In many areas of life, there is the rule and then there is the exception. Which should be the rule, and which the exception, is often not so hard to discern, one need only consider the opposite case: what if the exception were the rule, and vice versa? If the consequences are better one way or the other, you know which should be the rule, which the exception. But if the rule is to remain the rule, and the exception the exception, there have to be criteria for making the exception. In some instances, they may not be very rigorous: having a strong personal motive might suffice. In others, the criteria should be stricter, like using deadly force only to stop a threat to life or limb. Regardless, there have to be some criteria.
To make the distinction between the rule and the exception is not necessarily to say that the exception is wrong. It may be merely that the rule is better. However, obviously it is irrational to choose the lesser option without adequate reason.
An adequate reason does not especially dignify the choice of the lesser option, it permits it. Religious commitment dignifies the choice to go childless, however, at least among those sympathetic to religious practice. I don't think I was oozing contempt at all,I was just being blunt.
I use PC to mean having kneejerk reactions that preclude real dialogue and distort the content of my posts...... |
