WARNING: This edition of Ignited Pennings contains potentially controversial political opinion content for the purposes of establishing a point. Please read at your discrection.
Dear Reader,
The following article was originally written for a school assignment I was given; a timed TRIAC essay on the topic of the price of progress. However, I found the content I had written to be favorable, and I decided to publish it on Ignited Pennings.
Note before you read, I chose a more formal wording medthod, and the topic which I cover in the latter part speaks about a political issue, abortion, to emphasize the point I was trying to make in the paper.
If you read this, I do hope you enjoy this – I know I have enjoyed writing it.
This is The Price of Progress
The Price of Progress
and the Standards which We Judge them by
Introduction
If there’s one thing you learn when it comes to tackling the most controversial issues of today, it is that life is anything but black and white. It is a question that does not have a direct yes or no answer. It is a puzzle that does not have one set way of solving it. It is circumstantial – unpredictable. But by means of the universal tool, logic, it is then that we might apply it to our reasoning and uncover some useful principles. These principles are ones that would aid us in tackling morally ambiguous questions. But what is this logic built upon, I dared to ask? If logic is the basis upon which we must judge things, then upon what foundation is logic, true logic, built upon?
To challenge my question, I’d like to present a “morally ambiguous” question to the reader today, and it is this -- Progress often requires sacrifice; but when is that sacrifice acceptable, and when is it not?
Before we break this down, we must first eliminate ambiguity, and to eliminate ambiguity, we first must define our terms. The key terms in this question essential to its essence are “progress”, “sacrifice”, and “acceptable”. Let’s take a closer look.
Defining Terms
First of all, ‘progress’ can be defined as several things, but for the sake of simplicity, I will define progress according to the Merriam-Webster Elementary Dictionary (2019), as “to move toward a higher, better, or more advanced stage” (page 534). From the same source, (page 589), we can define “Sacrifice” as a noun. Its definition would be “to give up (something) especially for the sake of something or someone else”. Finally, we define “Acceptable” from the same source (page 5) as “worthy of being accepted” or “adequate”.
The key proposition in the question, “Progress often requires sacrifice; but when is that sacrifice acceptable, and when is it not?”, is “Progress often requires sacrifice”. This is merely a matter of:
1: Who is doing the accepting.
2: What the sacrifice is, and the circumstances surrounding it.
3: The necessity of progress itself.
If we think about it for a moment, reader, all three conditions stem from the circumstantial evidence. Today, we will examine examples of circumstantial evidence, but first we must establish a foundation; a foundation upon which to judge the circumstances.
Building a Foundation
If you are familiar with history and current events, you most likely know that one of the most hotly debated and discussed topics of today is the matter of human rights. For the sake of the original argument, I will define true human rights as rights that do not take away the rights of others. These rights are universal and do not cause someone else to work for you. These are:
1: Life
2: Liberty
3: and Property.
So, if each man and woman has the three basest rights of life, liberty and property, we must assume that these rights must come from somewhere, and that they come neither from the man who holds the rights, nor other men; for such implies that rights can be given and taken away by the finite. No, reader, logic forces us to think outside the finite to a Sovereign Infinite Creator God who is true and just; for if He created life then surely He has the right to take it away, and if He created life then He created everything that falls catalyst to life, including property and liberty. Therefore, we must accept for the sake of this article that there is a Sovereign Creator God, and He alone can give and take away the rights of men.
Now, if the above premises are true, that there is a true and just Sovereign Creator God, then it is logical to draw the inference that His word aligns with His nature. And if His word is completely true and just as He is, then we have basis to assume that we may use His word to judge the world around us. And if that is so, then we may assume that if God alone has the right to give and take rights, then His word reflects that. If the rights that God has given us align with his true and just nature, and man is not ethically able to take the rights of other men away. From this, we can deduce that:
God does not want men to take away the rights of other men, and if man attempts this, we are therefore committing sin against both God and man. We know this because we can affirm from His Word that going against God’s commands for us is referred to in the English language as “sin”.
A Deeper Dive into Definitions
With that being established, we can move on to Progress. Progress, as defined before, is to “to move toward a higher, better, or more advanced stage”.
If taking away the rights of other men is wrong, or sin, we should not sin against God and man according to God’s Word. If progress is defined as we have defined it above, then progress is not progress at all if it causes us to commit wrongdoing. Such is not forward movement, but rather backsliding; an empty delusion caused by blind ambition or man’s own selfish wants.
The primary argument from previous statements is, progress is not progress if it requires going against God’s Word. Therefore, if the sacrifice made in the name of progress goes against God’s Word, it is not acceptable. And anyone accepting such sacrifice does not align with Biblical standards and ethics, and thus is not supporting progress in its defined essence. The chain with which these three terms are linked are connected in a domino effect. Just as one broken link in a chain spoils the entire piece, so does the alignment of values and foundations presented in this issue today so greatly affect the conclusion with which we would otherwise come to.
Circumstantial Evidence
We have come to a point, Reader, where the argument has been made and presented in a fashion so which we may begin to grapple and wrestle with the issue, “if this is true, then how may this be applied practically, realistically, and properly?”
The point at which we now stand is a place for circumstantial evidence to be presented, as mentioned above. This evidence, filtered through the ethical and moral views we established above, will only apply more clarity so that we may better judge our mindset on this topic in life.
Abortion – Ethically Right or Wrong?
For our first example, we will look upon the controversial topic of abortion. For the purposes of this article, we will define abortion as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” (Merriam-Webster online dictionary; merriam-webster.com). We will define “embryo” as “the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception” (same source) and we will define “fetus” as “a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth” (same source).
This being a complex and highly debated topic, it is essential that we define our terms. However, for the sake of not straying too far from the primary thematic question, we will agree to stipulate that a baby, while it is in the womb, is fully human; therefore fully equipped with the God-given rights stated above, which are as universal and governing as the Laws of Logic. That being said, is it right for a mother to willingly undergo a surgical operation or knowingly ingest a substance that would do harm to or exterminate the baby inside her? (Granted that the mother’s own life is not in danger because of the baby in her womb.) If all the above premises are true, stipulated as true evidence, then we can logically conclude that it is not right for a mother to take the life of her unborn baby in the name of hindrance to “Progress”, whatever that may be in the mother’s life.
To compare, if the mother’s life is in mortal danger, then it is only logical that both lives should be given a fair and equal chance to be saved. In the case where this is not possible, Bryan Osborne in his book, Quick Answers to Social Issues, lays out the following argument;
“In these scenarios, the primary goal is to save both lives, as both are made in God’s image. If that’s not possible, everything should be done to save the mother’s life. If the child tragically dies during the process of saving the mother’s life, it is a heart-wrenching consequence of living in a fallen, sin-cursed world. It’s also justifiably possible that the mother could choose to risk her life to save her child’s life. Obviously, the life and health of both is preferred. Where a choice must be made, there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another, and what a powerful display of the gospel.”
Conclusion
In the end Reader, logic, in of itself, cannot always give us a black and white answer of what is right and wrong. Life is not like the such; not a straightforward question, not a polar operation, but rather an exploration of the question “what if”. In questions such as, when is it ethical to sacrifice in the name of progress, we must approach these topics with a foundation we know we can rely on, and with logical arguments based off that foundation.
Without a foundation, without a standard to judge things by, and especially without a Sovereign and just God, everything is relative. Everything becomes acceptable. There is no standard of right, and therefore there is no standard of what is wrong.
So therefore, we must establish the one true Foundation in our lives, so that we may stand firm against moral ambiguity. We make arguments based on true logic, built on the one true Sovereign God and His Word. We ought not build our worldview based on relative ethics, opinions, and situations. Instead, such as these must be tested by the Word and the logic that stems from the Word. Logic is only true when it is not relative – when it is objective. In this sense, like everything else, can only be truly objective when it is built on an objective Foundation. That, is the standard by which we must judge everything, and today’s issue at hand has only thus far advanced and proven this argument.
And thus concludes this month's edition of Ignited Pennings. I hope you find the topic discussed today thought provoking at the least, and challenging at best.
God bless you.
On FIRE for the Lord,
Victoria
P.S.
Ignited Pennings' one year anniversary is coming up next month! Right now, we're a community of 85 subscribers, and if you've been enjoying my emails, I'd really appreciate if you could foward one of your favorite emails to one or two friends; who knows! Maybe we can get to 100 before our one-year anniversary!
