Tea at Trianon: A False Dilemma

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Saturday, March 16, 2024

A False Dilemma

From Controversiam:

Mr. Tomlinson claims that he “has never had an honest response from people opposed to abortion”, indicating that pro-lifers dishonestly say they would save the embryos—since to say otherwise would falsify their belief in the inherent value of the unborn. Their pro-life position commits them (allegedly) to saving the embryos over the child and they pretend that doing so is the right choice, even though they know it isn’t.

If Mr. Tomlinson’s claim is true, perhaps it is because he has only spoken with pro-lifers who do not know their position or how to think on their feet. For, as an attack against the pro-life position or argument for abortion, his objection fails miserably.

First, his thought experiment is a red herring. The scenario bears no semblance to abortion and therefore implies nothing about the moral justification thereof. In the scenario, you are forced to choose whom to save, not whom to kill, whereas abortion just is the deliberate, unforced killing of an unborn child. For the sake of argument, suppose that life does not begin at conception, or that embryos do not merit the same treatment or care as born children. What follows from that? It certainly does not follow that life begins after birth or that abortion is morally justified! Abortion may still be wrong even if life begins after conception. The scenario is mere smoke and mirrors. To justify when it is permissible to kill, the pro-abortionist still needs, at the very least, to specify when personhood begins.

Second, Mr. Tomlinson relies on a false assumption, namely, that when forced to choose between two alternatives, the chosen option reflects what you value the most. This assumption undergirds his charge of inconsistency; it is why he thinks pro-lifers are committed to saving the embryo over the child. But it has the unfortunate property of being false. Choices between competing goods, such as which person to save when you cannot save everyone, must involve considerations beyond the intrinsic value of human life. Consequently, choosing the child does not by itself indicate that it has more inherent value than the unchosen embryos. (Read more.)