I could summarize the standard contemporary political system as an endless debate between sides to determine which policies will promote the most wellness for the most people. Eventually, one side obtains majority support and slow liberal progress is allowed over long periods of time. At the same time, there are some in society who are more conservative in guarding the status quo on social policies and their interpretation by political institutions. This is why political parties are so effective — they allow us to summarize our most guarded social beliefs into neat packages and pamphlets and more conveniently vote for those who check most of our mental political boxes. But how good for humanity is the endless debating and inability to progress, even if we follow the guidelines of our institutions? On the vast majority of pivotal social issues like abortion or climate change, we tend to become tribal beings unable to escape the supreme morality that we assign to our perspective. If one side believes the other is inherently wrong and that the law could only be followed if their own moral view is agreed upon, how could a conservative and liberal ever see eye to eye?
When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the conservative opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson decision that abortion is not a universal right, he also questioned other rights that the Supreme Court has supported. He is signaling his approval of further eliminating progressive social rights to conservative legal scholars and politicians across the country. How could someone profess their progressive sense of morality to someone like Thomas, who might believe that abortion as an action is inherently evil? If we debate the action of performing an abortion itself, it will likely be impossible to persuade the pro-life side. Ultimately, if one believes an action is evil, then one has no reason to shift their opinion. This is where our endless debate on morality comes from. But how can we escape the back and forth? Through ignoring debate of the action itself all together.
If you’ve taken any classes in Binghamton University’s philosophy department, the concept of utilitarianism has almost certainly appeared. In the classical sense, utilitarianism is the belief that we should measure the morality of decisions by the aggregate happiness produced by the consequences of these decisions rather than placing moral weight on the decisions themselves. A utilitarian will argue that this is a more impartial way of thinking about the morality of our actions. I’m going to argue why I believe a version of utilitarianism can help us escape never-ending debate.
Impartial measurement of the morality of consequences rather than the morality of actions can allow us to escape emotional or religious attachment to the most divisive debates today. Now, one could certainly question whether impartiality is possible. Indeed, if a pro-life advocate sees the consequence of an aborted fetus as more qualitatively important than the results of a forced birth, utilitarianism would dictate their impartial choice is to stick with their pro-life argument. But, this is where I believe we should work under two important assumptions. The first is that the consequences for the living are more important than for the unborn and the second is that our goal is to create a societal law that produces the best consequences for society, not for individuals unborn or living in individual circumstances. If we are considering the consequences for society all together and use cost-benefit analysis, I believe the costs of forced births are much higher than that of imposing a right to choose.
I will now explain more in detail about the consequences I’m talking about. Let’s say that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham gets more than just what he wants, and that Republicans in the near future win Congress and the White House and not only pass his 15-week abortion ban, but outlaw all abortion. What could be the consequences of this? Well, there might be economic harm to women who are currently in the workforce and have to leave it. There would also be harm to firms and businesses who rely upon these women to work. There might even be a large increase in maternal mortality due to black market abortion. Let’s place these on the pro-choice side of the scale.
If we measure the consequences of the pro-choice and pro-life side, it becomes evident that the highest aggregate happiness for society comes from a defense of abortion as a universal right for all human beings. This gives everyone, regardless of their view on the action of performing an abortion itself, an impartial moral reason to support the pro-choice side of the debate. If we extrapolate this strategy to other issues such as climate change, where obviously the consequences would lead us to support the maximization of cutting down all forms of pollution, we could finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
We are all biased, and we will undoubtedly be angry if the other side’s view becomes the law of the land. I am not saying that using the utilitarian approach will lead to consensus for those rational people who subjectively believe abortion is wrong. To change these minds requires a psychological analysis of partisanship and lots of media campaigns. But this provides us with an objectively moral reason to protect the right to choose while avoiding all of the subjective interpretations of rights in actions. It’s time to let objectivity save us.
Sean Reichbach is a sophomore double-majoring in economics and philosophy, politics and law.