Stephen is a web developer, Bahá'í, and interfaith activist in St. Paul, Minnesota. He likes to write about religion, social justice, sustainability, science, programming, &c.

• Blog
• Tech
• Articles
• Web Design
• More
• Elsewhere

poetry, prose, and other strings of words · 1993 - 2003

The Moral Society and the Moral Individual

October 31, 1995

It is the responsibility of the government to overlook social affairs, not individual ones. The government should only have the right to pass legislation infringing on the individual's right to hurt society, not the individual's right to hurt himself.

You cannot have a society without individuals, and, today, you cannot have individuals without a society (that is, for us to be Humans, not animals, we must have society).

If I were to kill some random person on the street, I would be affecting society. This is an individual human morality and a societal morality at the same time. How can we know how important this active member of society is to others? How can we know how many lives depend on her? We cannot. It is therefore socially wrong for me to kill this person. However, if a woman decides to kill her unborn child, she is making a personal decision that affects two people in the main: the mother and the unborn infant. As the baby is a living creature with a soul, it is wrong for that child to be destroyed. However, there are clearly no people, no parts of society, dependent on that child. Therefore, it is not a social decision for government to care for. It is out of the hands of the government. Now, it is in the realm of government interference to regulate the practice of abortion to insure its safety for the women involved.

If we wish to avoid abortions, then the responsibility is on the person. Social, not governmental, pressure can be placed on this woman. The pressures of reason and emotion can be equally used to show this person that abortion should not be used. The pressure of the threat of imprisonment should not.