But I should point out that Ong stops well short of suggesting the two soul/two nature paradigm for understanding the human person that I am suggesting here.
However, even if my suggestion about two natures of the human person were to be widely adopted by Catholics and non-Catholics, we could still debate under what circumstances abortion beyond the first trimester should be allowed.
Related Reading: I have explained my basic reasoning for this suggestion in my op-ed piece published at OpEdNews.com on November 22, 2009, titled "The Bishops' Views on Contraception and Abortion in the First Trimester Are Ridiculous," so I will not repeat my reasoning in its entirety here. To avoid certain possible misunderstandings, I would also like to call attention to another op-ed piece that I published at OpEdNews.com on December 1, 2009, titled "Dawkins' Atheism Is OK, But So Is Theism."
James H. Fetzer and Deontological Moral Theory
But apart from natural-law theory, there are other philosophic ways to think about sexual morality for example, by drawing on deontological moral theory as James H. Fetzer does in his fine chapter on abortion in the first trimester in his book RENDER UNTO DARWIN: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S CRUSADE AGAINST SCIENCE (Open Court, 2007, pages 95-120). (Disclosure: Fetzer and I are both retired faculty members from the University of Minnesota Duluth.)
Fetzer is an agnostic philosopher who does not come from a Roman Catholic background. Nevertheless, the moral theory with which he works allows him to claim that as a moral standard, morally acceptable actions are actions that we are logically entitled to accept. Conversely, "[a]ctions based upon beliefs [that] we are not morally entitled to hold" because we are not logically entitled to hold them "are themselves immoral" (page 102).
Fetzer then points out that "[t]his principle harmonizes with the Roman Catholic conception of natural law, according to which we must exercise our reason to discover what God would have us do, which in turn emanates from the classic question, "Is an action right because God wills it or does God will it because it is right?' There appears to be general agreement that the former alternative both denies the goodness of God and trivializes morality. Hence, we must exercise our reason to discover what is right in order to know what God would have us do. Here we are exercising our reason in order to know what is right, apart from any commitment to God at all [because Fetzer is an agnostic]" (page 102).
In effect, Fetzer has used the resources of deontological moral theory to work out a way of thinking about sexual morality. As a result, his broad claims show us just how important the conflict is between the nine Catholic bishops and the two Creighton theologians. In other words, the conflict about natural-law theory comes down to trying to figure out how to best exercise our reason to discover what are defensible positions regarding sexual morality. But as we have noted above, reasonable people can reasonably disagree about such claims, as the nine bishops and the two moral theologians disagree.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
