"It's just not right"
In many debates there is a hearty faction of people who, when presented with facts, data and analysis supporting freedom of choice, interject with the argument "it's just not right".
What does this mean, "it's just not right"? Why is this in itself a valid argument? And why should this argument supersede common sense and statistical analysis?
We all have a sense of right and wrong. But we have the responsibility not to impose our own values on others. Doing so by legal means would take away the right of others to choose for themselves.
We can always teach others our values, and explain to them why a certain action should be considered harmful to themselves or to others, but we cannot make their choice for them. When presented with a debate about moral choices, freedom should be paramount. No one can expect everyone else to think the same way they do, even after we make our argument clear. To do so would clearly exhibit a certain level of conceit.
But to present the argument "it's just not right" and expect everyone to agree with you is simply arrogant. Explain to us why it's not right. And be open to arguments which explain "yes, it's not right, but there are reasons why we need to accept/tolerate/allow it."
Don't be closed minded based on your own sense of moral values. Ofttimes intolerance leads to much more harm than acceptance. Humankind will never, ever agree on every point. Only by allowing for a difference in opinion will we ever learn to get along, to mature as a society and to make efficient progress toward peaceful solutions.
If you're going to argue "it's just not right", back up that argument with facts, not opinion.
What does this mean, "it's just not right"? Why is this in itself a valid argument? And why should this argument supersede common sense and statistical analysis?
We all have a sense of right and wrong. But we have the responsibility not to impose our own values on others. Doing so by legal means would take away the right of others to choose for themselves.
We can always teach others our values, and explain to them why a certain action should be considered harmful to themselves or to others, but we cannot make their choice for them. When presented with a debate about moral choices, freedom should be paramount. No one can expect everyone else to think the same way they do, even after we make our argument clear. To do so would clearly exhibit a certain level of conceit.
But to present the argument "it's just not right" and expect everyone to agree with you is simply arrogant. Explain to us why it's not right. And be open to arguments which explain "yes, it's not right, but there are reasons why we need to accept/tolerate/allow it."
Don't be closed minded based on your own sense of moral values. Ofttimes intolerance leads to much more harm than acceptance. Humankind will never, ever agree on every point. Only by allowing for a difference in opinion will we ever learn to get along, to mature as a society and to make efficient progress toward peaceful solutions.
If you're going to argue "it's just not right", back up that argument with facts, not opinion.
Comments
no but really, what are you talking about?
let's point some fingers at something specific
Favorite quote of mine from US history, "We hold these truths to be self evident." It?s such an in your face statement. It says, what you are to read are truism and we don?t need to prove it because they are self evident. You don?t have to prove them to be true. They just are. A "just not right" from the beginning of US history.
It means, in many cases, "I can find no logical reason to prevent you from exericsing your personal freedom, so I will attempt to do so based soley on my personal displesure with whatever you want to do."
<strong>In many debates there is a hearty faction of people who, when presented with facts, data and analysis supporting freedom of choice, interject with the argument "it's just not right".
What does this mean, "it's just not right"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you asking? What Choice? Abortion?
Fellowship
<strong>
What are you asking? What Choice? Abortion?
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
It applies to many things that are currently illegal at a federal, state, or local level: drugs, prostitution, stripping, sodomy, and pornography. It also applies to those that wish to censor or outright ban certain books from public schools.
<strong>
BR gets it.
It also applies to abortion, of course (and today being the anniversary of Roe v Wade this is an appropriate time for such a discussion to be revived).
And it applies to things we all support and oppose based on our individual moral judgment, such as: hunting; eating meat; working on Sunday; spanking your Children; prayer in schools; smoking; prohibition; wearing white after Labor Day; anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well first not all things need to be justified to the world at large. There is such a thing as personal preference and they shouldn't need to be explained. I mean if I think brown hair is hot and you think blond, there isn't much of a discussion.
On other issues I suspect that people often know why they believe in something, but they don't get into every detail of every organization that might support it. They also don't read every study from every viewpoint because they, like all things can be biased.
When I debate things like abortion, I mention the history of planned parenthood and most people are really surprised at the views Margaret Sanger one of the founders of PP held. They were profoundly racist and she even spoke at KKK rallies. She didn't want to help the poor, she wanted to eliminate them through eugenics. The poor she wanted most gone through abortion were blacks.
Likewise you hear talk of women controlling their bodies, but what about the men that pressure them into the sex that led to the pregnancy and then pressure them into the abortion, a medical procedure that does indeed carry risks both physical and psychological.
I think most people study issues to the degree that the feel comfortable defending them and firm in their ability to live by them. Otherwise they let well enough alone. I find this true on both sides of the political spectrum and both sides of most issues.
Nick