Do the right thing

When principles conflict

This past weekend provided a supreme example of how to address conflicting moral priorities.  Democrats in the House of Representatives managed to collect enough votes to pass a historic expansion of health care in America.  But they only had a enough if they allowed an amendment that forbade the use of government subsidized insurance plans to cover abortions.

For the strong contingent of anti-choice Democrats, this was a morally desirable outcome: expanded health care, without the worry that access to abortions would become easier.

But many liberal Democrats faced an unpalatable dilemma.  Pass a health care bill, replete with abortion restirctions, or vote against the bill in defense of choice?

Although utilitarianism has taken on negative connotations in recent years, many pro-choice Demorats made a purely utilitarian calculation: they could do more good for more people by passing health care, even if it would do harm for some in addition to undermining a perceived right.

Deciding between conflicting principles is no easy task.  One way to start is by cataloging all the issues in play (note the following list applies only to pro-choice Democrats; the list for those with different principles would obviously look quite distinct):

Moral harms

  • Uninsured
  • High costs
  • People improperly dropped
  • Those unable to afford abortions

Moral goods

  • Universal coverage
  • Lower costs
  • Fairer plans
  • The right to choose

With something like 50 million uninsured, it probably felt to many pro-choice Democrats that the moral harm that would persist were the bill to fail far outweighed a relatively small encroachment against the right to choose.

But can principles ever outweigh lives?  Take torture.  Some believe torture is permissible when significant lives are at stake, but many believe torture is immoral no matter the cost.

These are tough questions, but they are the reason we need more public philosophy.  Public affairs rarely presents us with choices between right and wrong.  Too often, we are forced to choose between different evils, and compromise on the good.

-Sam

Related posts:

  1. But if the Dems lose in November, was it worth it?
  2. Democrats not public philosophizing, say critics
  3. Who should pay for health care reform?
  4. Let’s talk about rights, baby
  5. What’s best or what’s possible?

November 9, 2009 · Filed Under Obligations/Duties, Politics, Sam

Share

Comments

Leave a Reply




  • Editors

    Jacob Bronsther is a law student at NYU, a former Fulbright Scholar to Mauritius, and a graduate of Cornell University. He has an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • Sam Gill is a consultant in Washington and a graduate of the University of Chicago. He studied Political Theory at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Marc Grinberg is a Presidential Management Fellow with the U.S. government and a graduate of Princeton University. He earned an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • John Rood is the founder of Next Step Test Preparation and a graduate of Michigan State University. He has an AM in Political Theory from the University of Chicago.

  • Luke Freedman is a student at Carleton College, pursuing a double major in Philosophy and Political Science.


  • Sign up for the TPP Weekly Rewind



  •

  • Share us