Human Dignity vs. Sexual Promiscuity

     It appears to me that sexual promiscuity is becoming a norm among the youth of my age. Yet, at the same time, the youth of my age have a religious zeal toward protecting what they conceptualize as human dignity (whether they are right or not). I find in their beliefs a contradiction. And this contradiction is between their promiscuous behavior and their belief in human dignity.    

     If an average Western person were to be asked whether all human beings inherently have dignity to be respected, the average person would not hesitate to agree. However, if the same person were to be asked if watching pornography or sexual hook-ups are morally tolerable, the person would again not hesitate to say that they are morally tolerable.

     But there is this obvious and glaring contradiction between these two beliefs. What part of pornography and hook-ups respect the dignity of another? The intent of pornography is sexual pleasure by spectating, and the intent of hook-ups is sexual pleasure by real human interaction. In both instances, one uses another - be it across the screen or in person - toward the end of personal satisfaction with no good for the other in sight. This is different from romantic relationship in that romantic relationships are aimed toward the good of both, not one; they are intended to be beneficial for both, not selfish. For both acts disregard the other's good out of personal pleasure, it can be said that sexual promiscuity promoted by pornography and hook-up culture cannot coincide with respecting human dignity.

     At the same time, however, one of a deviant conscience would suggest that one can still respect the dignity of another while using someone for the end of personal sexual pleasure. Then this person of a deviant conscience perhaps has no proper conceptual understanding of human dignity and/or no proper understanding of one's own thought process. Is someone who is watching porn bent on taking into consideration the good of the actors? Exploiting another's sexual attributes toward self-satisfaction can hardly be said to be taking into consideration of the other's good. Is someone who is having a one night stand bent on taking into account the welfare of one's sexual partner? These behaviors are apparent only among couples in love.

Brief Observations on the Moral Knowledge of College Students

1)When average college students are asked about how to define morality, most have conflicting views within their beliefs. This is evident in inconsistencies in ways they go about to define it. Dialogue with an average college student goes something like this:

Whatever one does that does not harm others is moral. What would you qualify as a "harm"? Physical, psychological, and emotional. So would you say that me punishing a rapist is immoral since it harms the rapist's emotions? Well... if one has already harmed someone, he deserves it. So I am to be punished after punishing the rapist? That is to say, since I have harmed the rapist emotionally, am I morally culpable to receive punishment? Well...I meant to mention that only those who harmed an innocent should be punished. But by your definition of harm, no one is innocent. We all irritate someone emotionally/psychologically or, at rare cases, physically at one point or another. Well...

Nearly all of these dialogues end fruitlessly because the answering party keeps on adding a new category until their moral system becomes unintelligible.

2)When asked about how to define morality, most answer in terms of rights. However, they cannot define what rights are. One account, which also happens to be the most popular, points to Hobbesian notion of rights - an endless pursuit for one's own good. The second most popular view reflect Millian utilitarianism, focusing on the greatest quantity of good that is pleasure among the greatest possible number of people. Another account points to Kantian notion of morality based on duty without inclination. And there are the few of those that use the word "rights" as a form of metaphysical due that is human desert.

3)But one thing is peculiar... a mind of one individual college student most likely contains the first three accounts at the same time. There is a clear conflict of moral doctrines within one's mind. One may believe the Hobbsian notion of "pursuit of happiness", a right to relentless pursuit for one's own desire. Yet he may believe in a softer approach to mankind of Mill's utilitarianism, attempting to protect others' rights. At the same time, even when it is clear that a law may not allow for individual pursuit of happiness and provide the greatest good, one may exhibit enduring sense of duty to the law, a behavior exhibited by those who appear to be holding the constitution at an equivalent value of a religious holy book. The majority of college students that seem to be religious may have the fourth view along with the others: one might hold that the rights are God given, a metaphysical desert due to all human beings.

4)Most do not know that there are inconsistencies in their moral beliefs, but most know that they do not possess the knowledge of moral absolutes. Yet they commit to moral debates they do not fully understand with emotional outbursts of near-cultish zeal (well-fitting to the stereotype of bleedin' college liberal). They make judgments not with their reason but with their emotional impulse; rather than conforming emotional reaction to their reason, they conform reason to what they feel.

5)Granted, most students do not have time to contemplate upon morals and what not. So they submit to whatever or whoever is ready to lead them (unconsciously most of the times in case of the effects of the media). As one can observe easily, what is ready to lead them are starkly different. One is of the mainstream media, primarily consisting of modernist values. One is of the antiquity, the morals of the past championed by religions.

6)But who is better off? I observe the religious few to be better off. They have a consistent system of morals with valid arguments already made out (the Catholic Church grounded upon Thomistic virtue ethics being the better example), while the former based on contemporary modernist values do not; they reflect the doctrinal conflicts mentioned in the third section. Further, most of the former have yet to realize that they do not possess beliefs without inconsistencies. But the latter subscribe to religions knowing that they are like sheep, unable to find their paths on their own: they actively search for the shepherd to guide them out of humility.

7)One might oppose the sanity of religion saying that religions "brainwash" people. To be completely fair, cults do. But not religions. Further, in accusing religions of brainwashing in a modern Western society, one must answer this question: Is a religious person exposed more to his religion or the values of modernity these days? Which is more likely to brainwash? An hour spent at church and thirty minutes of daily prayers, or hours and hours of modern pop music and television shows riddled with socially liberal values?

8)There are some of the former who recognize inconsistencies in their beliefs. But most of them do not care. Out of indifference and hubris, they subscribe to whatever they feel is right. They set out to "create" their own morals. But all one will observe is human beings fallen from their true potential, enslaved by nothing but their own desires.

Quantum Mechanics and the Existence of God

This is a short post about a question that's been bugging me for a while. It concerns the quantum observer effect made sense by the Copenhagen interpretation. A feedback is appreciated. Here's the pitch:

1) Modern physics, Copenhagen interpretation, in particular, states that particles collapse into an ordered state only if an observer observes it; particles in an infinite superposition of states collapse into a singular state, i.e. the universe we observe and live in.

2)The tests were done by human subjects based on human observations.

3) Human beings cannot predate the universe itself, neither can anything that exist (except God) in this universe.

4) It appears, then, there is a Prime Observer that exists by necessity to bring about order to an actual singular universe which we live in out of infinite possible universes.

5) Therefore, this interpretation of quantum mechanics coincides with the belief of a creator God in Christian faith.

Possible Objection: It appears that the microcosmic universe (smallest particles) becomes ordered only when it is observed. If God is omnipresent and omniscient, he observed everything already. The experiment we perceived would not have been possible. Therefore, it seems that quantum mechanics and the belief in the existence of God is incompatible.

Reply: Theologically, this can only makes sense when the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is in play. God the Father may be omniscient insofar as He is outside of time and space, since everything has played out already at the end of time; He does not need to be in this universe to be omniscient or omnipresent. Jesus and the Holy Spirit, however, may not know; as God lowered Himself in the form of Christ the Man, He may have humbled himself in his knowledge as long as He is present with us in our relative timeline. After all, according to the Holy Scripture, Jesus did not know the day of the apocalypse (Mark 13:32). This is compatible, it appears, with the belief that God has given us the freedom to bring about our own future via the freedom of will. Therefore, it appears that, in light of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, quantum mechanics and the existence of God is compatible.

Fifty Shades of Tragic Fate of Arts

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville talked of the fate of fine arts in modern mass democracy. He said that in democracy, the arts will appeal “only to the body; and they substitute the representation of motions and sensations for that of sentiments and ideas; finally, in place of the ideal they put the real” (442); the arts will become modes to nurture carnal pleasures, not the intellect or the soul. From what can be seen from modern works of art, it appears that Tocqueville was right. To show how he was right in saying that fine arts will become modes to nurture carnal pleasures, Tocqueville’s thoughts on fine arts in democracy will be explained in detail. Second, a successful modern piece of literature Fifty Shades of Grey will be used as an example and its success will be analyzed under the thoughts of Tocqueville.

          In order to explain his thoughts on fine arts in democracy, Tocqueville compared democracy with aristocracy. In aristocratic centuries, he believed that fine arts were made to indulge the few educated elites who were very difficult to satisfy; the aristocrats knew the markings of a masterpiece and those that are mediocre or subpar. The immobility of social classes in aristocracy thus renders also the standard of arts immobile at its finest point. Tocqueville observed that, to appease the clients who have very high standards with regard to works of art, the artisans in aristocracies strove to master their skills. “In aristocratic centuries, the aim of the arts is therefore to make the best possible, not the quickest or the cheapest” (439). While Tocqueville thought that the aim of arts in aristocracy is to create the best, he thought that the aim is contrary in democracy. In democracy, Tocqueville observed that the class structure is fluid and highly mobile unlike aristocracy. In the fluidity of classes, the social bond that is always present between artisans and elite aristocratic customers become nonexistent. And when the bond is absent, the need to produce the best also disappears. Also because of the fluidity of classes, one can always find a man whose fortune multiplied greatly in a short period of time and whose desires outgrew his fortune. From this, Tocqueville observed that “in democracies one always encounters a multitude of citizens whose needs are above their resources and who would willingly consent to be incompletely satisfied rather than to renounce absolutely the object of their covetousness” (440). When there is an increasing demand for mediocrity and broken social bond between elites, the artisans no longer have the incentive to produce the best; they are merely bound to the desires of their customers.

          Tocqueville did not say that artisans in democracy will not produce the best. Rather, he said that the overall quality of whatever is produced by the artisans is constricted by the desires of consumers; in democracy, the desires of consumers can range from the worst to the best, mediocre being the majority. He presupposed that the arts of the ideal are of superior quality than that of the real; the arts of the ideal seek to nurture the intellect and the soul while the arts of the real are mere carnal amusements. Now since the consumers are feeling content with arts that are of mediocre quality, they are prone to seek the real not the ideal. Out of human vanity, they reach out to understand the concepts within arts that only educated elites can grasp. And when they fail to grasp the concepts of the ideal, they resort to and demand the concepts of the real. While the educated elite desire arts that satisfy the hunger of their intellect and their soul, the uneducated social regulars desire arts that satisfy the hunger of their flesh. Tocqueville thought that the knowledge of true art remains in the minds of the aristocrats and social elites, a knowledge that is lacking in most citizens of democratic societies. 

          In modern mass democracy, it appears that very few of its citizens know how to differentiate between the arts of the ideal and the arts of the real. And it also appears that even fewer will understand the philosophical way by which the words “ideal” and “real” are used in the context Tocqueville wanted them to be used in the quote above. Tocqueville thought that, from their restless pursuit to fulfill human vanity and lack of leisure, they have came think theoretical ideas such as the ideal as “wasting their time in examining particular cases” (415). Thus the people of democratic societies are prone to look for arts that please them physically more than arts that please their intellect or their souls. To show how this is so in modern mass democracy, a book called Fifty Shades of Grey will be used. Its contents and its popularity within the society will be discussed.

          The book Fifty Shades of Grey is an erotic novel written by an author pen named E. L. James. The plot and the content of the novel will not be discussed in detail here for the sake of civility. But for the sake of the current inquiry, the most basic of its elements should be described. The book was originally meant to be a fan fiction of another book of its genre Twilight, but the author changed her mind and went on to write her original book. It is about a 21 year-old woman in a submissive sexual relationship with a wealthy 27 year-old named Christian Grey. The content of the book is riddled with corrosive immodesty and descriptions of sexual acts which many moral institutions might regard as abominations. The book focuses solely to appease the momentary carnal entertainment of its readers, not to invoke intriguing thoughts like that of novels by Jane Austen. And indeed it has entertained many. The success of the book is astounding. The erotic novel “sold more than 100 million copies worldwide” (Bosman). It has maintained over a hundred weeks on the New York Times best-seller list and is also currently undergoing a multi-million dollar motion Hollywood adaptation.  

          Fifty Shades of Grey reflects Tocqueville’s thoughts on fine arts in two ways. The first way is that it is not of fine quality. If it is to be compared in quality to that of other books of the genre, the book will turn out to be mediocre, if not below mediocre. The author’s characterization and her stylization “hew close to worn-out romance novel archetypes” (Reaves). Tocqueville observed that arts will not be made to be the best possible but to be mediocre by quickest or cheapest means in a democratic society. Like so, the book utilizes a similar process by which the precedent works of its genre, therefore the cost of mental process on the author’s part was minimal. Further, the book was originally meant to be a fan fiction of another book, therefore its concepts were quick to produce.

          The second way the book reflects Tocqueville’s ideas is that it is a work of art that is of the real, not the ideal; its prime purpose is the carnal amusement of its readers. The book’s main plot focuses on the sexual life of its main female character. Further, her sexual life is not what would be considered as normal in societal terms; it involves abusive sexual fetishes. Apart from its awkward romantic elements, the book is, in its essence, pornography. Tocqueville thought that the arts of aristocratic centuries sought the ideal whereas the arts of democracy will seek the real. And like so, the book sought after the real; in its contents, the book placed the representation of motions and sensations over sentiments and ideas.

          From what can be seen from the success of Fifty Shades of Grey, it appears that the current condition of modern democratic society also reflects Tocqueville’s thoughts on the fate of fine arts. The very fact that the people brought about its success reflects it. Tocqueville thought that artisans work to appease the taste of their clients. Whereas artisans work to produce the finest of goods to appease the social elites in aristocracy, artisans in democracy work to appease the mediocre taste of social regulars. In the case of Fifty Shades of Grey, it can be deduced, from the fact that the work is not of fine quality, that the author produced her product to appease the mediocre standard of taste of social regulars. It can also be deduced from the astounding popularity of the book that the vast majority of the current democratic society consists of social regulars, not elites; a fact Tocqueville also observed. And since the knowledge of the finest of arts is within the minds of aristocratic elites and not within the minds of social regulars, the middle class consumers are prone to invest in things that are of lower qualities. Further, from what can be seen from the success of Fifty Shades of Grey and its highly sexual content, it appears that one of the most attractive qualities within mediocre or subpar works of art is appeals to carnal desires. Tocqueville also warned that it can be “particularly dangerous for democratic peoples to indulge in general ideas blindly and beyond measure” (416). The general idea that has consumed the minds of the democratic peoples, it seems, is hedonism, a philosophical thought that places pleasure as the chief aim of human beings. This is also reflective of Tocqueville’s thoughts because hedonism is perhaps one of the most real of all philosophical schools of thought. Tocqueville considered the ideal superior over the real. It can be deduced that Tocqueville would have considered works of art that reflect hedonism are of inferior quality. The book, therefore, came to reflect Tocqueville’s thoughts because the author appealed to the people’s desire for inferior hedonistic arts.

          It can thus be concluded that the book Fifty Shades of Grey reflects Tocqueville’s thought on the fate of fine arts in democratic society because it fulfills two factors. The first factor is its contents. Tocqueville thought that the arts will appeal to the real, not the ideal, and that the vast number of them will be of mediocre quality. Fifty Shades of Grey appeals to the real and is of mediocre quality in terms of its literary style. The second factor is its massive success in the market. Tocqueville thought that the people will desire works of inferior qualities without knowing and artisans will make arts to appease the tastes of their clients in democracy. The author achieved an astounding success through Fifty Shades of Grey by appealing to the hedonistic inferior appetite of her clients. It appears that if any praise should be given to the book, it should praised on how well it reflects Tocqueville’s thoughts on the fate of fine arts.

Works Cited

Bosman, Julie. “For ‘Fifty Shades of Grey,’ More Than 100 Million Sold.” New York Times. The

          New York Times Company. 26 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Reaves, Jessica. “Fifty Shades of Retrogade,” Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune. 14 Apr. 2014.

          Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago:

          University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print.

Fifty Shades of Moral Decadence in Modern Society, more like

How We Can Know Morality is Objective

In a New York Times editorial “If It Feels Right…,” author David Brooks comments on University of Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith’s findings. Brooks summarizes that, according to the discovery of Smith and his research team, most young adults of ages 18 to 23 think morality is “something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart”, and that they tend to believe that what makes something moral is how the individual feels about the action. If this claim is true, then morality is relative, not objective. However, in this paper I argue that this notion that morality is relative is contrary to the nature of this universe, and therefore false, because it defies the rule of logic. To prove how this is so, I will provide an example of how a human being can discover morality through the faculty of reason.

This universe we are living in operates under rudimentary principles of logic. In mathematics, a numerical representation of logic, there cannot be two answers of different values to a problem. If two plus two is four, all other values within the range of infinity are wrong. It is self-evident that, if this principle is not in effect in our world, our world would not be in material form. When an action made by a subject, for example a human being, is in accordance to the logical order, then it is moral. If not, it is immoral. We humans call this logical order of actions moral principles, a guiding set of logical orders that help us to act righteously. Most of these moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason much like the way we discover different ways to do mathematics. To explain further, I will provide an example of how moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason. If we bother to withdraw ourselves from our senses and formulate an idea of an organic being, we will quickly see that organic beings are of finite nature, since finitude is one of the predicates of anything that is material. In mathematical terms, if even a little is added to a value, then it is not the said value anymore. If even a little is taken away from the value, then it is not the said value anymore. Similarly, this principle can be applied to things of finite nature, especially organic ones: if too much of emotions or nutrients are exerted or too much of them are added to organic beings, then it is fatal to them. Human beings incorporated this principle to themselves. In applying the principle to human beings, both Aristotelians and Confucians dubbed it as the Doctrine of the Mean. To provide an example, the only way a human being can maintain good health in terms of diet is to eat in moderation; one should not eat too much or too little. Further, the only way a human being can be righteous is to be angered at right things; one should be angry at unjust things while not being indifferent or going berserk. In given examples, it can be easily determined that, if one were to act excessively or deficiently, he would be breaking the Doctrine of the Mean; maintaining a mean between the excess and deficiency is the only way one can act righteously in the given examples. Thus, it can be seen that moral principles can be discovered by the faculty of human reason and that there can be no two different answers of same value when it comes to righteous actions.

Moral relativism, however, does not take moral principles into its system of morality. If one feels that an action is wrong and the other right, then, in accordance to moral relativism, what is right is how each thinks is right. Under the system of moral relativism, two or more different values can be answers to a problem. Under the system of moral relativism, one can exert anger or be indifferent at unrighteous things. The two actions can both be right depending on the thinker’s mood. It can clearly be seen that the notion that what is right and wrong is determined by how the individual feels is contrary to the nature of this universe, since, as I have established above, there can be no two different answers of same value when it comes to righteous actions.

            Moral relativism cannot be true, because it does not hold true to logical principles that are established in this universe. It is a system that allows two different answers to have a same value. It is lamentable that so many young adults do not take moral principles into account when thinking about morality and lean toward their feelings when deciding what is right and what is wrong.

picture from

Halo and the Bible

     I've recently treated myself by investing on a video game, "The Master Chief Collection" to be exact. Halo is a video game series set in the 26th century centered around the main protagonist Master Chief, also Known as John and Spartan 117. It's a series that I have been in engrossed with for a very long time. Halo:CE was one of the first video games I've played. "The Master Chief Collection" allowed me to play through all 4 titles that center around Master Chief in a chronological order. Now, the interesting part is, I've picked up on very intriguing details within the story. To show what I picked up on is the aim of this post.

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." - John 1:17

Master Chief with the AI Cortana

     The first thing I picked up on is this: John 117. Master Chief's first name is John and his Spartan code is 117. Now, the biblical verse may not look relevant. However, it seems to point at the relationship between Cortana and Master Chief. Cortana, an artificial intelligence, is in a sense literally a law - a set of codes. She (it?) always knows what to do and how to do them and Master Chief executes them flawlessly. Further, through this hint, Master Chief is placed on a position of a savior, possibly a god.

I am a monument to all your sins.

     The second thing I picked up on is this: the Flood. The Flood are parasitic race that consumes organic beings to multiply its numbers. Now here's the interesting part. The Gravemind, a sort of hive mind of all Flood, says to Master Chief: "I am a monument to all your sins". The Flood seems to point at the flood in the Old Testament.



     The third thing I picked up on is this: the Covenant. The Covenant is an alliance of sentient aliens that worship an ancient race called Forerunners. The Covenant's political structure  centers around the Prophets. The Prophets are political and also religious elites. They oversee the worship of Forerunners and the salvation of the members of the Covenant.

The Prophet of Truth (a false prophet)

     Now this salvation method offered to the Covenant by the Prophets is the activation of Halo rings. Halo rings are designed to wipe out all life forms in the galaxy to deprive the parasitic Flood of their food source. However, the Covenant Prophets misinterpret this purging process as a means to salvation. They call it the Great Journey. By providing a false means to salvation, it is adequate for them to be called False Prophets.



"And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who was in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur." - Revelation 19:20

The Didiact (the Antichrist)

     Which leads me to my fourth point. Master Chief, a good protagonist that he is, defeats the three main Prophets: Regret, Truth, and Mercy. As stated in the verse above, the downfall of false prophet is revealed. But what of the beast? The beast refers to the Antichrist. In Halo, the Antichrist is shown to be the Didact, a Forerunner villain who was imprisoned by its own race thousands of years ago. The Covenant, in the fourth installment, bows down before him and worships him. Of course, Master Chief, being a good protagonist once more, kills him. It should be noted that, Master Chief, with the aid of Cortana, literally captures him, and then the Didact is literally thrown alive into something that resembles a lake of fire.

       The fifth and final thing I noticed is the Ark. The Ark is a kind of remote control that activates all seven Halo rings. There are two things to note here. The Ark (and Halos) is designed to be habitable. It was designed to begin seeding life forms to repopulate the galaxy after the purging of the Flood is over. Now, this is parallel to Noah's Ark. The other point is that it is parallel to the story of Jericho in the Old Testament. Jericho's walls fall down after the Israelite carry the Ark of the Covenant for seven days, once per day. Although the story of Jericho does not have anything to do with the main story, but it seems that the writers of Halo just went for seven Halo rings to represent how many times the Israelite went around the city.

     It was very interesting to see how a video game incorporated so much of the bible in creating its unique world. I'm sure there are other points I've missed (there are points I have not mentioned), but it is clear that Master Chief is intended to play the role of Christ in this saga. The saga does not follow the bible to the letter, but there are many elements that cannot be neglected. In a culture riddled by anti-religious contexts, this was quite a surprise on my part.

Immorality of Abortion: Philosophical Arguments

     In our modern society poisoned by relativism and emotivism, virtues are things of distant past. People have forgotten the ways by which we should live. The people's minds are softened through material comforts and their passions. To uncloud their minds, proponents of virtue must tirelessly advocate against what moderns would call "progress". Little do they know that their notion of progress is a path back to barbarity, a path embracing carnal desires more than reason. It is a tedious work to convince those who are clouded by their passions. One of these barbaric notions on the rise is the notion that abortion is not immoral, a claim made by consequence of inadequate understanding of morality. To refute such a claim is the aim of this post.

     The lamentable feature of the current condition of moral debate in the political arena is the fact that hardly anyone can explain their moral position fully through metaphysical expositions (save for religious few with good catechismal experience). A morality of something cannot be held without a metaphysical assumption for the very concept of morality is metaphysical. There are those saying "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body" and "a man should not tell her what to do with her body" and simply be content with not substantiating them with metaphysical assumptions; statements as such are nonsensical once one digs deeper. A legitimate moral debate can only be conducted once an accountable metaphysical system is established and understood by the opponent. Otherwise, the debate merely becomes a shouting match. Thus I argue from metaphysics to a certain extent (for simplicity's sake I do not go into explaining a system). I hope to use certain metaphysical truths most rational agents hold to be self-evident to convince that abortion is immoral.

Values

1) If a thing exists, then it has values.

2) Fetus exists.

3) Fetus has values.

It should not take a master of metaphysics to understand that all things that exist, be it material or immaterial, have their own worth. For example, apples have many values: mathematical structure, the probability of it feeding organic beings, the probability of it simply being nutrition for the ground, and the probability of it producing more apple trees. Some of the fetus's values are also of physical mathematical quantity: height, width, age, etc. It is biological also in that it was life as biology defines. However, among its many values, the potentiality of life is one of them. One cannot deny that an apple has a potential to fulfill one or more of the potentialities of an apple unless he is deficient in the process of logic.  As it is with apple's potentiality, a fetus also has a potential to become a full grown human being and live as a fully grown person. Such is the order of the cosmos.

Justice

The virtue of justice is one that most human beings vaguely get through "gut-feeling". But because of our prejudicial nature, this knowledge can be at times be tainted. Emotionally, many of the pro-abortion advocates feel that abortion is in no way unjust. Perhaps they are ignorant of justice. So here I define justice clearly: Justice is giving to each what is due.

From the previous argument this follows:

1) If a thing exists, then its values are due to it.

2) Fetus exists.

3) Fetus's values are due to fetus.

From the definition of justice, this follows, coupled with two basic moral assumptions:

1) Certain values have moral significance.
2) Life is of moral significance.

1) If a thing's morally significant value is willfully removed, then is is an unjust (immoral) act.

2) A woman aborts a child, willfully removing its value of potentiality of life.

3) The act of abortion is an unjust act.

Now it is established that fetuses have potentiality of life. As justice demands, its potential must be given to it regardless of one's desire. If one violates the principle of justice and aborts the fetus, it is undeniably true that such an action is immoral. For all intents and purposes, therefore, in respecting the potentiality of life, one should treat fetuses as if they are birthed human being.

This logic is consistent with why we ought not to murder someone. A psychopathic murderer may say that he is doing no wrong for he is simply giving death which is due to all human beings eventually. Although it is true that the actuality of death is due to all living things, if something has an actuality of life, it also has the potentiality to live out longer in temporal terms. When we speak of life, we always think in terms of both present and future living state... We think murder wrong because it rids the potentiality of life  from both present and beyond a particular moment. Conversely, we think charity virtuous for it ensures the veracity of the potentiality of life. To be logically consistent, then, it is righteous to think abortion wrong.

Possible Objection
An objection would go like this: One of my desk's carbon molecule has a chance to become human, however slim the chance may be. Do I treat it as if it has a potentiality of human life? It appears absurd to think so.

I reply that "treatment" in the above objection implies actions with intent. Human emotional/intentional virtues apply only to subjects, not objects. It would be absurd for moral principles by which humans ought to abide extend further than what our inclinations are capable of. In the case of carbon molecule, an emotional inclination does not apply (insofar it does not have immediate personal benefit; take jewels for example) . Human inclination toward emotion/intent toward an object increases (animals) as objects appear more to be like a subject. For example, a gardener loves his flowers but not his dirt. And the love for his flowers is naturally less than for his own daughter. Fetus is in a way similar to a growing flower; a parent may not feel anything toward a tiny sperm cell at first, but she gets to love the cell more as it grows older to cultivate further the potentiality of life. And when it reaches a stage of life, a human being in a correct state of mind feels guilty to even think of aborting the fetus. It can thus be said that a correct emotion/intent should be posed toward fetuses, however weak the emotion/intent may be as the principle of virtues dictate.

Another objection, a rather popular one among pro-abortionists, would go like this: It is a stretch to say that fetus should be treated as if it is a fully grown human being.

I reply that such an argument is unsubstantiated and requires further explanation as to how it is a "stretch". This statement has no rational grounds on which its legitimacy can stand; it only contains subjective emotional judgment.

Reproductive Right

Many so-called "pro-choice" advocates scream that not allowing abortion violates a woman's reproductive rights. To be completely blunt, such a claim is but a babble; it's a lie told by them to justify whatever they want to be true. To them I say that what they want to be true is not the same as what is true.

In terms of justice, a society should allow certain actions, for some of them are inherently due to a human being. As far as reproductive rights go, a woman has full control of her body when engaging in a reproductive action - sex. Nobody is prohibiting a woman or forcing her from having sex, save for criminal cases.

If a woman willfully decides to partake in a reproductive act, it is just to have her take responsibility for that act, for the consequences following the act is due to her. 

Morals are how human beings are ought to act. Human beings are ought to act in accordance to the moral law, and the moral law dictates that values are given to each thing and ought to remain as such. To remove or overreach values is to be contradictory to how things ought to be, therefore immoral.

An objection can go like this: A woman ought to be in control of her body; she can do whatever she wants.

I reply that the objection is a true statement. But it is in no way an objection to immorality of abortion. Human beings, by their free will, has the capacity of ought to be in control and able to do whatever is in their power. However, the able is not ought. Take for example that I wish to "take control" of my body and eat whatever and however I desire. Would this gluttonous act me moral? Certainly not, for I failed to give myself a proper nutritional value due to me. And, as I have said before, one should not rid of fetus's value even when one is able to do so and even if it is supposedly a part of a woman's body (which is not... the semen that helped the creation of the fetus is a foreign element to a woman's body; also, a fetus extracts nutrients from a woman on its own; the woman does not give nutrients to them voluntarily). By way of the virtues, one ought not to abort.

To sum up, it can be seen how abortion is immoral/unjust in two different ways:

1) It takes away what is due to a fetus: the potentiality of life

2) It takes away what is due to a woman: the consequences of her choice entailed by her free will

    There are many more things that can be said of what's stated above. It would require a lengthy metaphysical exposition to get down to the core of it. However, I think, most of it is expanding on what is clear to us.

Sadly, this sort of argument will never enter the political arena out of the ignorance of our politicians and emotivist self that has come to pass in our modern world. People take in the false moral values of the mainstream media thoughtlessly. It is lamentable how people ignorantly argue morals when in fact they know not how to argue about morals, only shouting metaphysically unsubstantiated claims. What has mankind learned from Plato's dialogues? It has been two and a half thousand years since his passing yet those who do not know act as if they do and act as if they are better than the sages and saints of the past.