This thing called choice
The Danish cartoonist said that he drew the cartoon of Mohammad, as an exercise in the right of free speech. Charlton Heston, who lobbies pro-guns in the US, said he has a loaded gun in the house because he is exercising the right, as an American citizen to have a gun.
Yet I wondered if, by the fact that we have a a right to say what we want, means we necessarily need to really exercise that right.
Many moral issues, often argue that the rights of people are taken away, because it is considered morally wrong, and the capacity of people to choose is undermined. For instance there is the debate on the prevention of the transmission of sexual diseases by abstinance, as against of other forms of prevention such as the use of condoms.
So, is it, that with things like guns, we do not allow the public sale of it, thereby taking away the right of the public? And in other issues, like the choice to have sex out of marriage, the choice is given to people, to decide for themselves? With the abortion issue, do we make abortion illegal thus also taking away the right of women to not carry their baby to term?
Where do we draw the line, between giving people the right to chose for themselves, and taking away their rights from them by taking away their universal rights to choose?
Say we based this on, the degree of harm they might cause others by their choice? In the case of the abortion issue, then this might seem a fair basis because, the law, then represents the right of an unborn child to live. It seems also fair then to ban guns, because, we are protecting potential deaths of other by these.
But it seems unfair to apply this to the case of sex outside marriage. There may not seem to be immediate harm, provided that precautions are taken, and emotional issues related to the sexual bond do not damage either person in the case of a break up.
Yet, then, we can apply the same argument to allowing guns. Guns can be allowed, on the condition that they are sold to mentally stable people, and those who would not abuse their use. Abortion can be allowed, provided that it is done where the baby born might be deformed, or the mother's situation prove to be unsuitable for a child to grow up in, say with a teenage pregnancy.
But how do we really exercise freedom to choose, and also protection against other social problems? Where do we draw the line, how can we build in all the caveats and conditions into choices and taking away of choices?
With God, he gave us what seems to be the full freedom to choose. But shouldn't he have prevented choice because for centuries and all humans, we have been affected by that one choice?
Yet I wondered if, by the fact that we have a a right to say what we want, means we necessarily need to really exercise that right.
Many moral issues, often argue that the rights of people are taken away, because it is considered morally wrong, and the capacity of people to choose is undermined. For instance there is the debate on the prevention of the transmission of sexual diseases by abstinance, as against of other forms of prevention such as the use of condoms.
So, is it, that with things like guns, we do not allow the public sale of it, thereby taking away the right of the public? And in other issues, like the choice to have sex out of marriage, the choice is given to people, to decide for themselves? With the abortion issue, do we make abortion illegal thus also taking away the right of women to not carry their baby to term?
Where do we draw the line, between giving people the right to chose for themselves, and taking away their rights from them by taking away their universal rights to choose?
Say we based this on, the degree of harm they might cause others by their choice? In the case of the abortion issue, then this might seem a fair basis because, the law, then represents the right of an unborn child to live. It seems also fair then to ban guns, because, we are protecting potential deaths of other by these.
But it seems unfair to apply this to the case of sex outside marriage. There may not seem to be immediate harm, provided that precautions are taken, and emotional issues related to the sexual bond do not damage either person in the case of a break up.
Yet, then, we can apply the same argument to allowing guns. Guns can be allowed, on the condition that they are sold to mentally stable people, and those who would not abuse their use. Abortion can be allowed, provided that it is done where the baby born might be deformed, or the mother's situation prove to be unsuitable for a child to grow up in, say with a teenage pregnancy.
But how do we really exercise freedom to choose, and also protection against other social problems? Where do we draw the line, how can we build in all the caveats and conditions into choices and taking away of choices?
With God, he gave us what seems to be the full freedom to choose. But shouldn't he have prevented choice because for centuries and all humans, we have been affected by that one choice?
Comments