lies to tell the wife, ways to keep from paying so much for automobile taxes, negotiating when selling a used car, etc. So, I asked him if he believes telling the truth was important. He went as far as to say that the exceptions must be considered in establishing one's way of life. In otherwords telling the truth is important exept when one sees a benefit to telling a lie...duh.
People can be capable of moral reasoning, but when positions are taken that compromise a serious moral stand as a matter of convenience, it puts into question whether they are capable of moral reasoning on serious issues. |
