The Politics of Abortion

I wrote a letter to the Editor of the Wheeling Sunday News- Register. They did not publish it. They might publish it next Sunday, but I wouldn't bet on it. So I will post it here. My position may seem controversial to some, so post your comments.

                                                                                                October 12, 2016

Editor:  Sunday New Register:

I recently received a flyer from West Virginians for Life that pointed to differences between the two presidential candidates on the subject of abortion. The flyer was careful to avoid telling the recipient which candidate to vote for, but it quoted Donald Trump as saying “I’m Pro-Life.”

 I think that we as voters need to look beyond the surface. If we value life at all stages, we should ask which candidate has worked the hardest for children. Also we need to ask which has worked the hardest to make sure that all women who are pregnant or may become pregnant are covered by medical insurance making the choice of child-birth more probable. Secretary Clinton would work with Congress to improve the Affordable Care Act.  Mr. Trump would sign its repeal, a move that would deprive millions of men, women, and children, of medical coverage. The loss of coverage would likely lead to a spike in the number of abortions.

            It is very easy for any politician to say “I’m Pro-Life,” but these are “just words.” Finding ways to actually promote life is very difficult and must go beyond attempts to legislate against abortion. For voters, making a decision based on a single statement can save us a lot of brain-work. However, we have the duty to try to discern how our vote can lead to the most good, or the least harm.

Richard P Mullin

Distinguishing True from False Opinions

Distinguishing True from False Opinions

An obstacle to a rational conversation on ethical issues is expressed by the often asked questions: “Can we call opinions either true or false? Aren't they just opinions?” When we want to dismiss a statement that we disagree with we often say, “That’s your opinion.” This legitimate objection calls for a brief look at the meaning of truth and falsity. The study of ethics invites the learners to think about ideas at every step and to consider whether they can accept them as true. To agree or disagree and to give reasons for a position signifies intellectual development and promotes further development. To reject ethical opinions without consideration is a sign of intellectual and moral flabbiness.

In affirming that some opinions are better than others or that some are true and others false, I do not presuppose that my opinions are necessarily the best or most true. We can each improve our view of reality only by making a life-long process of learning, and refining our opinions.  As a first step, we need to clarify what we mean by opinions. Opinions consist of beliefs that we express as statements. Statements and beliefs are true or false. When we express an opinion, we do not have absolute certainty that our opinion holds true, but we think that it does. We assume that if we knew everything that involves the particular issue, we would know that our opinion is true. But in fact, we do not know everything that we need to know, and so our opinion remains uncertain. To take an example not directly involving ethics, suppose the owners of a business think it would be a good idea to borrow money to expand their facilities. In their opinion, the expansion will increase their profits, enable them to hire more people, and improve their own lives and that of their community. The owners are implying that if they knew all of the factors that would affect their business, they would know that good business sense calls for expansion at this time. In fact, they do not know all of the factors, so their opinion might prove wrong leading to bankruptcy, harming themselves and others.

In most important areas of our lives we must act without absolute certainty. We are more likely to form true opinions when we have a rich understanding of the area with which we are dealing. For example, a medical opinion from an examining physician carries weight that the mere opinion of an uninformed person does not. And yet, the patient may want to get a “second opinion.” Therefore, developing our knowledge in areas in which we make ethical decisions holds a high priority. Much ethical misconduct results from what Robert Solomon called tunnel vision and moral myopia. We each have a pressing ethical duty to pay attention to the wide view so that we know who is affected by our decisions, and the long view, so that we see as far as possible what the long term effect of our action will be. American philosopher, John Dewey, suggested that the moral virtues ought to include “wide sympathy, keen sensitiveness, persistence in the face of the disagreeable, and balance of interests enabling us to undertake the work of analysis and decision intelligently.” These qualities help us make good decisions in ethics and in every other aspect of life.

Overcoming ethical relativism

Understanding the Good as Teleological Harmony

 I will try to show that the good is real and not merely “in the eye of the beholder,” and that our task as human beings is to nourish the good. Near the end of his life, American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 -1914), founder of pragmatism, semiotics, and much of modern logic, wrote to his friend Josiah Royce and lamented that his own logic emphasized security but was lacking in uberty. By security he meant that it provided a method of avoiding error. He invented the word “uberty” from the Latin word ubertas, which he translated as “the full-breasted richness of life.” He meant that logic should be fertile and nourishing, as a mother is to a child.

Royce agreed and worked at applying the notion of nourishment to his three ethical categories: autonomy, duty, and the good. The paradox of autonomy and duty is balanced by the cardinal virtue of loyalty, which serves as a foundation of all virtue. Royce developed a notion of the good that is rich in psychological and metaphysical insight. His idea of the good cannot be understood apart from the developmental process by which we come to know the good. For the present we can jump ahead to a description of good as harmony that overcomes evil disharmony. The good not only brings together the conflicts that we experience between autonomy and duty, but constitutes the ethical purpose of our personal life-plan and our social interactions.

Since the good, as harmony constitutes our purpose, we may call it “teleological harmony’”   Human beings have the duty to work toward the greatest possible harmony, or integration, of free autonomous individuals. Following this insight, the task of any writing or teaching on ethics must go beyond helping the reader or student avoid moral error. Ethics must also and more importantly clarify the meaning of good and develop ways to promote the good. The ethical insights of Josiah Royce can take us a long way to achieving this goal.

 Like the pragmatists, William James and Charles S. Peirce, with whom Royce was closely associated, Royce maintained that ideas are purposeful and serve as tools for handling the issues that confront us. Like James and Peirce, Royce followed the pragmatic axiom that thoughts are meaningful only if they are purposeful as plans of action. The philosophical insights called on here, and in future posts, are not limited to those of Royce. Ancient and contemporary thinkers will also be cited, but the guiding principles will be those of Royce. Royce’s ethical insights provide an eminently clear and attractive idea of the good, along with an admirably integrated approach to individual flourishing and communal responsibility.

---

---

What is ‘good?”

Writers generally define ethics as the systematic study of right and wrong human actions. This definition captures much of what constitutes ethics, but a complete definition must go further. Ethics should also study and develop ways to promote and nourish the good. An objection often heard throughout any ethics course takes the form of the question, “Who is to say what is good?” Students may ask the question seriously or cynically, but the short answer is that everyone must have his or her say. The longer answer argues that you and I can improve our ability to understand the good and to see clearly that some things are objectively better than others. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but some opinions are better, meaning truer, than others.

Ethics books and courses often present arguments for opposing sides of controversial issues and invite the students or readers to debate the two sides. Another common approach offers a menu of theories and asks the reader to speculate on how advocates of each theory would deal with the issues.  The whole enterprise of ethics may appear to be an exercise in rhetoric similar to a debate topic in which a team argues the affirmative position in the morning and the negative in the afternoon. Some will say, “Like it or not, that‘s the way it is – there are no objective truths in ethics.”

Question: Is anything good in reality or is good a matter of subjective opinion? If there is an objective good, what is it? If there is no objective good, how do we know what actions are better?

Preamble to Ethics

A preamble to Ethics

            I was going to call my blog “Beyond Right and Wrong,” but now it will just be the title of my thoughts on Ethics. This is, of course, a play on Nietzche’s “Beyond Good and Evil.”

But my purpose consists in showing how ethics must be more that winning an argument, proving that I am right and the other guy is wrong. Ethics must nourish the good, understood as integration. Much of my own writing is on American philosopher Josiah Royce (1855 – 1916) whose understanding of the good may be called “teleological harmony.” If that term discourages anyone, it simply means that our purpose is to integrate all things so as to create a greater universe of good. My thinking has been influenced mainly by Royce and his friends, the founders of Pragmatism, C. S. Peirce (1839 -1914), and William James (1842 -1910). An earlier influence on me was, and still is, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274).

Most creative thought in all of areas comes about by finding a harmony among ideas that seem to be hopelessly opposite each other, or at least so different that they do not seem to be part of a whole. But creative though unites them creating an ever larger and more integrated cosmos.

So let’s see if you and I can be a part of that process.

I will begin tomorrow putting up my thoughts on ethical issues and looking forward to yours 

The theme of my blog

Luceat Philosophia Nostra – Let our philosophy shine.

          My purpose is to share conversation about philosophy, conversations that may or may not be deep, but will always be free of jargon and accessible to anyone who is interested. I spent my career teaching philosophy to undergraduates, the vast majority of whom were not philosophy majors. I gave many conference papers and made sure that they were understandable by anyone on the audience while being of interest to those who were specialists. My chief interests are in the classical American philosophers, especially William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Josiah Royce, but I am not limited to these ideas. The reason that I want to blog is that I like to share my ideas and I love to hear what other people have to say.

I think that philosophy thrives best when it interacts with other areas such as religion and spirituality, science, beauty in nature, art, poetry, music, ecology, economics, business, public policy, sports, and personal relationships.