Common Sense & Common Decency
Let us consider some examples:
Scenario #1: Should we force a doctor to perform an abortion if it violates his sense of morality?
Well when we turn to common sense, we can say that a doctor who does not agree to abortion should not take a job at an abortion clinic. In addition, even the most ardent "pro-life activists" would agree that if performing an abortion is a necessary medical procedure to save the life of the mother and there is no other way, it is considered the lesser of two evils. Prominent opponents of abortions like Pope John Paul II have agreed with the "pro choice" advocates on this point.
However, if the mother is having this procedure done simply because she doesn't want the child and goes to a hospital to do this, a doctor should not be forced to violate his moral conscience and perform a life-terminating procedure that he does not agree with. There are many other medical clinics in the country that are willing to perform this unfortunate procedure and one should not force someone to violate their moral conscience and perform a procedure that is not a medical necessity and is a violation of their code of ethics. If the mother wants the doctor to respect her choice, she should in turn respect the doctor's.
Scenario #2: Should a Muslim truck driver be forced to transport alcohol if that violates his religious beliefs?
Once again, we can resolve this with common sense and common decency. Firstly, if a Muslim truck driver objects to transporting alcohol, he probably should not apply to drive for a company like Jack Daniels, Budweiser, or any other company that transports this product. Secondly, if a Muslim driver works for a company that ships alcohol along with other product, the Muslim driver may have qualms about this, but they should bear in mind that they are simply transporting the product, they are not consuming it themselves.
They should likewise bear in mind that other religious doctrines frown on their followers engaging in certain activities. Mormonism for example decrees that their followers should refrain from smoking or drinking caffeinated beverages. However, does that mean that a Mormon working at a convenience store should be exempt from selling tobacco and soda to the customers? If the Mormon owns the store, he has the right to choose what products to sell and not to sell, but if the Mormon is just an employee, then he has no say in what the store he is working at can sell. They'll simply have to agree to sell the product that is for sale and not buy it themselves. The same applies to the Muslim truck driver. If they own their own company, they have the power to decide what to ship and not ship, but if they work for another company that sells a ships a product that they are forbidden to use or consume, they'll just have to come to the understanding that simply because they have to transport a product, doesn't mean they have to consume it. They'll just have to accept that this is part of the job, or they'll have to find a different one.
Scenario #3: Is it morally acceptable for a privately owned bakery to deny making a wedding cake for a same sex couple due to their faith-based code of morality?
Now this is a very divisive issue that has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court. In this case, we should turn to common decency. Instead of making a snap judgement, it would be to the mutual benefit of both sides to simply sit down and present their case.
For instance, the engaged couple could argue that divorce is also frowned upon in many faiths, but would that give them the right to deny making a wedding cake for a two individuals who had previously gone through divorces? What if the couple was of different faiths but are marrying and that's also a violation of their faith-based teachings? Do they have have the right to deny making a wedding cake for them as well? Where would you draw the line? Why would you make an exception for some, but not others? They can also conclude that Civil Rights legislation bans discrimination and that their actions are discriminatory, and thus, illegal.
However, the owners of the bakery can offer good counter-arguments. They may argue by stating that they have no problem serving people regardless of their views, race, or gender, and they even hire a diverse number of people, including homosexuals, to work in their store, but they don't feel that they should be forced to promote a message that they don't approve of. For instance, few people in our country would criticize a bakery for refusing to bake a cake with a Nazi Flag on it, and most would not condemn a Muslim owned bakery for refusing to bake a cake with a portrait of Muhammad on it. Likewise, the bakery can also argue that they don't bake Halloween themed cakes either and refuse the orders when they're requested, but nobody sues them over this. They can likewise point out that other private bakeries are run by people who adhere to a different faith from their own, but they too refuse to make same-sex themed products for the same reasons they do. They would rightly point out that if their own bakery is forced by law to make a product conveying a message they don't agree with, then all businesses would be forced to do this, and this will be a serious infringement on their private ownership rights.
So when you see that both sides have a legitimate argument? How do you resolve it? Should we sue and counter-sue each other for years until we take it to the Supreme Court? Or can we work out a mutually acceptable compromise. For instance, the bakery will sell the couple any product they desire, as long as it does not force them to promote an idea or practice that they don't support. In addition, they can tell the couple of other locations that they can go to and receive the product that they're seeking from other businesses that have no qualms over providing the product that they desire. The couple can in return agree to these terms and accept the common sense reality that no matter how our society may change, not everybody is going to be in full agreement over this idea. Both sides can show tolerance by respecting their views without forcing one or the other to violate their personal sense of morality.
Scenario# 4: Should Company Health Insurance Policies Make Abortion Coverage Mandatory?
In this question, many pro-lifers would say "No," and many pro-choice advocates would say "Yes." However, this is something that can easily be resolved with Common Sense, and the Common Sense compromise would be "Make abortion coverage optional." People should not be forced to pay for coverage that they don't agree with and would not wish to use. Abortion is a voluntary procedure. Just as smoking is voluntary. It's not fair that health insurance companies charge extra "smoking fees" when many who have the polices do not smoke. As it stands, many companies have different health care policies that people can use and their employees are free to decide whether or not the want coverage through their company, and if they do, they are often free to chose from several different policies. Even after they chose the policy that they want, they're free to decide whether or not they want additional coverage (Ex. Accidental Death & Disability Coverage). If people want abortion coverage, insurance companies can decide on whether or not to provide optional coverage for it, but those who chose this coverage will have to accept that they will pay more because they're making their own decision to have medical coverage over an optional procedure, while those who do not desire this coverage because they have no plans of ever getting an abortion, should not be forced to pay fees for a procedure that they have no desire to receive.
Scenario #5: Should a Gay Rights Activist Face a Fine and Prison for making a painting of the Virgin Mary with a Rainbow Halo?
Those who advocate the imprisonment use the argument that the artist "offended religious feelings." However, isn't this why so many are being imprisoned under Sharia-based societies, like Pakistan? Because they "offended religious feelings?" Common sense tells you that if you enforce the imprisonment of this activist, then anything said against a faith-based idea could be considered a crime and lead to imprisonment. Therefore, free speech must be protected. This includes the freedom to criticize ideas, even with artistic satire. If there are Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other faith-based followers who believe that they have the right to express their views and beliefs without facing imprisonment, then this right has to be granted to all people, not just specified groups of people. Common sense states that Free Speech must be protected, and that this activist should not be sent to prison.
Many of other divisive issues have come up in our society, and will continue to do so. When they do, they can be often resolved without significant trouble or controversy, if we choose to use common sense and common decency to resolve the issue.
Comments
Post a Comment