Personal Views Need Not Necessarily Correspond to the Law Like Religion, morals should not be imposed upon others
By Aditya Rajagopalan ’09
News Staff Writer
After I published my article condemning the practice of abortion a few weeks ago, a number of people approached me, asking: “So you’re pro-life?” Although I was not surprised that many people associated my criticism of abortion with the pro-life factions of government, I still found it odd that so many students assumed something I never put in print: that I sought to alter abortion laws in the US. Incidentally, there was not one mention of effecting political change; my article was rather moral and personal in tone. I therefore found it strange that people thought that I sought to force my views upon others rather than simply to state my views and persuade others with an essay. Even stranger was the reaction I received when I informed those who approached me that I am pro-choice, that I believe abortion to be a necessary evil.
All these paradoxes would apparently suggest that I’m a hypocrite. In the lens through which society looks, I might very well be one: I don’t believe that my personal views should necessarily correspond to the law. Inherent, however, in my personal logic is my notion that what I personally believe need not apply to society. Just as my understanding of a subject may be valid, so may someone else’s. As long as society doesn’t prevent me from holding true to my own beliefs, I have no problem with the law.
Why, then, does this understanding of mine seem strange to all of us? Sadly, it is due to the way in which we are deluded by each other. We live in a society in which individuals seek to force their views upon others. Our society holds that anyone who doesn’t persuade by force or law is an eccentric, a person with no backbone. In our world, governmental policy is determined by the beliefs of the few, instead of accepting that a multitude of viewpoints can and should coexist. According to that line of thought, anyone who believes abortion is morally wrong must be for outlawing abortion; likewise, anyone who is pro-choice must be one who doesn’t condemn abortion.
Is it the obligation, then, of all Christians to force their religion upon others? Is the failure to force one’s religion upon another “hypocrisy”? Our society has steadfastly held that religion and state must remain separate, and that the individual has the right to choose his own religion. Individuals have the right to argue with each other about religion, but certainly cannot require religious uniformity. Why, then, are morals not similarly individual?
We often look down upon the Soviet Union for forcing political orthodoxy among all of its constituents, and for purging all members of society who strayed from governmental policy. The Soviet Union prevented individuals from disagreeing with the government and all but blocked arguments about governmental policy, forming a closed, repressive society. Americans simply could not fathom the way in which the Soviets forced political policy on their citizens, stealing the cherished right of man to argue with his peers and to decide his own political preferences. Why, then, do we not censure ourselves for dictating moral standards to each other?
Hypocrisy is, then, not the failure to force views upon others, but rather the failure to understand that an individual’s concept of higher authority, not government, determines morals.
Just as society has no right to dictate one’s religion or political standing, so it has no right to impress morals upon its members. Members of a community can undoubtedly guide, discuss, and argue about that which is right, and such discussion can only benefit everyone involved. But who has the temerity to claim that his morals must apply universally, or even hold credence among others in society? Who has the audacity to claim that no one else’s views can exist in this world, that there exists only one solution to each problem?
You may be asking, then, why I wrote my article “Abortion is Murder.” The article, of course, served as a strong attack against the practice of abortion, questioning the morality of the practice. If there was, however, no ulterior political motive behind my essay, why did I write my article? The answer is simple: I wanted to challenge each one of you to question your own morals. Ask yourself what you believe about abortion with respect to yourself, regardless of what it means for society. If, after all, morals are an individual issue, it is time for each government-of-one to determine its moral policy, and to be free from the views of neighboring governments-of-one.
Let us challenge each other’s beliefs, and argue readily about them, but not force them upon each other. Let us not be blinded by our beliefs, for morals must always be an issue that can only be determined in the Congress of one’s heart.
