The moral that dare not say moral

The economic bigwig Steven Levitt wrote in 1999 that the liberalization of abortion caused the drop in crime, because the practice is widely adopted by black women and those in the US black concentrate crime rates. As he is a very scientific scientist, no one asked for his head. Years later, in his best seller Freakonomics (2005), he de-racialized the theory and argued that “legal abortion led to a decrease in unwanted children; unwanted children commit more crimes; legalized abortion therefore led to fewer crimes”. In the year of 2019, he published another article reinforcing the correlation between the liberalization of abortion and the drop in crime. We already know what comes next: the pedant will turn up his nose and raise his little finger to the rude and ignorant crowd and say it’s Science. Science says that abortion should be legalized to reduce crime, no matter what obscurantist and ignorant religious think.

Pedants in general have a small degree, but, to repeat the most posh people possible, sees himself as the bearer of a power of attorney from Science to speak on his behalf. My disagreement (and everyone else’s) would only be explainable by my being an ignorant and obscurantist religious, although I am an atheist who studied philosophy up to a doctorate and therefore has a much better degree of rubbing in other people’s faces (although nor is a doctoral degree meaning much else, thanks above all to Minister Haddad). But precisely because I have the obligation not to be ignorant of humanities, the normative leap taken in this type of reasoning jumps out at me. The differentiation of “is and ought”, of being and ought to be, was recurrent in British philosophy since David Hume and passed to Kantian philosophy. Later, Weber would reformulate the differentiation in terms of fact and value, which are (or should be) the beabá of sociology. From pure being one does not extract an ought to be; from the fact one does not jump to the value. Halfway between one thing and another there is morality, which is not a given of nature.

Morally undesirable facts

Now, science may well establish as a fact that the liberalization of abortion is associated with the reduction of crime. Science can establish as a fact, too, that the murder of unwanted babies reduces crime. The big bang of ethics, Peter Singer, already in 600 rationally and morally endorsed the practice of infanticide in this “world that is already overpopulated and in which the regulation of fertility is universally accepted”. ”. In this case, it would be necessary to pass a law that would decriminalize infanticide, since, as a conceptual matter, the increase in infanticide would itself be an increase in crimes. Perhaps we would place armed robbery as the great evil to be fought by society. In this case, there would be a moral option for considering infanticide acceptable and armed robbery unacceptable.

A more intuitive hypothesis is that the transformation of jails into gas chambers reduces crime. It is true that some innocent people would die, but criminality (assuming the legalization of this practice) would certainly be reduced. And since in the USA criminality is associated with being black, it would be enough to lock all black people in the USA in such chambers to reduce crime. All that would be Science. But we could read these things, write “aware” and ignore them, because we consider them immoral.

Science, like all knowledge, does not exempt anyone from making moral choices. Quite the contrary: before science was sold as a panacea and clouded religions, the image of the tree of science was linked to the beginning of sin. And rightly so: only those who have freedom can be bad; only those who have some knowledge can have some freedom. Animals and robots are devoid of morality because they are devoid of that human freedom which is essentially tied to moral judgment. Men judge good and evil. To pretend that they don’t is to dream of a curious utopia that converts them into cattle or automatons.

Interested progressives

The Progressives have always tried to mask their morality (or immorality) by claiming that their scientific measures were in the interest of the target audience. The emancipation of women through work was very good for women like me, with pleasant and stimulating work, but it was even better for the capitalist who saw the supply of labor doubling. As for the bulk of the women, they had to toil in the factories to support children that they themselves cannot raise, and they have to send them to day care. It was traumatic at first, but today the idea that leaving children in a home environment causes an increase in child abuse is already natural (I’m not denying that it increases, I just think it’s necessary to speculate that maybe there was a breakdown of the home that started in the 20th century, and the fact that children cannot be sent home in the 21st century is a symptom of this.

After female emancipation came the right to birth control. As Chesterton pointed out in an article by 1926 on the subject: “At the very beginning of any discussion is the elementary fact that limiting the size of families is a good reason, not to raise wages, but to lower them” (“Social reform versus birth control”, in The Divorce Superstition). In the 20th century, we got used to the idea that trade unionists are bums and that labor legislation is a pretext for monopoly. We forget, however, that trade unionists and labor laws could only become so abusive because, especially in Chesterton’s England, they were a reaction to the palpable problem of exploitative employers. It was assumed that employers are saints and never exploit, and now we see ourselves with a lot of tycoons wanting to dictate the morality (or immorality) of their employees and customers, posing as scientific and disinterested.

After the emancipation of women and birth control came the apology of abortion as a human right. It may turn out to be a scientifically proven fact that if women abort instead of having children, they will be much richer. It remains to be seen whether society will want to guide its values ​​towards enrichment at any cost. That’s what advertising is for. US tycoons now pay for female employees to have an abortion and take a swipe at philanthropists. Now, if they want to take a wave from philanthropists, let them take a nice maternity leave.

In Chesterton’s or Dickens’ England, no boss would have the courage to pay for the castration of employees – but in the USA of tycoons progressives it’s nice to include the “gender transition” in corporate health plans.

Malthusianism and Neo-Malthusianism

The euphemism is everything it can, but it only catches the unwary. After all, isn’t it curious that “reproductive rights” only serve to prevent reproduction? Science makes it possible to give children to those who can’t have them naturally, but we don’t see billionaires posing as philanthropists for giving female employees in vitro fertilization. All this pecuniary interest also leads them to “celebrate diversity”, that is, to want to hire more homosexuals. Who are less likely to have children than heterosexuals. And if the employee decides to adhere to political lesbianism, better for the company.

The aforementioned essay by Chesterton said that Malthusianism emerged as a response by employers to the demand for higher wages. No one would dare say straight up that employees didn’t deserve to have a normal family and weren’t entitled to have as many children as their parents and grandparents. Thus, he moved from the moral sphere to the factual one: he could not have so many children because natural resources made it impossible for him to support so many children. To the question “How am I going to support my children with this salary?”, he would reply with “Shrink the family”. Not as a moral issue, but a factual one. In Chesterton’s day, the big news was that Malthusianism had returned in moral guise. There was propaganda against the home, according to which women should be aviators, navigators, etc. – everything but housewives. Liberating was having a boss instead of a husband. In 21st century parlance, we would say that they “deconstructed” the family.

As morality is something that can be adopted by others, this corporate morality is also in the State, in Canada. We read that there euthanasia was so widespread, but so widespread, that the lives of poor patients are considered unworthy. Now, when life becomes unworthy, it is human to grant the grace of euthanasia. That is why the State not only allows, but also finances, the euthanasia of those who cannot live in dignified conditions because their illnesses do not allow them to work to pay for the treatment. Here’s what Spectator tells us: “A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing program wouldn’t allow her to get better housing that wouldn’t exacerbate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman asked to die because she ‘just couldn’t get the money to go on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt made her unable to pay for treatment that would make her chronic pain tolerable. Under the current government, disabled Canadians have earned 600 financial aid dollars during Covid. University students won 5.”. This is the Canada of Justin Trudeau, an agent of the World Economic Forum. Uneconomic people die.

Fake news

Given the heinous nature of the morality they want to impose, it’s no wonder they try to blur the difference between fact and value – and, once that difference is blurred, they try to blur the difference between truth and lies, creating facts to support whatever laws they want.

Alexandre de Moraes may seem like an extravagant minister, but his tonic of controlling what is the truth is general among progressives. So much so that the hunt for fake news is claimed by entities as diverse as the former mainstream press (which now have “fact-checking agencies”), STF (which manages to mix combat at fake news with LGBT rights, all this without denying the statistics of the GGB and ANTRA) and the PT (since 2020!). Moro did not create his own platform, but, while he was in government, he advocated that the Judiciary take on this task for itself. Of the great national actors, only Bolsonaro escapes this rule.

Finally, in order not to fall into the mistakes of the last century, it remains to be stressed that the problem is not the entrepreneurs themselves. The problem is the abuse of economic power, an abuse that is only within the reach of large corporations. Which, as we have seen, has every interest in using progressivism to take small and medium-sized entrepreneurs out of competition.

Back to top button