Two popular rationalizations defeated

Often times, when people commit wrong acts, they do so with rationalizations. The scientist who performed vivisections on animals would say, "Animals can't feel pain, so this is morally permissible." Those who endorsed slavery in the 1800s said, "There is nothing wrong with having your children do work for you in exchange for food and clothing. If the child runs away, it is alright to find the child and return it to its home. Black people are similar to children so therefore, slavery is not wrong."

People who use these arguments are worthy of blame. Only a bad person would believe that animals weren't able to feel pain or try to use the above argument in defense of slavery. This is a person who does what he wants and attempts to fit morality into what he wants.

Two bad rationalizations I have heard often:

1. I heard this one today. This girl threw down two empty Starbucks containers onto the ground. She was with a group of friends. A guy in that group said, "It's a good thing they hire janitors. It's okay, I throw shit down a lot at work. It gives the janitors job security."

The person attempts to make littering look okay by bringing up something good (job security). Since job security has been promoted, the act in question is not wrong.

However, should I excuse murdering because it gives cops job security? It gives them people to catch. It gives judges someone to execute. It gives lawyers someone to defend. Murderers, rapists, and theives all promote job security for certain individuals. However, it is not the case that we should excuse murderers, rapists, and theives as not committing any wrongdoing. Simply because an act promotes job security does not mean it is permissible.

2. I've heard this one in the past. A person gets drunk at a party and cheats on their boyfriend or girlfriend. In response, in an attempt to justify the behavior, the person says, "Well, I was drunk. While I was drunk, I didn't have the choice but to hook up with/have sex with the person in question. Therefore, what I did was not wrong."

Often, this argument then digresses into whether one has control of their actions while they are drunk. This is, however, not relevant. There is a more fundamental mistake in the argument.

Imagine someone who drives recklessly. He follows the person in front of him too closely. One day, he is following someone too closely and the person in front of him slams on his brakes (for a legitimate reason). As a result, the person who is following too closely does not have enough time to react before he plows into the car's rear bumper. Can this person say in defense, "Well, when I was following you very closely, I didn't have enough time to react. Therefore, I am not to blame."

No he cannot.

A good driver would not follow the person in front of him that closely. A good person would have given himself some space so he would have time to react. A good person would have taken certain precautions to avoid committing a wrong act.

It is similar in the case of the person who cheated due to being intoxicated.

The same way that a good person would take precautions to the wrong act of plowing into the car in front of them, a good person would take precautions to cheating on their partner. One of these precautions would obviously include not getting extremely intoxicated at a party where one knows there will be members of the opposite sex attending. Doing this makes cheating on their partner a probable act and hence makes committing a wrong act probable. If a person fails to take these precautions, he is to blame for anything that goes wrong.

So, both arguments do not work. They are rationalizations made by wrongdoers who are attempting to escape punishment. Now that these arguments are identified, I hope that you do not make the mistake of (a) using these arguments or (b) granting them any type of soundness.

You are now a better person having read this post. =)