COMMENSAL ISSUE 91

12th January 1998 : Theo Todman to Sheila Blanchard

I liked the following comment in your recent letter :-

I’ve just noticed on page 21 of C90 a bit by Anthony Owens on abortion which rings an "I’ve been here before" bell. "If the state wants to legalise murder", he says. Murder is unlawful killing. If killing is lawful, it ain’t murder.

Maybe you could build up your remark about abortion not being "legalised murder" into an article ? Of course, I don’t fully agree with you !

I’ve approached the issue of the term "murder" having an ethical judgement embedded in it in my article in Commensal 90. I suspect it’s ambiguous as to whether it’s used in a moral or a legal sense in many contexts. Anthony Owens intends it in a moral sense and is suggesting that the law is out of tune with morality in this instance. The state can only tell us what is legal; it can’t tell us what is right. I think your assertion that "Murder is unlawful killing" ignores the moral dimension at the expense of the legal. Your equation seems suspect to me for a number of reasons. All legally-defined murders are unlawful killings, I would suspect, but not all unlawful killings are murders in the legal sense (I think there’s a distinction in law here - an unlawful killing is a lesser offence than manslaughter ?). Also, there are some morally-defined murders that are not legally-defined murders. Assassinations maybe fall into this category ? The question over abortion turns more on the status of the foetus, and what we mean by such terms as "human", "life", "body" and such-like. Shooting your neighbour’s cat is usually an illegal killing, but is not thereby murder.

Theo Todman

27th January 1998 : Sheila Blanchard to Theo Todman

Dear Theo,

I'll think about both murder and abortion. It was a bit of a shock to me to see that people were still saying the same things, hence the rather flip reaction. A lot of my writing and arguing in Mensa was in the way of campaigning for more sex education, better availability of contraception etc. and of course abortion was always part of the argument. I'm not up to date medically or statistically now. One of the biggest arguments in favour of legalising abortion was to reduce the number of deaths caused by back-street abortions; and I shouldn't think there are many of them now. It's a subject which rouses very strong passions, and I don't want to make any more enemies than I have already; which is a craven excuse I know, but I'm certainly giving the idea more consideration. Maybe I "ought" to contribute something.

I wouldn't feel Anthony Owens was making a serious moral judgement, much more likely a gut-reaction religious or sentimental one. He is presumably never likely to be faced by the actual moral dilemma himself, so how does he know what he'd do in any particular circumstances?

I must remember about the neighbour's cat ! Yes, I should have specified the killing of a human being - I'm thinking here about the assassin as well. I can't imagine any modern state where it would be legal for a citizen of another state to come and kill one of its citizens.

On the whole I think moral judgements are a matter for the individual; but the law could be seen as representing a consensus of the moral judgements of society as a whole. It would never coincide exactly as there'd nearly always be a time-lag as the attitudes in society changed, before they were translated into law.

I like the idea of trying to find a basic moral ground which would apply in all societies. If there is one, presumably it's evolved because it constitutes the best foundation for the survival and development of society. Would it be subject to being changed by environmental change like other evolution ? It's a fascinating thought.

Best wishes,

Sheila Blanchard

Sheila : I think we agreed it was OK for me to print extracts from our correspondence. The reason I mentioned the neighbours’ cat was that people disagree as to the human status of the foetus. If it’s a fully fledged human being, then killing it is morally, if not legally, murder. While not wanting to get caught up in the loop on Nazis again, killing Jews was legal in the Third Reich, but it was murder nonetheless.

I’m not so confident about my "universal system of ethics" idea. Professor Hanfling doubts whether the idea even makes sense ! The sort of idea I had in mind was, much as you suggest, a set of generalised ethical principles that evolved because they were necessary for the maintenance of any society. I was attracted to the idea because in might form a natural basis for ethics, which is otherwise left either to divine fiat or human caprice. I’ve never thought it out in detail though.

Theo Todman