Abortion and Consequentualist Modes of Thinking

Remember the argument that made Steve Levitt (“Freakomonics“) famous? Using a rigorously methodology, he held that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s. People were outraged, with “conservatives” like Steve Sailor calling it “morally repugnant”.

Let me first point out that I have no dog in this race. Having read the various exchanges a while back, Levitt seems to have the edge, but it is not a question that interests me greatly. The relevant question is what accounts for the outrage. I think it reveals the way consequentialism is wired into the way people think today. For a Catholic, Levitt’s finding should be of no relevance whatsoever. Even if abortion did lead to less crime, that does not justify the decision to legalize abortion. An intrinsically evil act cannot be defended by appeal to consequences. I think that if these “conservatives” understood this principle better– and did not use consequentialist logic to justify torture in “ticking bomb scenarios”, shooting down planes hijacked by terrorists, and using nuclear bombs on civilian centers — this little statistical study would not prove so bothersome.