Question on Ethics

[Xeyed818]

Hi, All ~

I have a point of view concerning ethics that I would like to have examined by others to see if clicks, or if I’m missing an element.

Please know that it is not my intent to start a discussion on the topics I’ll use to present the underlying argument. (Surface topics: abortion and accusations about Bill Cosby.)

The argument: Once someone has made an unchangeable decision to proceed one way over another - 20+/many years ago - it is unethical to then publically make a stand for the opposite choice.

1. When someone has an abortion (for whatever reasons) at 20 yrs. old, it is not then ethical to become a spokesperson against abortion years later. That person did not have to live with the opposite decision. Their life/finances/education, etc. were not altered by the birth and care of a child, nor the consequences of other fears at the time.

While I certainly understand how someone could regret the decision at a later time, I feel it ‘disqualifies’ that person to then turn around and become a spokesperson against abortion. Hindsight, in this case, is not a fair platform. To ‘share one’s experience of regret’ is not the same as lobbying against abortion, to me.

I speak from personal experience. Would I have had an abortion at 36? No. But would I, from an ethical standpoint, picket an abortion clinic whose services I once used? No. I feel I lost the *ethical *right to participate in that way.

1. Same with the women who have come forward with accusations about being drugged for sexual purposes. At the time of the incidents, these women chose not to come forth, for many reasons. Fear of career repercussions has been stated more than once. Past sexual history being offered up to the public, etc. Regardless, a decision not to disclose was made.

If I’m not willing to come forward and face the challenges that come with accusing another person of a crime, then okay. But I don’t get to change my mind after I’ve continued in life/career for many years, unhampered by the fallout of a public trial.

I was raped when I was 19 y.o… I took everything I could think of into consideration - at the time - and made the decision not to tell. I would consider it unethical now, many years later, to publically disgrace him - celebrity or not.

I don’t get to be ‘sorry that I didn’t tell’ - after I’ve lived a life that did not include the negative consequences (in many forms) that could have come from filing charges.

That’s the crux of the argument and I hope I’ve expressed it well enough to be understood. It isn’t about morality, to me, but ethics.

I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut anyone may have on the underlying argument.

Best to All,

Pamela

 

[Martin_Cleaso]

The ethical repugnance of immoral actions remains constant through time, The abortion remains immoral even as a person develops and even forgets about what they have done. If a person realizes at a certain point to the immorality they have the right to protest against it; The sinner is not the sin. For the other statements about Bill the issue is not whether the victims are guilty because this is would lead to false compassion for the perpetrator but rather whether the actions happened at all if they did then the perpetrator is guilty because once again immorality is constant through time.thank you for your contemplation on this ethical issue.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I don’t understand your distinction between morality and ethics. A person has every right to publicly repent of previous bad decisions. Not just the right but the responsibility. This is at the heart of Christianity.

 

[bisco1]

are we using websters definition?

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

Hello Pamela,
I would like you to think of what unethical and immoral act was done to you years ago.
You say that you were raped at 19 y.o. and chose (for many reasons) not to report it. your question (if I understand you correctly) is that once you have decided to deal with an issue in whatever way, then the resolved issues should remain that way. because to protest against the resolved issues would be unethical, (I hope that was correct).

I think what you are asking is, if this would make this person a hypocrite.
the answer is, no it doesn’t.
Take your decision to not report what happened to you when raped, would you feel un-ethical or like a hypocrite if you stopped someone else from being raped, no you wouldn’t.

Saint Maria Goretti was raped and stabbed at only 13 years of age, she died of her injuries but before she died she forgave her attacker and denounced the act as evil, she understood that, when all is said and done, he would suffer far greater than she ever did and wanted to ease his suffering for love of God, the man was not an evil man he was a weak human (As we all are at times) and evil worked on his weakness which caused the tragic events to happen. (I may have slight details in need of correcting about her life)

If you pray for your attacker you are never the weaker one, you are never a hypocrite you are love working to save all mankind for love of God. would this make you unethical?

The only reason evil triumphs is because good people do nothing. You know from your own experience that rape is wrong, for you to remain silent about it being wrong is not ethical. You made your courageous decision and you have carried that cross in life with great strength.

You have never changed your mind !!!
You thought rape was wrong before it happened and after it happened.
If someone calls you a hypocrite for that, it will be for their own benefit and has nothing to do with the truth.
The same for abortion, men and women know it is wrong before it and after it.
If someone calls you a hypocrite for that, it will be for their own benefit and has nothing to do with the truth.

We all make mistakes in life and we all deserve to be forgiven our trespasses. What makes humanity loving and charitable is to learn from our mistakes and gently correct others from the same errors.
I was beaten up badly by a large bully when I was young, a week later whilst walking home from school I saw him beating up another boy, I crossed the street and tried to stop him from doing what he was doing and received another sound beating. It would have been unethical of me to walk away and not stand up for what is right. I agree that dragging over old ground won’t change things past, but by protesting against evil acts will change things for a better future. you are not demanding that they do as you did, you are demanding that evil be stopped.

I rambled on a bit, sorry about that.
I hope this is along the lines of what you were searching for.
God bless you,
and look up St Maria Gorretti. a genuine champion.
:christmastree1:
Mary Christ Mass Pamela:hug3:.

Pete.

 

[Xeyed818]

are we using websters definition?

It wasn’t until I looked up a general definition a hour ago in reading PaulfromIowa’s query that I saw the problem with what I was saying and the definitions on the net (even Webster’s 1828 wasn’t helpful).

So, I’m gathering info that has formed my understanding, to date. Will return in a bit, as I’m finding more insights as I go.

Pamela

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I speak from personal experience. Would I have had an abortion at 36? No. But would I, from an ethical standpoint, picket an abortion clinic whose services I once used? No. I feel I lost the ethical right to participate in that way.

Saint Paul once persecuted Christians. He was present when Stephen was stoned to death, and may well have been the main instigator of the arrest and judgement, but we don’t know for sure.

He called himself the “least of the apostles”, probably for this reason.

That didn’t stop him from talking about ethical issues. But he was prepared to admit his dirty laundry. He had been wrong and said so.

You can still picket the abortion clinic, but you need to acknowledge you believe your original decision to have an abortion was wrong, and give your reasons. There have even been cases of abortionists realising their error, and trying to stop the trade.

You would also have more emphathy with women who are thinking of, or have had, an abortion.

I was raped when I was 19 y.o… I took everything I could think of into consideration - at the time - and made the decision not to tell. I would consider it unethical now, many years later, to publically disgrace him - celebrity or not.

This is different, although I wonder if the rape and the abortion were part of the same parcel.

In this case, you could damage someone’s reputation, as happened with Rolf Harris in England not so long ago. You need to make sure that he deserved it, and that he hasn’t repented in the mean time.

Unless the person in question appears to be a continuing threat to other women, you’d need to think very carefully about publicly disgracing him.

But if he seems to be continuing this sort of behaviour, then perhaps you have a duty to do so, not for revenge, but to stop him from harming others.

 

[bisco1]

i was just thinking, using this logic, could those of us who came late to Christ, not evangelize others?

 

[Bradski]

First off, I am so sorry about what happened when you were younger. As a man, I cannot have any inkling of what you went through in coming to terms with it. In fact, anything I say about it would be clumsy and inappropriate. But I don’t think that you, in coming to terms with it, have made an ethical decision.

Let me use a personal example of an ethical problem.

When (and where) I grew up, homosexualtiy was frowned upon. There were lots of derogatory remarks and jokes and snide comments about anyone I and my friends thought might have been gay.

Now I wear an older man’s clothes and I can see the faults that my younger self made. I’m older, definately more experienced in the way that the world works and, I hope, a little wiser. So I have changed my mind. And, based on many years experience, I know feel that my decison regarding people who are gay is the right one.

I would reject that someone would deny me the right to support gay rights now because when I was a teenager I didn’t know any better.

 

[CatholicSheila]

1. Same with the women who have come forward with accusations about being drugged for sexual purposes. At the time of the incidents, these women chose not to come forth, for many reasons. Fear of career repercussions has been stated more than once. Past sexual history being offered up to the public, etc. Regardless, a decision not to disclose was made.

If I’m not willing to come forward and face the challenges that come with accusing another person of a crime, then okay. But I don’t get to change my mind after I’ve continued in life/career for many years, unhampered by the fallout of a public trial.

I was raped when I was 19 y.o… I took everything I could think of into consideration - at the time - and made the decision not to tell. I would consider it unethical now, many years later, to publically disgrace him - celebrity or not.

I don’t get to be ‘sorry that I didn’t tell’ - after I’ve lived a life that did not include the negative consequences (in many forms) that could have come from filing charges

I tend to agree.

I was sexually abused as a pre-teen. I’m 32 now and I would consider it wrong for me to bring it up now and take it to the courts.

If I thought the man was a danger to any woman or child, then I’d say something. I don’t, so what right do I have to ruin his life 20 years down the line? For me, it would be a case of revenge. I don’t believe in revenge and I don’t think it would be justice. Not after so long.

I feel truly sorry for these women who feel the need to bring up crimes/sins of others done 20 -60 years ago. If it truly happened (and I have my doubts) then they need to move on. Instead they’ve held onto the victim card. If their life has been “ruined”, then they’re the ones who have ruined it. I feel sorrier for the men who face such accusations - they’re given a trial by the public and even if they’ve found not-guilty in a court of law their reputation is shattered. I wonder how they can even be given a fair trail after so long. When it comes to these accusations people automatically assume the woman is telling the truth.

 

[Xeyed818]

Saint Paul once persecuted Christians. He was present when Stephen was stoned to death, and may well have been the main instigator of the arrest and judgement, but we don’t know for sure.

He called himself the “least of the apostles”, probably for this reason.

That didn’t stop him from talking about ethical issues. But he was prepared to admit his dirty laundry. He had been wrong and said so.

You can still picket the abortion clinic, but you need to acknowledge you believe your original decision to have an abortion was wrong, and give your reasons. There have even been cases of abortionists realising their error, and trying to stop the trade.

You would also have more emphathy with women who are thinking of, or have had, an abortion.

This is different, although I wonder if the rape and the abortion were part of the same parcel.

In this case, you could damage someone’s reputation, as happened with Rolf Harris in England not so long ago. You need to make sure that he deserved it, and that he hasn’t repented in the mean time.

Unless the person in question appears to be a continuing threat to other women, you’d need to think very carefully about publicly disgracing him.

But if he seems to be continuing this sort of behaviour, then perhaps you have a duty to do so, not for revenge, but to stop him from harming others.

He (Paul) called himself the “least of the apostles”, probably for this reason.

I saw more of a connection between “least of the apostles” and Paul being a Benjamite (Phil. 3:5). Never looked at that phrase from the ‘gravity of sin’ angle (although it might also be a connection to the Benjamites?).

That didn’t stop him (Paul) from talking about ethical issues. But he was prepared to admit his dirty laundry. He had been wrong and said so.

But even Paul did not spend his time trying to ‘change Rome’, to get the laws of Christian persecution changed. He set about to change hearts through their softening by the Holy Spirit. Changing a law (outlawing abortion or limiting access) doesn’t address the ‘cause’ of underlying spiritual deficiency. Paul’s ‘platform’, upon Conversion, was not to become a zealot against killing Christians. Such, like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc. are symptoms/effects - not the cause.

If I had the courage to speak up about issues surrounding abortion, it would be to address the underlying lack of spiritual connection that caused me to have little (and then no) regard for sex outside of marriage. (That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but it is bringing me back to the way I’m currently seeing the ‘role of ethics’ in this discussion.)

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is (R)ight to do. - Potter Stewart

Without changing the meaning (I hope), I see it more clearly as:

Ethics is choosing between what one can do (legally or otherwise) - and what one may do, applying higher spiritual principles. Perhaps, ‘can’ looks down or outward; ‘may’ looks Up.

I can get on public media and air all, but Grace/moral boundaries restrains me with a ‘higher principle’ - to “cover the sins of my brother”. To me, today, there could be no other motive in ‘naming names’, long after the fact, than a motive arising from the Lower Self (although I’d certainly ‘dress it up’ to appear as a Good motive). NT is ‘higher/fuller’ than OT principles. (And, in the previous absence of God in my life, the wisdom of men offered much help.)

Had I not been spiritually blind to / clueless of such things, I would have seen that just because the ‘world’ changed with regard to ostracizing those who had sex outside of marriage (making it easier to venture into the Biblical forbidden zones), it didn’t mean that the Bible was ‘outdated’. What I know, today, is that I had no ‘Up’, to speak of - no “Higher Internal Reference”. No recognized, active Grace nor internalized adoption of Biblical teachings from religious exposure. Once the parental reins were off, it was soon apparent that I was one of the ‘Teflon kids’.

(con’t)

 

[Xeyed818]

You can still picket the abortion clinic, but you need to acknowledge you believe your original decision to have an abortion was wrong, and give your reasons. There have even been cases of abortionists realising their error, and trying to stop the trade.

Among many Christian programs, I regularly watch Fr. Frank Pavone’s, “Gospel of Life” on NRB. What strikes me about the women speaking on the program, who once had an abortion and who are now anti-abortion activists, is the perception of ‘zealousness’ (which is not helpful in any cause, to me).

“In ethics, there is a humility; moralists are usually righteous.” - John Berger

Knowing today, from my experience with AA and how effective it is to hear from those who have ‘been there’ and were shown, by Grace, the way out…the only ‘in’ I think could possibly have ‘called to me’ before the abortion would have been someone who spoke to the fears and considerations I then had - and how they were not realized, or had been transformed, in making the decision not to abort.

I offer one experiential ‘for instance’ where maybe I would have chosen otherwise if I had heard both parts:

How, as a child, you used to beat your baby dolls with a belt and, upon discovering pregnancy, those memories came to the forefront. That, coupled with the fear of abusing/killing a born child, you also began to recognize a hitherto hidden belief that your body would only produce evil.

And then tell me, from your experience * of choosing birthing over abortion* - how the fears were unfounded or a spiritual transformation occurred at the birth - so that you now have living teenage child who is mentally stable, unfettered from abuse.

What I find has a distinct ‘false ring’ is hearing: “Do as I say, not as I did.” Regret is not the same thing as remorse.

The longer I walk the spiritual path of the NT, the more I’m inclined to think that ‘regret’ has absolutely no spiritual value. Perhaps ‘regret’ is an Ego function in saying, "I regret that my desire to present a perfect image to the world has been tarnished.’ I regret that I got caught. “I regret to inform you” may really mean, “I regret that this task is part of my job description.”

When I was 18 and attending an all-girl vocational school, I had an older friend (25) who became pregnant by her fiancé. (They were due to be married in about 6 mths and massive preparations had been underway for a Catholic wedding.) Her stated (to me) main fear was that of shaming her family, as they were staunch Catholics. She had the abortion, married her finance, and went on to have four children (that I know of), all born ‘the right way’, within marriage.

The point: Do I really think she would be a ‘true’ spokesperson for those women who have the same fear of shaming their families (and selves) - when she can’t speak to living through such an experience - and coming out the other side (with or without family intact) - with gratitude that she didn’t abort?

There is simply a ‘disconnect’ there. For me, it is untenable that I would speak against abortion from a platform of saying you shouldn’t do something that I did. If I want to get on a high-horse of self-righteousness, I’d need to pick a different horse - that one is no longer eligible to run in this race.

However, I do have a strong platform for speaking to spiritual degeneracy/depravity/blindness that I once had heaps of and how my thinking and behaviors changed because of the Intervention of Grace and It’s abiding Presence in my life and studies today.

There are a lot of facets to any topic that includes references to abortion or rape (and others), but I have attempted to stay on the singular consideration of application of ethics from my personal experience.

Wisdom that is not applied to my life is useless (except to pass it on so that others may benefit. If there are ‘holes’ in the application, I’m willing to learn.

As a side note, my first experience with ethics was from my father’s practical advice, “What is said in friendship, stays in friendship - regardless of how a friendship ends.” Practicing that had always served me well, but it wasn’t until years later that I realized the it fell under ‘ethics’.

The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings.
Albert Schweitzer

Ethics is the activity of man directed to secure the inner perfection of his own personality.
Albert Schweitzer

Ethics are more important than laws.
Wynton Marsalis

An ‘ethical poem’ (to me) by Edna St. Vincent Millay

Well, I Have Lost You

Well, I have lost you; and I lost you fairly;
In my own way, and with my full consent.
Say what you will, kings in a tumbrel rarely
Went to their deaths more proud than this one went.
Some nights of apprehension and hot weeping
I will confess; but that’s permitted me;
Day dried my eyes; I was not one for keeping
Rubbed in a cage a wing that would be free.
If I had loved you less or played you slyly
I might have held you for a summer more,
But at the cost of words I value highly,
And no such summer as the one before.
Should I outlive this anguish—and men do—
I shall have only good to say of you.

 

[bisco1]

i think it’s important, in any potential sin, for those who are contemplating, from those who have committed it. otherwise, it is often perceived as preaching from those who have no idea what they are talking about. that’s why christian conversion testimony is so important.

 

[Gorgias]

Pamela & Sheila,

Just to make sure I understand your take on the morality of the situations…

Are you asserting that it’s unethical to bring charges of criminal activity, years later, even though the statute of limitations hasn’t yet expired?

Or are you asserting that, once the statute of limitations has expired for a criminal act, it’s unethical to publicize the crime? That is, not in the hopes of bringing the perp to justice, but rather, simply to smear his reputation?

Is it one of those cases that you’re making, or is it something else entirely?

Blessings,
G.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Pamela & Sheila,

Just to make sure I understand your take on the morality of the situations…

Are you asserting that it’s unethical to bring charges of criminal activity, years later, even though the statute of limitations hasn’t yet expired?

Or are you asserting that, once the statute of limitations has expired for a criminal act, it’s unethical to publicize the crime? That is, not in the hopes of bringing the perp to justice, but rather, simply to smear his reputation?

Is it one of those cases that you’re making, or is it something else entirely?

Blessings,
G.

There isn’t a statue of limitations for criminal cases of rape and sexual assault in Australia. We only have a statue of limitations against civil suits. Criminal suits are bought on behalf of the crown and “nullum tempus occurrit regi” [no time runs against the crown] is in play. Something I strongly disagree with. I simply see no reason for someone to take 20 or 30 years, sometimes longer, to report a crime. So yes, even when the statue of limitations isn’t in play I still think it can be wrong to bring charges.

I tend to think in many cases where sexual assault or rape that happened decades ago is bought up, as we’ve seen in the media lately, the main goal is to smear the accused even when it is done through a criminal case.