This being Sunday, something said in comments recently set me to thinking about the secular/religious divide in our public square:
I have particular and personal issues with some in the evangelical movement. I just think that religion has no place in politics. For example, there are plenty of priests who will tell me about sex and abortion and their invocations will have no effect on my vote. Does not mean they should stop trying to persuade me-they just need to do it during the homily not via campaign events.
Nearly everyone has some notion of personal and public morality. Most of these notions may be broadly shared within a culture, but by no means universally so. In our private character we distinguish between those who act within the letter of the law but contrary to the good of others by labeling them unkind or even unethical. They may not be breaking any actual law – but they are not “nice people” and polite society will shun them.
In the public realm our common view on morality, however – what is the best way to live together – is enshrined in law. A man might believe that there is no greater good than his own personal desires, and these we label “sociopaths” although their belief system is both tightly rational and internally consistent. But more of us – many more – believe in the benefits of an ordered society which provides for each individual’s security in both person and property. We are willing to cede portions of our personal freedom in favor of general restrictions applying to each of us. Thus, the claimed right of the few to point guns at people in order to make them deliver up property is circumscribed by the right of the rest of us not to have guns pointed at us nor see our property unjustly taken.
The sociopath would be permitted to deliver his argument if he should choose to and we might listen with varying degrees of politeness. But should he, having failed to persuade of us of the merits of his convictions, act upon them, we – having wisely set aside a portion of our wages in tithe to a general security fund – will appoint agents to seize him up, try him and stuff him out of the public way.
We make these moral choices in various ways. The sociopath defines morality as what is best for him. The secularist (and I define such as including both those who doubt or deny the existence of any supernatural power and those who admit to such, but deny that He has a defining role in our public commons) may define morality as “the greater good” – a term fraught with potential consequence for definable minorities. The person of faith uses the received wisdom of sacred texts combined with experience and – hopefully – reason to help him define what a good life is, personal and public, and how it ought to be lived.
Of course, as we move through these philosophies of existence from sociopath, to secularist, to faith based, we find that they are increasingly restrictive of our personal liberties. A sociopath might make choices in the name of his personal freedom of action that the secular multitudes might find offensive. Similarly, the secularist might believe in certain freedoms that the person of faith finds obnoxious. Follow these things all the way to the end and somewhere along the line we find ourselves throwing burkhas over our wives and strangling our wayward daughters. This process of defining the common morality is a constantly shifting river of thought and conscience with thousands of contributing streams.
Our Constitution tells us how we make laws – and importantly, how we may not. But it is largely silent on why we might choose to. One stream of thought might dictate that we decide these things scientifically, that our judgments on right and wrong should be founded upon only those things which can be observed or proven. But that’s a hole with practically no bottom. There’s no scientific reason why mentally disabled children should not be euthanized at birth, just as there is no scientific reason a grief-stricken parent should not be allowed to clone her dead child back to life. But these things – currently – run against our commonly shared values, we recoil from them. In the former case because we choose to believe that all people are equal under the law even though our daily observations of mankind in all of its variety proves that in reality (i.e., outside the legal aegis) this is manifestly untrue. In the latter case for reasons we have difficulty enunciating. We cannot prove either position to be objectively wrong. We just know that they are, and it has something to do with a general sense that each living person is somehow special. One might almost say, “sacred.”
This of course becomes the nub of all the culture wars. What does it mean to be a living person? What do we mean by sacred? And as we constantly weave the tapestry of our public life, the question becomes, where do we draw the line? How do we decide who gets to speak, and who must remain silent?
The answer of course, is that we do not. In a democracy, everyone gets a turn at the podium.
Say that a cult arises believing in the existence of an all-powerful deity called Cherry Blaster, and that Cherry Blaster demands of his adherents a thrice-daily regimen of asparagus tips. Blasterers believe that a general adherence to their dietary regimen would be a public good in its own right and may have the salutary side benefit of bringing more people to Cherry Blaster. Being clever beasts, and aware of the Constitutional proscription against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, they decide to pitch their legislation based on the medical benefits of asparagus.
They have a perfect right to ask such legislation of us, even if we – having perhaps read the evidence of Cherry Blaster’s existence and found it unpersuasive (or perhaps we simply do not particularly care for asparagus tips, or resent being compelled to eat them) – have a perfect right to disagree with them. If sufficient numbers of us do so their bill does not become law. But we do not, would not ever, have a prior right to restrain them from enunciating their most cherished beliefs nor from asking that the general morality conform to them. That would be to substitute our own sense of morality for theirs even as we accuse them of attempting the same crime.
This cultural (and kenetic) war that we’re engaged in is one reason that I have said since 9-11 that this fight we are in right now is not a fight against a limited number of crazies that have a sick view of Islam. This is a religious war, and a war of ideology. It’s a fight to decide whether we will continue our lives in this country as they have been since it’s founding — valuing liberty, or whether we will throw burkhas over our wives, outlaw alcohol, and enslave or even kill those who choose to not go along with Sharia law.
I think the key to winning is doing exactly what we’re doing right now; showing those that have lived under this kind of tyranny that there’s a better way, and eliminating those that choose to force their way on us after we’ve roundly rejected their way of living.
Jim C
Lex, you can really pick them, both religion AND politics. I only present a different view and NOT try to impose it. This is my view. As I look at faith, it has a place, for me, an important one. As I look at a “House of Worship”, I see a strange relationship or comparison between the pulpit and a member of the U.S. Military in uniform. Both the member of the Military and the leader of worship voluntarily take upon themselves a code of discipline on their behavior. In my view, a house of worship, during their services, should not be a place for politics, public or private. The house of worship should not be used for any type of political event. The reason is this, it would be a great source of confusion for everyone, the members of the particular house of worship and the members of the general public. When we find structures and individual leaders of worship being used in a dual-use mode, it raises questions about the honesty of the individuals involved. Think about houses of worship, hospitals or other charitable non-governmental agencies used for military purposes. What do we think? It has the same impact as seeing a house of worship, hospital or a school used as a military point of attack or storage for a weapons cache.
Lex, thanks, for the opportunity. I don’t expect agreement with everybody. What do the rest of you think?
As always,
“Grumpy”
There’s no scientific reason why mentally disabled children should not be euthanized at birth,
On the contrary, it’s entirely possible to develop a science-based reason for this. Humans are tribal animals. Any action that strengthens the Tribe is a good thing. Well, not exactly. Any action that strengthens the concept of the Tribe is a good thing. Spending resources on caring for the sick, the old, the disabled is a good thing because it makes people believe the Tribe will be there for them when/if they become old, sick, or disabled.
Note, however, that the only way to tell what actions strengthen (or weaken) the Tribe is to examine their results.
But we do not, would not ever, have a prior right to restrain them from enunciating their most cherished beliefs nor from asking that the general morality conform to them.
We don’t? Suppose it’s obvious that implementing their most cherished beliefs will be enormously and immediately detrimental to the Tribe? Suppose their beliefs call for, oh, let’s say the outlawing of interracial marriages, and execution of all multi-racial children?
re: Any action that strengthens the concept of the Tribe is a good thing. Spending resources on caring for the sick, the old, the disabled is a good thing because it makes people believe the Tribe will be there for them when/if they become old, sick, or disabled.
You could as easily argue – I do not – that disabled babies would be a lifelong drag on the tribes resources, much as the Spartans “rejected” infants who were not perfect specimens. Scientifically, you’d be on solid ground. It wasn’t so very long ago that public health workers caused disabled adults to be eugenically sterilized. Indeed, the entire field of eugenics was debunked more on moral grounds than scientific ones. And it might be making a comeback.
re: Suppose it’s obvious that implementing their most cherished beliefs will be enormously and immediately detrimental to the Tribe?
Ah, but now you’re talking about implementation – in a democracy, mind – rather than audience: Two entirely different things.
Not all opinions are equal, yet we fight to preserve the right of each individual – and therefore, groups of individuals – to express them. The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not less.
All true. If tomorrow the majority decided that it was obscene for women to show their hair in public, we’d have to cover it up just as the Saudis do.
US citizens can’t smoke in public places today, but back when my father flew fighters he smoked not only in all public buildings but the briefing rooms, and even in the cockpit. He started smoking at the age of 10, without any ado from concerned grown-ups.
All true. If tomorrow the majority decided that it was obscene for women to show their hair in public, we’d have to cover it up just as the Saudis do.
US citizens can’t smoke in public places today, but back when my father flew fighters he smoked not only in all public buildings but the briefing rooms, and even in the cockpit. He started smoking at the age of 10, without any ado from either concerned grown-ups or the law.
Wolfwalker, it is interesting, your concept of “Tribes.” You talk about “Tribal Strengthening” and about spending money and caring for the old, sick and disabled. There is an experiential tribal wisdom, not usually discovered by the able bodied and young, to the “Tribal Knowledge-Base.” Many times, these people bring this wisdom to the table.
As I read your comment, I see a coming National debate. We need to get back to the fact we are a Nation of LAW. The LAW protects the religion only as it complies with the LAW. The problem here is we have two things, BELIEFS and ACTIONS. You can not be judged for your beliefs, BUT you can be judged for your actions. Don’t forget, ACTIONS include both the things you do and the things you don’t do. One thing, it is a good idea to limit your belief structure.
As I look at your last paragraph, I have this sense you are either and old fool like myself or are into military history. This last paragraph sounds like Nazi Germany.
Grumpy
There was something in that last paragraph that stuck in my craw a bit, and I think Liz helped point me in the right direction as to what it was. Simply put, in theory anyway we aren’t supposed to be a democracy. We’re supposed to be a republic. Of course, the reality of the situation is, as you and her both ably put it, whatever the majority wants, the majority gets. This stands on the head the notion that you hint at earlier, that the Constitution acts more as a check on what we can do, that instead of listing what powers the government can’t do and implying that it can do anything else, it lists what the government can do, and implies that it can’t do anything else.
But Social Security, the Department of Education, and a ban on trans fats later, and I think it’s clear where the country stands now.
Lex,
Suddenly, you have way too much time on your hands.
You could as easily argue – I do not – that disabled babies would be a lifelong drag on the tribes resources, much as the Spartans “rejected” infants who were not perfect specimens.
But Lex, that’s not a science-based argument. It’s an economics-based argument: the Tribe you’re picturing lacks the economic base to care for all, and so it must ration its material resources to those who can contribute in material ways. In a resource-rich culture, that argument does not apply.
Eugenics is a distortion of science created by humans with a distorted, prejudiced view of reality. Yes, originally it was defeated more on moral grounds, but we’ve learned a lot about science in general, and biology and evolution in particular, since then. In particular, we’ve learned that the evolutionary dynamic for strongly social animals such as humans, chimpanzees, lions, etc.. is far more subtle and complex than any eugenicist ever dreamed.
Grumpy, I’m an amateur military historian. However, I wasn’t particularly thinking of the Nazis when I wrote that last paragraph. The “racial purity” argument is a trademark of many extremist groups, and it happens to be one I find especially sickening. I was reaching for the clearest example of an obviously evil and stupid belief I could find, and that’s what came to mind.
But Wolfwalker, resources are always constrained. The degree of scarcity is relative. Economics may be a “dismal science,” but it’s a science nonetheless. Resources we dedicate towards the support of inherently unproductive members of society are resources that cannot be dedicated elsewhere, and they are furthermore resources with a negative return on investment – at least on any objective scale. The decision to do so is inherently a moral one, and it cannot be justified on a scientific basis. We do so because it is the right thing to do.
Why do I think of Mr. Rico’s “Men are not potatoes” argument at this point?
And how can that be so persuasive in the secular setting postulated by Heinlein in that argument and still fit the post?
This, for those not as up to speed on Heinlein as they ought to be.
Lex, your link in your comment about the ‘possible comeback’ of eugenics doesn’t seem to work. Could you, would you, please?
Should be fixed, scroll to the bottom.
Here is a simple heirarchy that works for me.
Physical, Mental, Spiritual.
Man has a body.
Man has a mind.
Man is a spirit (soul if the word is more comfortable to you).
Minds and bodies are unique and different. All souls are equal in the eye of God.
Kinda handles the equality/inequality bit rather neatly. I don’t think he ever expressed it this way, but I doubt RAH would disagree.
Lex,
Resources we dedicate towards the support of inherently unproductive members of society are resources that cannot be dedicated elsewhere, and they are furthermore resources with a negative return on investment – at least on any objective scale.
And yet, we still do it.
The decision to do so is inherently a moral one, and it cannot be justified on a scientific basis. We do so because it is the right thing to do.
Why is it the right thing to do? Who first decided that, and what reasoning did they use to support it? That first decider must have had some reason, after all. They didn’t have established morality to rely on yet.
I admit I’m coming at this argument from what will probably seem a peculiar-to-the-point-of nuts position: besides being an amateur historian, I’m also an amateur biologist, specialty evolutionary theory. I am firmly convinced that there is such a thing as morality, while at the same time I am firmly convinced the only morals that have any validity are the ones that have a basis in our evolutionary history. Moral systems that cooperate and correlate with our evolutionary background are valid; moral systems that don’t, aren’t. I think that if a moral idea or rule turns up multiple times in multiple cultures throughout history, then there’s got to be an evolution-based reason for that. A simple example of this is the treatment of the traitor-for-greed — the person, like John Walker, who betrays his Tribe for money. As far as I know, every culture in recorded history has condemned such behavior. Why? Because treason-for-greed is the worst possible attack on the Tribe.
From my knowledge of palaeontology I draw another factoid that’s relevant. The La Brea Tar Pits contain a huge collection of fossil bones, including thousands of bones from the top predator Smilodon, better known as the sabertooth tiger. There are Smilodon specimens in the Tar Pits collections with horrific injuries — agonizing injuries, crippling injuries, injuries that must have rendered the animal unable to walk, much less hunt. Yet these injuries are old and healed. How does a crippled predator live long enough to heal? Only one way: another animal must have been bringing it food. Caring for an injured fellow? No modern species shows that kind of social behavior except one: humans. Sabertooth cats were not self-aware, were not intelligent, had no moral sense. Yet here they are showing “moral” behavior.
I see only one conclusion. The behavior of caring for crippled, disabled, or sick fellows is not an outgrowth of human morality. If anything it’s the other way around: human morality is a conscious attempt to justify and explain what our subconscious instincts tell us to do. We are moral creatures because we evolved to be moral creatures — because moral behavior strengthens the Tribe.
Which conclusion, incidentally, is why I also reject the multiculturalists’ beliefs about moral relativism. If morality has an evolutionary basis, then there are reliable, objective moral absolutes. Any moral rule that supports those absolutes is objectively, scientifically right. And any moral rule which breaks those absolutes is objectively, scientifically wrong.
Separate comment because the previous one was already too long
Lex, you wrote: The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not less.
Under most circumstances, I agree. However, there are a few ideas that I find so utterly obscene that even permitting them to be advocated publicly, by anyone, can cause far more damage than suppressing such speech ever could. I’ll readily agree that deciding which ideas are beyond the pale is the mother and father of all slippery slopes — but if the discussion is led by competent, wise individuals who know how to say “this far and no further,” then the risk is at least manageable.
I’ll readily agree that deciding which ideas are beyond the pale is the mother and father of all slippery slopes — but if the discussion is led by competent, wise individuals who know how to say “this far and no further,” then the risk is at least manageable.
“wise individuals”? WHICH wise individuals? Wise in what way? Who’s to say they are wise? I may consider my father to be the wisest person on the planet but someone else may look at him, see that the man never finished college, and dismiss him as a bumbling idiot. What criteria are we using to determine “wisdom”? And who gets to decide upon that criteria? And who gets to decide who gets to decide upon the criteria?
See where I’m going?
Lex ~ forgive me for possibly being dense but may I ask what the point of your post was? And by that, I don’t mean “why did you bother posting” but rather what, exactly, was the question?
Was it morality and how we, as humans, come to decide what is moral and what is immoral? Or was it whether eugenics has any kind of moral basis (and, then, WHO gets to decide whether it has moral basis?)? Or was it a discussion of the first amendment? Somewhere along the line, my brain tangled all three of these up.
HFS, it was just that comment that I quoted that got me to thinking. It is too convenient for us – all of us, collectively – to decide that those we disagree with have no right to a voice in the debate. Makes life so much simpler.
Wolfwalker may be right, community behavior that becomes custom, and eventually public morality may have an evolutionary advantage – in fact, it probably does. But human evolution did not stop when tribes became cities, countries, civilization. In fact, you could argue that was when it really became exciting, since the opportunity for interaction with Others became so much greater.
A brilliant but reticent occasional reader of my acquaintance adds this via email:
Which I thought was a fun read.
Interesting, Lex.
The most fascinating animal study I ever read was conducted a few years ago. Monkeys were given tokens to buy food with. They were given one of two types of food, one a favorite and the other less favored. The monkeys who received the unfavored food for the same price seemed to know they were being cheated. Some even stopped accepting any food at all, stopped participating in the experiment. Which would seem to go against the mere ’survival-as-highest-goal’ grain. Even animals have a concept of fair play.
I’m not sure I agree with your friend above on empathy, myself. Perhaps it has never been scientifically proven that animals have empathy, but any dog owner will tell you that dog will walk through fire to save a family member, in particularly the most vulnerable family members (children) and I don’t believe they do so just to keep their meal ticket (since there won’t be any meals if they don’t live to see ‘em).
Sorry for the long post, but there is another point that hasn’t been made and I think it should be. There are proven, direct health benefits for altruism. http://www2.nysun.com/opinion/why-giving-makes-you-happy/68700/
People who give are happier, happier people are healthier and live longer, more productive lives. For individuals and society overall, the benefits are pretty clear. Societies who ‘eat their own’ are toxic and don’t tend to last.
We experience examples on the micro-level all of the time. Think about the difference between sitting in traffic bumper to bumper with people honking, yelling, flipping the finger and going through a car-ride in the country for the same duration. At the end of the first trip (if you’re normal) your blood pressure is up, your day has started off badly and often just precipitates from there. After the country ride, you’re feeling refreshed and happy. Even though nothing different has happened to you physically, the mental impact is huge. Those type of experiences build on themselves and exhaust one physically (it’s why people quit lucrative jobs and need vacations). It’s called ‘quality of life’ but really, underneath it all it has a moral basis (or alternately, the ‘moral’ life has a physical, aka survival, basis).
Been out of town, so am late to the discussion. And an interesting discussion it is. Probably above my IQ level, but I’ve given a thought or two to such matters.
Our ancestors were for at least 100,000 years hunter-gatherers. In a tribe the key to survival was the cohesiveness of the tribe. Individuals did not matter as much as the group. Thus, when a person became a liability to the group they were cast out. Better to get rid of the liability than for the tribe to be weakened. Many American Indian tribes had that custom. When an old person could no longer do useful work, they voluntarily left the tribe, knowing that in days they would be dead, but the tribe would survive and be better off.
It can be demonstrated that tribal members learned that doing favors for one another elevated their status as good members of the tribe. Being more esteemed meant more security within the group.
Basically, the tribes were good examples of Communism. It was the community and its survival that was most important. The individual had a role to play, but other than the leaders, none were given more food, horses, lodging, etc. Things were shared for the common good.
The advent of agriculture changed all that. Members of villages grouped together for common defense, but it soon became apparent that some were more talented at farming and/or willing to work harder such that they could accumulate excess food to trade for other desired items. This was at odds with the tribal ways and was resented by some. However, as people accumulated more wealth they were able to pay strong young men for protection of both their crops and their persons. Generally during this period people were ruled by the “Golden Rule.” ie He who had the gold to hire the necessary muscle made the rules. Life for most people was relatively brutal and unfair.
Along came a rabbi named Jesus who taught that people should love one another an treat one another the way they wanted to be treated. (The new Goden Rule.) His message resonated and, though it started small, the message was accepted and spread quite widely in Europe.
In spite of that message, poverty and the old “Golden Rule” continued to be the order of most people’s lives.
However, beginning in about 1200 AD in the British Isles some amazing things happened. The Magna Carta, giving certain rights to individuals, was signed. Then came bloody struggles that resulted in the separation of church and state. After that came the industrial revolution, which started to lift many people out of grinding poverty. Then Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations.”
In the 6,000 years since agriculture became a dominant way of life, mankind has been trying to reconcile the customs of tribal life (which had 100,000 years to ingrain itself in our DNA) with the greater freedom and opportunities of being an individual who is free to rise as high as his wits and strength can take him.
Our laws are an amalgam of the morality taught by Jesus and the conflicts between the ambitions of individuals versus the needs of the state (the tribe).
We pay our taxes to the state primarily for protection from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
However, we also have laws to keep unbridled greed and avarice in check. In recent times our laws have started to regulate any number of things that have little to do with the peace and security of the individual, but rather to salve the feelings of inequality that have arisen for many (The old tribal instinct).
Thus the tribal instincts, which are essentially socialist/communist, are in tension with the ideas of both Jesus and Adam Smith. I anticipate that the tension and debate will continue until a majority of people see the argument for the free market place for individuals as being the one that produces wealth, health, and happiness for the largest number of people. In addition, Jesus message to love one another and take care of the sick, lame, and poor will continue to be honored by the devout and even the secularists. Some of that will be done by churches, some by the state.
Incomplete and simplistic, I know. But I’m just a simple guy.