|
That's not how a society works. There are plenty of laws that hard code moral judgments. For example, I can't shoot someone who cuts me off in traffic (even though he would totally deserve it and I live in Texas at the moment). I may decide for myself that the value of human life is trumped by my irritation at traffic problems, but the rest of society got together and said that wasn't cool.
In other words, there is behavior society will tolerate, and behavior it won't. Some parts of it are more easily justifiable than others depending on who you are, but they are absolute (unless you are rich or famous). Abortion happens to be a popular issue at the moment because it's really only being openly debated now. I just wish it would be debated honestly.
I might also that your argument is basically relativism, and that argument should always be disregarded. One could always argue one way or the other on it and be correct, inasmuch that it's right from someone's viewpoint. It's an obvious fallout from asking "What is it about X that I ought not to Y" and seeing that for any X and infinite Y exist. Remember, it's not all relative.
If we allowed relativism to be a valid platform, how should we ever put consistent punishments on crimes? Some might argue that embezzling is just sticking it to the man and hand down a slap on the wrist, whereas others might sentence you to death for violating the noise ordinance (I would).
|