An AP reporter quotes retired Senator Jesse Helms on the subject of abortion, who writes in his memoir:
"...this is indeed another kind of holocaust, by another name... At last count, more than 40 million unborn children have been deliberately, intentionally destroyed. What word adequately defines the scope of such slaughter?"
83 years old, and Jesse Helms is still able to force his mind to fail to distinguish between the concepts of "human being" and "potential human being". I almost wish that someone would hold a gun up to a fetus and another to his living daughter, and make this guy pick a target. They could film it and call it "Jesse's Choice". It would make a great Candid Camera bit. I bet it would be almost as funny as a good crank call to an abortion clinic. (Make sure to claim that, much to your surprise, you've gone into labor.)
The religious, as well as the non-religious but duty-bound, measure their virtue by their ability to stifle their minds. Helms and his ilk got their rulebook when they were kids, so they think they don't need to think. It actually requires some thought to think your way into not thinking. After a while, though, it gets a lot easier to rationalize all the commandments you obey.
To repress questions and to act, because it is "right" not because it makes sense, is the duty-follower's version of morality. This act of self-blinding, a continuous process that occurs after someone else's version of the right has already been accepted, is like running a mental marathon and forgetting why you're running it. The duty-bound sees the undirected (or sloppily directed) exertion of his will as power or strength. He substitutes mental effort, or "hard work" without context, for the moral and the good. Instead of following logic, he follows his priests, his teachers, his parents, his government, or his forefathers.
The application of will, without reason, is mental repression. But a moral choice requires logic, which requires an active mind. It's easy to pick what's hardest. What's hard is consciously to align your actions in a noncontradictory manner. Duty is a short-cut, but "willing" your mind to follow someone else's book of rules doesn't tell you if those rules ought to be followed.
It's one thing to will yourself not to lie or kill because someone told you "thou shalt not". It's another thing to understand the need to be in touch with reality, and to understand whether it makes sense in the current context to tell the mugger your actual ATM code or to stab him in the throat with his own knife.
