Continuing on the theme of the importance of life, and some of the comments from Anthony Martin, I have come up with the following discussion about the idea of somehow “choosing” war casualties over abortion casualties. The idea being purported by Anthony Martin seems to be that more deaths occur via abortion than war, and because of this it is a greater evil. However:
In order for the argument of numbers to be valid syllogistically one must agree to the following arguments:
Syllogism A:
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Abortion is always murder
Conclusion: Abortion is always morally wrong
Syllogism B:
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Casualties of war are always caused by murder
Conclusion: Casualties of war are always morally wrong
Syllogism C:
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Less murder is less morally wrong than more murder
Conclusion: Casualties of war are less morally wrong than abortion
Of course Premise #2 of Syllogism C is false because it assumes that Premise #2 of Syllogism B is true (among other things), which it is not. Therefore, if we redefine Syllogism B as follows:
Syllogism B1
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Casualties of war are sometimes caused by murder
Conclusion: Some casualties of war are morally wrong
We will eventually come to the conclusion that murder committed in the name of war is morally wrong, while murder committed in the name of abortion is also morally wrong. However we will not discover that killing in the name of war is always morally wrong, or that killing in the name of abortion is ever morally right. Because of this inequality they cannot be used for strict numerical comparisons. One action is always wrong, and one action is not always wrong.
The question should not be if we would choose abortion over war or vise-versa, but rather “Is abortion equal to casualties of war from a moral perspective?” If the answer is no, then we are free to object to abortion on all fronts and to accept casualties of war in certain cases. Obviously I believe this to be the case.
I submit that the problem that the liberals are facing when they try to understand how Christians can be pro-life and pro-war at the same time is in a misunderstanding of the theology that is driving those decisions. In effect, Psalms 139, and the sixth commandment (in many cases) cannot be applied equally to a baby in the womb and a soldier in the trenches.
Hooooold on thar.
> In effect, Psalms 136, and the sixth commandment (in many cases)
> cannot be applied equally to a baby in the womb and a soldier in the
> trenches.
That’s some theology. Can you break it down a little bit? I originally said that Psalms 136 could be applied to both babies in the womb and people in the trenches, I didn’t say anything about the sixth commandment (in many cases).
And I think the lib perspective is that the just war isn’t just. They don’t break it down into syllogisms because the whole thing is unjust.
I hate devil’s advocates, but this is a subject I’m very familiar with. I know the liberal stance, and I don’t agree with it. I just know they don’t agree with the premise that this is a just war. So how can we be pro-life and pro-unjust-war? That’s their question.
Comment by — November 16, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Yes you said Psalm 139 could be applied to both, however if the application is as follows (which it is when used by a liberal theologian):
Premise #1: Killing God’s creation is always morally wrong
Premise #2: All people are made by God (Psalm 139)
Conclusion: Killing people is always morally wrong
The conclusion is false because premise #1 is also false. You did not mention the sixth commandment, but I did. It is crucial to a full understanding of this argument.
“They don’t break it down into syllogisms because the whole thing is unjust.â€Â
If they do not break it down into syllogisms (which I believe they do, although not formally), then they are not using their God-given reason, and their conclusions will be necessarily false. If they do break it down into syllogisms (which I believe they do, although not formally) they are still wrong because their logic is faulty and suffers from various fallacies.
Finally, it should be noted that all of this is pertinent only to the Christian thinker (liberal or conservative). Once someone begins to attack a Christian because of their apparent contradiction in beliefs it becomes a moot point because they do not have the theological basis to understand where we are coming from and are assuming a faulty line of reasoning similar to what I wrote in the original post only without any biblical basis at all.
Bottom line: killing via abortion and killing via war are not always synonymous. Your original post seemed to indicate that the opinion of liberal thinkers is contrary to this line of reasoning. If this was not your intention that is ok because the discussion has been fruitful and given me the opportunity to explain why the above statement is true from a theological point of view.
As to the just or un-just position of the current war, I did not notice that aspect of the argument in your first post. Either way, I will not get into the debate of the just status of our current war at this time.
Comment by — November 16, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
You’re right, that this is only pertinent to the Christian thinker, be he or she liberal or conservative. Sometimes I think I fail to realize this because I see the biblical principles as universal truths that all people intrinsically believe but don’t always admit. Yet the reality is, there are people who have broken their moral compass and don’t see these biblical principles as truth.
Comment by — December 5, 2006 @ 10:45 am
I do this often myself, but as I have said from the pulpit, we shouldn’t be surprised by the behavior of non-Christians as they are behaving just as we should expect them to. As part of free will, men are under no obligation to follow the law of God. They will pay a price for their choices, but adherence to a certain set of behaviors will not be forced upon them, nor is it forced upon the Christian for that matter.
Comment by — December 5, 2006 @ 11:03 am