It's obvious that finding answers and solutions to the moral dilemmas and arguments prevalent in today's social environment is an important task, most specifically the ones regarding the holiest of holies, a human life. These issues are relevant to everyone, every member of society and every person will, more than once, have to deal with some of the issues that fall into this category. Everyone will be faced with a decision regarding their lives or the lives of a loved one. The major point to be made is that no one goes untouched by the moral dilemmas stemming from the preservation of human life. It can be stated, rather assuredly, that most people believe that human life necessitates absolute respect.
Earlier I labeled human life, and its preservation, as the holiest of holies because of the reverence most people reserve and attribute to life. It's difficult to find solutions to problems that affect everyone in such an extreme and impactful way because of its universality. The issue is of course a universal one and the solutions deemed appropriate are specific and unique to each person. When we speak of life we are often, and rightly so, speaking in terms of our own and the preservation and sanctity of our own lives is something all would consider an issue most intimate and closest to heart. This is the reason why opinions voiced in response to these issues, when raised, are usually spoken with such conviction. When alternate viewpoints are "offered" that challenge the way our own thoughts and ideas are structured around what constitutes life, what level or threshold exists surrounding end-of-life issues, etc. it often makes us angry (or at least aggravated) because really its challenging our concept of life and the means we deem necessary to protect it. This is obvious given the veracity and intensity by which many of these specific hotbed issues are argued (such as stem-cell research, abortion, end-of-life issues, etc.).
The problem will continue to be just that, a problem, because the issue is so closely intertwined with each person's identity (as important, autonomous, and independent beings). The issue is universal in that it affects everyone equally and so everyone's voice and opinion is valid; but finding solutions, in so far as they are given from a unique, personal point of view, will certainly always yield a varied set of answers and supposed parameters for the behavior, action, and steps necessary to protect and preserve human life.
It’s really great how you’ve broken this down and exposed all the inner thoughts that come out when trying to understand the moral code. The way in which you have defined this action of defending our own personal morals by any means “necessary to protect and preserve human life,” is a perfect illustration as to why we all stand so firm on our beliefs. I think it’s interesting how these moral dilemmas become dilemmas primarily because of the complete lack of even just one definitively correct answer. Instead when we discuss these things we are simply seeking to come up with an answer or claim that satisfies our moral belief system, and in turn also lead others to agree with the claim that we have decided is an appropriate answer to our dilemma.
ReplyDelete