[Note: More information about the Expert Witness series can be found here .]
Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, often rail against “situation ethics” or non-deontological ethics (i.e., moral reasoning that does not adhere to specific, fixed moral rules). They seem to see such thinking as emblematic of an unprincipled, inconsistent, “if-it-feels-good-do-it” moral outlook, or as a form of moral relativism, contrary to the firmness and consistency of the “moral absolutism” that they value. This seems to be very much what was on the mind of then-Cardinal Ratzinger in his widely-quoted sermon before the recent papal election:
[R]elativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.
This explains the seemingly-increased salience of the word “absolutism” in moral discussion by conservatives – something I think is today much more in evidence than a few years ago. Given a certain stereotype of “relativistic ethics” which treats that term as a catch-all for any non-rigidly prescriptivist ethics, it can seem absurd that anyone would adopt a moral stance that gives different answers to moral questions in different situations. It can seem as if situation-responsive ethics could not be ethics at all, or that it would be the ethics of people who simply don’t care to draw clear moral distinctions or to take strong moral stands. And, given also that that form of moral reasoning is most associated with the liberal side of the policital sphere, a superficial understanding of what consequentialist ethics is can reinforce a superficial understanding of what leftist or liberal politics stands for.
When Joe offered me the glory and extensive remuneration that comes with being an “Expert Witness” on this blog, it occurred to me I might try to at least slightly narrow the gap of understanding and discursive common ground between liberals and conservatives, offer some insight into characteristically liberal values and ways of thinking, and perhaps put discussions of fundamental political standpoints on a firmer footing, if I could explain what the link is between consequentialist ethics and political liberalism, and what consequentialist, or “situation” ethics, is about. What, actually, does this way of thinking entail? Why would anyone think that way? Why do so many do so today? What makes it attractive as a way of understanding moral problems, and what are its drawbacks? Those questions are too big to answer here, but I hope to sketch out some ideas and offer resources for those interested in broadening their grounding in an influential and still popular approach to moral reasoning.
Consequentialism: Its Attractions and Advantages
The word “consequentialism” identifies a general approach to moral reasoning, within which there are several somewhat similar moral theories (each with numerous variations). As the name implies, it revolves around a general belief that the morality of anything – any act, any decision, any situation, any way of living or behaving – lies in its consequences for the person directly involved and anyone else who is affected. The most moral act is the one with the best moral consequences. What could be simpler, or more obvious? By definition, any other moral theory endorses (at least sometimes) acts which have outcomes that are morally worse than the available alternative - which can’t possibly be right.
A classic comparison is made between the answers given by consequentialist reasoning and the theory of Immanual Kant (a highly influential “deontological,” or rule-driven, moral theory; among other things Kant argued, specifically, that you can never tell lies for any reason, and more generally that you can never “use a person as a means [to an end]” but must always value that person as “an end in themselves”). It is easy to imagine situations in which following Kantian rules rigidly requires, for instance, telling Nazi police that, yes, there is indeed a family of Jews hiding in your attic, or where, in a case of limited resources, it is impermissible to choose who will live and who will die, and thus you must condemn all to exhaust their resources and die together. Consequentialist thinking would in both cases accept the obvious solution of doing some bad in order to prevent much greater harm – telling a lie to save a life, or letting some die so that many can live. Similar comparisons can be made against other relatively inflexible moral systems (explaining, for instance, why many conservative religious thinkers insist on restricting access to birth control or clean drug needles, where consequence-minded liberals are more willing to adopt a “whatever-works” stance and endorse any program that effectively reduces severely bad consequences – unwanted pregnancy, infectious disease – even at the cost of lesser bad consequences – risky sex, drug use). Where the predictable outcome of an action is clearly better in one case than another, and especially when the objection to it is not that it actually entails bad consequences but merely that it breaks some rule (e.g., is a “sin”), the attraction of consequentialism is again clear: deliberately choosing bad consequences out of concern for a rule and not for the actual lives of the people affected seems absurd and, worse, morally indifferent to the good or harm people experience.
Consequentialism: Theoretical Considerations
Every moral theory incorporates some notion of the “moral good” – that is, of what counts as morally good or morally worthy in the first place. Moral theories can be distinguished on the basis of what they take to be the moral good: for religious moralists, it is some notion of what is good in the eyes of (a/the) god(s); for strict deontologists such as Kant, it is some specified thing taken to be inherently good in and of itself (for Kant, this was “the good will”); for “virtue” ethicists it is some notion of “the good life” or morally right character traits; and so on. In each case, we need some argument as to why this thing, whatever it is, is taken to define moral good or moral right; those arguments are notoriously difficult and often suspect – we will skip most of them here. But once a definition of moral right or moral good (we will also skip distinctions between “right” and “good,” though they are important) is in hand, the thing to do, of course, is to seek it and promote it as we live our lives. Thus, each candidate definition of good or right naturally lends itself to a certain theory of how to go about promoting that sense of morality in daily life.
For consequentialists, the theory, obviously, is “maximize the good.” But what is “the good”? That’s where the rubber meets the road – and where the various flavors of consequentialism diverge.
Utilitarian consequentialists (“utilitarians”) define the good in individualistic terms – what is good for a person is morally good for them, on the grounds that there can be nothing good or bad for a person in any sense other than that which furthers or harms their interests. As to those interests, the person themselves determines what they are. (Most utilitarians have been atheists, hence see no imposed good from un-earthly sources. As to an earthly good, what else could it be but what helps or harms the person in question, and who could judge what “help” or “harm” means in this context other than the person themselves? John Stuart Mill offered a somewhat weak “proof” of the theory of utilitarianism by observing that everyone has interests and values, but they are unique for each person – thus we cannot promote any particular value as best among all human values, but must allow each person to seek their own good.) Since good and bad are defined in terms of personal interest, and no other definition of good or bad seems possible, the task of morality is to promote the good – personal benefit or interest – as much as possible. Further, there is nothing about any one person that makes them better or more worthy than another – if “the good” is defined in terms of personal interest, and everybody has such an interest, and those individual interests are all different, there is no way to say that some people are more important than others, or that some people’s interests carry greater weight than others. So the utilitarian theory becomes: in every act or instance, promote the maximal good for all parties concerned, treating each affected person’s interests as equally valuable.
How can we narrow down this notion of “interest” or “the good” more explicitly? For Jeremy Bentham, leading promulgator of utilitarianism in the late 19th century, the good was simply pleasure or pain in the literal, physical sense. (Emotional states such as happiness or sadness were taken to be forms of pleasure or pain – thus anything that pleases or harms one in whatever way can be cashed out in terms of pleasure or pain.) He proposed a “hedonic calculus” – an actual, mathematical model for ranking pleasures and pains by various weighting factors and then calculating outcome totals for any act under consideration. (Bentham’s most important statement of these ideas is found in his Principles of Morals and Legislation.) His follower John Stuart Mill refined this into a broader notion of “preference satisfaction,” whereby “the good” was to have one’s desires fulfilled and “the bad” was to be frustrated in one’s desires. This gave credence to a moral sense that wasn’t so narrowly focused on one’s own bodily state (one may care strongly about, say, helping starving children, but not actually feel physical pleasure over doing so; Mill attempted to account for that). Mill also believed that some pleasures were of greater value than others (which we could know by the fact that most people who had tried, say, classical music and rap would value classical music more highly). In these ways he diverged from Bentham. (Mill’s version of utilitarianism is found in his classic essay Utilitarianism.)
In both cases, the intention was to identify the available alternative act in any situation that would produce the greatest overall outcome; one’s moral obligation was then to perform that act. Utilitarianism is thus a “maximizing” theory (one is maximizing the good derived from one’s actions), and one that responds to each new situation distinctly, in light of the specific circumstances that can affect various persons’ interests. Utilitarians tend not to talk in terms of blanket rules for broad categories of situations, but instead to treat each case separately – hence the moniker “situation ethics.” Utilitarians also tend not to talk in terms of inflexible moral values such as rights (Bentham famously called the notion of moral rights “nonsense on stilts”), duties, obligations, and the like.
Questions arose over practicalities such as the difficulty of calculating predicted goods for every possible act, and the inconvenience of not knowing what to expect in any given situation (sometimes lying is OK, sometimes it’s not; sometimes stealing is OK, sometimes it’s not; . . .). One solution was to adopt “rules of thumb” for common situations (yes, lying could be utility-maximizing, but it usually isn’t, so you need to have an obviously good justification for it in any given case). Another was, instead of attempting to maximize utility in each individual act, to attempt to formulate rules governing general categories of behavior whereby following the rules would maximize utility over the long run, even if not in every case, and would also provide the benefits of stability, predictability, and ease of use. Thus was born a distinction between “Act Utilitarianism” and “Rule Utilitarianism” (Bentham is clearly an Act Utilitarian; J.S. Mill is often called a Rule Utilitarian, but this is somewhat controversial.) Rule Utilitarianism is obviously much easier to implement in a statutory legal scheme, and so is more practical as a way of applying moral rules at the social level; Act Utilitarianism can still be used for small-scale situations at the individual level.
Non-Utilitarian consequentialism largely arose in response to perceived problems with utilitarianism. It can obviously be awkward to try to shoe-horn everything that is good or bad in life into a single measurable value, to rank, say, music, food eaten to avoid starvation, food eaten for pleasure, the love of family, and the feeling of a good backrub all on a single scale and compare them to some equally-mixed-up hodgepodge of goods for someone else, then say which is “more morally worthy.” If the problem of “commensurability” (ranking unalike things on the same scale) could be solved, it still remains that each person’s ranking of each of these things is entirely idiosyncratic. Some, then, proposed multi-value consequentialist systems in which a variety of moral goods could be recognized and weighed – including, for instance, social values such as justice or fairness. This would allow for taking broader moral principles into account while still conforming to the moral goal of maximizing overall good (by treating such things as justice and fairness as goods to be maximized, along with individual interests). This does not abandon the consequentialist notion of maximizing the good, but it avoids necessity of making suspicious claims about the nature of moral goods (i.e., that there is really only one type of them).
Moral evaluations such as “virtuous,” “praiseworthy,” “righteous” and so forth take on meanings other than their common ones, under any consequentialist theory, and the moral value of such traits as honesty, moral integrity (i.e., consistency), or family loyalty is likewise questionable or counter-intuitive. For the consequentialist, remember, the only moral prinicple is to maximize the moral good; whether one does so with a cheerful heart, with an expectation of reward, grudgingly, or in whatever other way is irrelevant – only the actual, practical outcome matters. Similarly, having certain traits of character is of no moral importance in itself - only the tendency of certain traits to lead people to maximize the good consistently is of moral worth, and even there, such a trait is not necessarily “virtuous” as much as simply useful. (That is, if being generous or self-effacing makes it more likely that one will contribute to others’ welfare, then that is a useful trait in the utilitarian scheme, but it is not morally good in itself – only the good outcomes it contributes to are good.) Similarly, the only purpose to moral praise or punishment is to influence the likelihood of appropriate behavior in the future; purely retributive justice is literally worse than useless, because it explicitly comprehends harming (punishing) someone without an expectation of compensatory good to be obtained by it – which is as anti-utilitarian as anything that can be imagined. It makes no sense to say the transgressor “deserves” punishment, because that is a moral evaluation that, to the consequentialist, merely means that punishing will maximize future utility – which cannot be the case if we are punishing merely to punish.
This is not to say that consequentialists have no moral principles or make no moral evaluations or distinctions. Of course they have, and do. But in every case those moral discriminations turn on producing good outcomes in particular (personal or social) circumstances – not on some independent moral categories that hold some things good or bad come what may. The idea that morality could be so rigid as to be indifferent to outcome is literally absurd, and morally bankrupt, in a consequentialist perspective – but, when the appropriate evaluations of acts or rules has been performed, and certain choices analyzed as producing relatively good or bad outcomes, it then becomes of the greatest moral significance that the “good” one be implemented. To knowingly take a course that fails to maximize the good – when an alternative exists – is as shocking to a consequentialist as to knowingly punish the wrong person is to a deontologist, or to knowingly sin would be to a religious ethicist.
Consequentialism and Liberalism
For reasons that should be obvious, consequentialism – specifically, Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism – was the foundation of the political movement now known as “classical liberalism.” Though what today we call “liberalism” is rather different from that, and does not directly emphasize utilitarianism for the most part, it retains many features of classical liberalism and its consequentialist reasoning.
Defining elements of classical liberalism include the political and moral equality of all persons; personal autonomy or liberty in pursuit of one’s own plans and interests; a so-called “public/private distinction” (meaning that only some things fall under the public sway and may be regulated or legislated, while all others, and especially choices about personal lifestyle, are strictly private – not in the sense of being hidden, but in the sense of being immune to public interference) – which encompasses most areas of personal choice or conscience including marriage and sexual behavior, religion, child-rearing, education, employment, lifestyle, tastes or preferences, and other matters; and in general a broad sense of liberty to pursue one’s own interests. (Classical liberals were not what we would call libertarians, because they typically saw a robust role for the government in social reform and creation of opportunity for the disadvantaged. Some fiscal conservatives call themselves “classical liberals” in distinction to the so-called “nanny state liberals” of today, but again Bentham, especially, and Mill were not in any way “small-government” proponents in the modern sense.)
The grounding of these precepts in utilitarianism rested on the latter’s emphasis on individual equality, and on the notion that all personal tastes or preferences were equally worthy (entirely so, for Bentham; mostly so, for Mill). Since “all are to count for one, and none for more than one” (Bentham), there could be no privileged classes or individuals – including religious or gender classes. Though J.S. Mill’s father was a religious conservative, he merely disapproved of certain lifestyle choices; as a staunch utilitarian he did not pretend to forbid them. J.S. Mill himself went further, proclaiming famously that:
the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . .
Mill advocated “experiments in life,” meaning allowing different lifestyles to flourish with the idea that some people might create new forms of family or community that were beneficial – and could only do so if left alone by society. This was a broad theme for Mill: both freedom of speech and conscience, and broad liberty in behavior, were justified because we can only discover right opinions, new truths, or most-advantageous practices by trying various possibilities and testing them – which cannot be done in a constrained or oppressive atmosphere. Thus, the pursuit of best outcomes in all things necessitates the classical liberal social freedoms – of speech and advocacy, assembly, personal interest and lifestyle, and all other outward manners of life. Religious coercion, state religions, or imposed religious services were obviously out of the question as well.
Both Bentham and Mill were great social reformers: Bentham worked extensively in prison reform, and Mill took a job with the East India Company and attempted to use his influence to ameliorate conditions for Indians under British rule. Mill was also a staunch advocate of women’s equality and voting and political rights; late in life he married Harriet Taylor, a leading feminist, and both claimed that they collaborated on each other’s writings on politics and philosophy for the rest of their lives. J.S. Mill published On the Subjection of Women - a strong argument for women’s rights – under his own name, and also introduced the first woman’s-suffrage bill into Parliament almost 50 years before such a bill was finally passed. J.S. and Harriet Taylor also had an unusal marriage relationship: they had been in love for 20 years during her marriage to another man, and agreed to wait – while openly acknowledging their relationship – until he died before becoming lovers or marrying, yet both advocated freedom in sexual relationships and the right of divorce; when they married, J.S. Mill explicitly renounced his legal rights to control of Harriet’s property or political liberty as the law assumed the man would have. So, at the personal level, the early utilitarians were strongly committed to social reform, political equality, extensive personal liberty, and non-interference in private lives or privileges – all for reasons that grew directly from the basic assumptions of their moral theory.
(The best statement of classical liberalism on a utilitarian grounding is Mill’s On Liberty. One of the best contemporary illustrations of the application of utilitarian thought to personal and social issues, from a modern utilitarian, is Peter Singer’s Writings on an Ethical Life.)
Problems With Consequentialism
This approach to ethics has attracted many critics, also for obvious reasons. It’s simply hard to be a consequentialist, and harder to be a committed or consistent one. The objections that have been made take many forms.
One is that it is simply impossible to accurately calculate relative utilities of possible actions, let alone predict which outcome will occur; there is too much hidden information, too many complexities, too many ways to go wrong, and it’s too complicated to do it in time, every time, so the theory is just unworkable. Another is that consequentialism, as a moral theory, ignores well-recognized moral concepts such as guilt, justice, rights, and so forth, and that defining them out of existence does not mean they don’t have real meaning. Another, from philosopher Bernard Williams, is that utilitarianism does not “take seriously the distinction between persons” – that it requires that whoever can best benefit from a resource should get that resource in all cases, whether or not they have a right to it, or are a family member of the resource-owner, or even have done something bad to get access to it, and thus that it ignores the moral significance of the actual situations and relationships people live in, treating them merely as “receptacles for utility.” Another is that it gives each person a carte blanche demand on others’ energy and resources; as John Rawls says, if everyone’s preferences are of equal moral worth, then the person who is “desperate” without fancy foods like “plovers’ eggs and pre-phylloxera claret” has a moral claim to being indulged like a gourmet, simply because they want it, which is clearly economically inefficient and somewhat offensive as well.
Furthermore, the insistence on strict neutrality between persons means that one is not entitled to show preferences for favored individuals like friends or relatives – not merely in positions of trust such as public office, but even in private life. If one prefers to leave an inheritance to one’s children, but can produce greater utility by donating it to a charity, one is not merely selfish or short-sighted to do so, but morally prohibited from doing so at all - because the mere fact of some people’s need creates the moral obligation to satisfy it if one can. (Note that Peter Singer, who has expressed many very controversial opinions on animal rights, euthanasia, and other subjects on utilitarian grounds, is also known to donate much less of his large income to charity than he himself says is morally required, while also spending considerable sums on supporting his elderly mother in comfort even though the same money could do much more good for others who are much worse off. He is often criticized for these behaviors, which he acknowledges are hypocritical in the face of his expressed moral commitments – yet they would be seen as perfectly ordinary or morally praiseworthy if Singer had not declared himself a utilitarian.) Similarly, one is almost inevitably required by consequentialist reasoning to donate almost all of one’s time and resources to the betterment of others – since the incremental harm, to someone who is reasonably well-off, of constantly being asked to do charity work or donate money is much less than the marginal benefit to someone who is very badly off of having assistance or resources donated to them. This makes utilitarianism – a seemingly indulgent and easy-going moral theory – unbelievably demanding, to a degree that apparently cannot be practiced by anyone in real life – which is probably a drawback.
(The best resources for modern criticisms of utilitarianism, and for intelligent discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of consequentialist ethics, are: Consequentialism and Its Critics, by Samuel Scheffler (a multi-sided debate between highly-respected philosophers); Utilitarianism For and Against, by J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams (a classic pro/con analysis by philosophers committed to each side); Utilitarianism and Beyond, by Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams (a series of essays by leading philosophers on many of the aspects of utilitarianism discussed above – somewhat technical).
Consequentialism, Modern Liberalism, and Absolutism
The many practical problems with consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, notwithstanding, it remains a robust moral theory (though rather in the minority). It has certain important strengths, and is particularly applicable to certain kinds of problems. The insights embodied by the theory continue to inform “liberalism,” even as liberalism has drifted in some ways away from “classical liberalism.”
For one thing, utilitarianism, as a quantity-maximizing theory, is particularly apt in settings in which single-value quantities are intended to be maximized. That is, if “the good” really can be reduced to a single value, then the practical problems with utilitarianism – and many of its intuitive ones as well – disappear. Is there such a setting – a context in which we measure our desires or satisfactions on numerical scale and trade one against the other to maximize the overall benefit? As a matter of fact, there is: the free market, in which we quantize everything, including our own preferences, in a numerical medium and regard increasing monetary benefits for all as the sign of righteous behavior. For this reason, economists tend to be utilitarians, sometimes without even realizing it. (The complaint that “economists see everything in terms of money” is the sameas the complaint that utilitarians try to reduce everything to happiness or preference satisfaction – and in both cases is not regarded as a valid objection by the theorists inside the system.) So too do doctors, social planners, politicians, and others who must in any way quantize their preferred and expected outcomes and adopt a maximizing principle as their guide for action – essentially, in any case in which maximum production of some desired good, and maximally efficient use of resources, are seen as having moral significance. That actually comes out to be a significant part of modern life. This makes utilitarian reasoning – with its moral implications intact (it is a moral issue whether workers get maximum wages, or an epidemic disease treatment saves a maximum number of people) – very common across many aspects of society.
(An important, but somewhat technical, book on utilitarian ethics and economics is On Ethics and Economics, by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen.)
In addition, by refusing to rank preferences by intrinsic worth, utilitarianism inherently advances social inclusiveness and tolerance. This is especially significant in a heterogenous, pluralistic society, but also in more homogenous societies where there are still, inevitably, dissenting or non-mainstream groups and individuals. Utilitarian moral reasoning does not countenance oppression of any person’s interests or behavior simply because of what it is - only, if necessary, because of its consequences. (Note that utilitarianism does not adopt “pluralism” as a distinct principle – but this social value arises inevitably from the more fundamental principle that we may not give preference to any certain person’s ideas, beliefs, desires, or values.) This not only produces a better life for all, through the freedom they enjoy to live by their own values, but it contributes to social stability also.
And, in regard of the link between utilitarianism and modern liberalism, they share common values of tolerance, respect for diversity of opinion, preference, and lifestyle, equal standing for all before the law, a rejection of tradition not grounded on directly beneficial consequences, retention of a strong public/private distinction, and a rejection of coerced behavior, creed, or convention. Most modern liberals seem to adopt moral language – especially the language of moral rights – that is anathema to strict consequentialists. But the core values that liberals inherited from their classical-liberal forebears are adaptable to the modern context of moral discourse.
And, finally, what of “absolutism” or “relativism”? First of all, these terms are misnomers. There are in fact virtually no true ethical relativists, and never have been. Ethical relativism in the strong sense is a moral theory that holds that the moral good itself is a matter of personal preference, and therefore that everyone can have different moral rules – that is, that there is no such thing as morality at all, at least that holds true for any two different people. True relativism then really would grant us the moral right to do anything we ourselves thought was good – though of course nobody would choose to live that way (and nobody has) because it grants the same right to everyone else, who would be sure to take advantage of us. It is a logically possible, but in fact irrelevant, theory that plays no role in serious ethics. On the other hand, we are all relativistic in a minor way, in the sense of believing that some things are of no moral consequence and thus purely matters of personal preference – the only difficulty being that we are all relativistic about different things!
In fact, almost every serious moral theory is “absolutist” in the sense of holding that there are moral facts – absolutely true moral statements whose truth does not depend on any person’s opinion or preference. Every such theory grounds its moral principles on such absolute truths, and every theory holds up its own rationalization of what constitutes such truths and how we know which ones they are. (We won’t get deeply into that here.) Again, for Kant the fundamental moral fact was that the moral good was defined by “the good will”; for “virtue ethicists” it is that human nature or human lives admit of roles that express a certain way of being, which can be good or bad; for consequentialists it is that the only moral constant is that all persons have basic values that define the worth of things in their world; for religious ethicists it is something arising from the teachings of their religion. Each of these moral values is “absolute” in the sense that it is understood to express a true moral fact, not just an opinion (even the consequentialist “fact” – that values are a matter of opinion – is itself a universal claim); each gives rise to moral principles that guide actions or life choices. And so each approach to morality is “absolute” – it claims that its principles capture what is really true in the moral sense, and identify actions or choices that are really good or really bad in the moral sense, and thus they deserve to be heeded. There is widespread disagreement over which of these moral truth-claims is actually correct, and the different moral systems may be more or less rigid, more or less permissive – but each is “absolute” in its own way. (I have seen arguments from Christians to the effect that only revealed religious precepts can be “absolutely true,” because only they come from God, or some transcendent realm, while all other claims are grounded on contingent reality on earth. This is far off base. Whether something is universally true has nothing to do with how one knows it is true, and at any rate the meaning of “absolute” has nothing to do with being “trascendent” or “from God.”) Utilitarian ethics is just as absolutist as religious ethics or any other kind – which is not to say that it arrives at the same conclusions, but merely that it, just like the others, takes its conclusions to be true.
Why, then, are liberals so much cooler than conservatives? If both hold absolutist moral positions, and both regard it as morally obligatory to adopt and follow the principles of the right moral theory, and both hold it as equally morally significant when correct moral actions are or are not taken, why are liberals so much more welcoming, and make fewer oppressive rules and fewer personal judgments of others? The answer, again, is the emphasis in liberalism – largely inherited from consequentialist moral thinkers – on room for personal expressions of value and self-interest. They do not hold a weak sense of moral obligation; they simply regard fewer things as falling within the span of moral obligation, because the consequentialist emphasis leads to a position of moral tolerance for any kind of behavior until it results in tangible good or harm to a person, at which point moral evaluation is required. (Rule-bound moralists, on the other hand, have to spend their entire time checking every act and circumstance to see whether someone, somewhere, is having a good time – so they can put a stop to it.)
For good consequentialist reasons, liberals tend to oppose moral conclusions, or acts, arrived at by some rigid rule, and are accepting of behavioral choices that don’t overtly cause any harm. I will note in passing that this also explains much of the standard liberal position on abortion and end-of-life care. If what matters morally is that an individual suffers good or harm, then who matters morally is those individuals who are capable of suffering goods and harms – that is, those who are conscious and alert and have something tangible to lose. And because “goods” and “harms” are defined as matters of personal experience or personal preference, “moral persons” are those who are capable of having experiences and preferences. Embryos or brain-dead individuals are not in that category – they cannot experience good or harm in the sense of pleasure, pain, or preference satisfaction. They do not have a moral claim to be helped or not harmed, because they cannot be helped or not harmed. This is not a question of “not caring” about embryos or vegetative patients – the significant point is that they themselves cannot care about themselves, and hence do not participate in the balance of goods and harms that drives moral decisionmaking. >
Thus, “relativism” has no role in moral discourse. Complaints by conservatives about “relativism” are invariably complaints about tolerance. The only “relativist” aspect of consequentialism, or modern liberalism, is that it regards matters of personal preference as matters of complete personal authority. But in respect of its action-guiding moral principles, liberalism is as absolutist as any other moral perspective (i.e., the morally right thing absolutely must be done).
An analysis of consequentialism specifically in the context of contemporary liberalism is: Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought; a direct contrast between absolutist moral thinking and consequentialism (coming down on the side of absolutism) is: Absolutism and Its Consequentialist Critics.
Concluding Remarks
It should be clear that “relativism” is not only not the moral boogey-man it is made out to be, it hardly exists in a non-theoretical sense. All or almost all moral theories are “absolutist,” including theories favored by “liberals,” and especially including the consequentialist theories that give rise to “classical liberalism” and which partly underly modern liberalism still. What they are all absolutist about is whatever it is they each take as the defining moral good – the moral value or vision that each promotes. Liberalism derives its core values from a (absolutist) moral theory that emphasizes the best outcome for each situation rather than the indifferent application of rigid rules or moral categories. This theory, which took individual preferences to define “the moral good” for each person, promulgated an ideal of tolerance for variations in beliefs, behaviors, appearances, lifestyles, and all other personal matters – not from a morally relativist position of indifference between moral goods, but from an absolutist position that there was only one moral good and it manifested differently in each person. The strength of that absolutist belief gave rise to equally strong beliefs in personal liberty, personal privacy, political equality, and the need to benefit the worst-off; it also drove social reform movements on mulitiple continents, for a hundred years or more.
If liberal and conservative moral thinking is equally “absolutist,” why are they so different? Because they are absolutist about different things: about specific moral precepts, numerous and often irrational, intrusive into any and every aspect of life, in the conservative approach, but about a broad moral brief for individual liberty and personally-arrived-at answers to life’s problems in the liberal case. They embody, probably, an equal moral fervor, but to enforce conformity with particular rules, on the one hand, and to prohibit enforced conformity on the other.
Kevin T. Keith is co-blogger at Lean Left, a leftist political blog, and this weekend is launching his own bioethics blog at Sufficient Scruples. He is an aging graduate student in bioethics, teaches ethics and related topics at the night-school division of City College of New York, has taught bioethics and done clinical ethics work at two medical schools, and can’t get a date.
Other posts in the series:
- Bill Wallo on Graphic Novels
1
"But what is 'the good'?"
By the world's standard today, "good" is increasingly being realized as anything that is perceived to be accepted by a majority of society that is clearly distanced from or outside the notion of abosolute truth that comes from God.
posted on 05.20.2005 8:52 AM2
I think this is pretty nicely done, with one (perhaps important) quibble. If Locke is any guide, utilitarianism isn't as necessarily tied to classical liberalism as perhaps you make it out to be.
posted on 05.20.2005 9:18 AM3
There is indeed a great problem in believing that "good" is whatever the majority, the polls or the media say it is. However, this isn't really a unique problem for a consequentialist ethic. Those who accept the will of God as the ultimate and unquestionable source of what is good might believe that it is God's will that they kill all unbelievers (or those who believe different things about God).
The real question seems to be whether the will of God is revealed to us as a list of rules that specify how we should behave in all circumstances [e.g., Rule 371.1(a) “Thou shall ...”; Rule 187.6(c) “Thou shall not ...”] or in a way that requires us to work out the answer for ourselves based on a more basic understanding. Do we focus our moral concerns with adhering to specific laws such as "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. (Lev.19:27)", or do we seek to understand what actions would best reflect Jesus' expression of the law in Matthew 22:37-40. A great deal of the hostility that the Jewish leaders felt towards Jesus arose directly from their deep and honest concern with God’s will as they saw it revealed in the scriptures. In contrast, they viewed Jesus’ words and actions as direct violations of God's laws. He associated with people who the law classified as immoral; he healed and performed other "work" in violation of the laws regarding the Sabbath.
4
"why many conservative religious thinkers insist on restricting access to birth control or clean drug needles, where consequence-minded liberals are more willing to adopt a “whatever-works” stance and endorse any program that effectively reduces severely bad consequences – unwanted pregnancy, infectious disease – even at the cost of lesser bad consequences – risky sex, drug use). "
2 ways that I look at this differently:
1. There is a difference between RESTRICTING access and PROVIDING clean needles. I don't know of anyone passing laws to restrict access to clean needles. There are people who want to PROVIDE those needles. (On the other hand, there are laws being passed to restrict access to cold medicine which is used in making meth.)
Just a random thought... can't drug users boil water? or is there more to sterilizing needles?
2. The reason I would be for the government NOT being in the business of providing needles and birth control is not just because I think drug use and pre-marital sex are wrong (absolutism) but precisely because of consequentialism. I believe that providing needles or birth control may very well help that individual in the short term, but it has the unintended consequence of encouraging more of that risky behavior among others in the long run. It is actually a utilitarian thought, trying to minimize the pain for the most people in the long run. It has the added virtue of not violating the absolutist instinct in me.
This is where those in favor of the goverment doing those things would disagree and we all get in an argument about statistics and trends and cause & effect. Those who would disagree with me think that distributing needles and birth control will be better for more people in the long run.
posted on 05.20.2005 10:43 AM5
"Those who accept the will of God as the ultimate and unquestionable source of what is good might believe that it is God's will that they kill all unbelievers (or those who believe different things about God)."
Then they believe in total error. Christ taught the love of our neighbor as second only to that of our love for God. Moreover, loving our neighbor is validation of our love for God (see 1 John 4:19-20). Those who think killing an unbeliever is God's will, do not believe the words of Christ Himself.
6
Elwood:
Just a random thought... can't drug users boil water? or is there more to sterilizing needles?
Ever read the Darwin Awards?
Even people who are not drug-addled do really stupid fatal things. Those who are needle users are not a priori concerned about their health.
Yet they pose a health risk for others.
So for that reason, clean needles- and legalized heroin- are better than the current insanity.
The reason I would be for the government NOT being in the business of providing needles and birth control is not just because I think drug use and pre-marital sex are wrong (absolutism) but precisely because of consequentialism. I believe that providing needles or birth control may very well help that individual in the short term, but it has the unintended consequence of encouraging more of that risky behavior among others in the long run.
And I support the legalization of opiates, clean needle exchanges, easy access to contraception, etc. for precisely the same reason. Harm reduction reduces harm.
In another thread, I noted that it appears that we indeed have free will (even if it's not a falsifiable proposition).
If there is free will, then, as Dostoyevsky noted, even in a perfect world, people will engage in destructive behaviors because they can. In an imperfect world, there will be all the more destructive behaviors.
You cannot remove the root desire itself, at least not through prohibition or restrictions. So as an act of mercy, and keeping with a moral imperative to avoid killing and suffering, there is no need to complicate what is already a horrible situation.
Providing clean needles and access to treatment might actually help more than restrictions on clean needle distribution. Heroin, in its pure form, is less toxic than aspirin (that is, the ratio of lethal does to effective dose is actually higher for heroin than aspirin). It is the prohibition of heroin that actually makes it dangerous.
posted on 05.20.2005 2:03 PM7
1. There is a difference between RESTRICTING access and PROVIDING clean needles. I don't know of anyone passing laws to restrict access to clean needles. There are people who want to PROVIDE those needles. (On the other hand, there are laws being passed to restrict access to cold medicine which is used in making meth.) Just a random thought... can't drug users boil water? or is there more to sterilizing needles?
There have often been such laws prohibiting the purchase of needles over the counter without a prescription. There have been a lot of reasons given for those laws over the years but I would guess that originally it was simply a means to ensure no one was using them and posing as a doctor or nurse without a license.
The needle exchange programs I have read about encourage the use of bleach for sterilizing needles, not boiling water. Indeed bleach is often distributed with the needles.
posted on 05.20.2005 2:45 PM8
Great post Keith. And my compliments to Joe on running a series like this.
Keith wrote:
[Liberals] do not hold a weak sense of moral obligation; they simply regard fewer things as falling within the span of moral obligation, because the consequentialist emphasis leads to a position of moral tolerance for any kind of behavior until it results in tangible good or harm to a person, at which point moral evaluation is required.
I think you made many good points in the essay and generally agree with your approach, but I would like to comment on your assertion that liberals "simply regard fewer things as falling within the span of moral obligation." Rather than "fewer" I'd say "different" things.
Perhaps liberals would state fewer prohibitions on personal behavior like homosexual sexual acts, abortion, and end-of-life decisions (the usual topics on this evangelical blog). On the other hand, liberals like myself also assert some positive moral imperatives that many conservatives object to, and we generally motivate them with a consequentialist approach -- like adding more resources to education and consequently improving students skills, human resources for business, and reducing crime. We would make similar kinds of arguments for social security, minimum wage, maximum work hours, health care for all, etc. In this sense liberals perhaps see more things as falling within the span of moral obligation.
posted on 05.20.2005 3:07 PM9
Break the law, damage your body, damage other people's bodies.... but do it "safely". What about the people these drug users victimize. The thefts, murders, children and spouses that are abused physically, emotionally and econommically. Drug users are a plague on our society. Yet moral relativists want to protect their "right" to be a plague on our society. Only moral relativists can claim it is good to promote and safeguard those who do evil.
The ultimate good is to force these people to hit bottom as soon as possible. Arrest them and dry them out. Giving them a second chance to do good in their lives instead of doing evil.
As to the issue of the "good lie". No one ever has to tell a lie. They can be evasive or they can say nothing. Rationalists always use the idea of the "good lie" to promote their rationalizations. They never point out that lies are used, in the vast majority of cases, to victimizes or otherwise manipulate other persons. But the rationalist says "its good for me so I'm going to do it".
Moral reativists never act for the ultimate good. Because they don't know what the ultimate good is. Only the One who created us knows what the ultimate good is. His truth should be pursued. Moral relativists are promoting opinion based on very limited knowledge and clear misunderstanding of why we are here.
posted on 05.20.2005 4:35 PM10
This post is truly outstanding, Keith. My deepest compliments.
As the religious right has strengthened its hold on government and media of late, I've been troubled by the assertion that religion is important, necessary, and mandatory because it averts the problems of moral relativism. The argument you lay out here is very much my reaction to foregoing.
In fact, as a liberal and an atheist, I perceive myself as spending far more time and energy wrestling with moral and ethical questions than do the self-professed adherents of traditional faith systems. Unlike them, I don't get a book with all the answers; these things have to be ascertained through study and reflection. When it comes to study, at a bare minimum the sources cited in this entry are required reading. Ancient and modern philosophers, from Plato to Sarte, contribute to the liberal world-view, as do the ideas promoted in classical literature. Dryden, Pope, Coleridge, Dickens, Shakespeare, et al., have a lot to say on the question of what is "good" and what is "right."
What you start to notice is that the kinds of situations that require careful moral reasoning in life are rarely clean-cut issues that lend themselves to the application of biblical precepts. One rarely has to deal with a baby left on one's doorstep, but one may very well have to see to the interests of a drug-addicted relative's offspring. It's wrong to steal, but to what extent do you punish a teenaged runaway who makes off with a sandwich? It's wrong to lie, but what do you say to a terminally ill grandparent already experiencing signs of dementia?
More to the point, though, is that I doubt most self-described "Christians" run to the Bible to answer such questions themselves. Adultery is simply rampant among this population, so we know that "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is largely ignored by the devout. But when it comes to really tough matters, I suspect that most of us try to work things out as best we can.
posted on 05.21.2005 6:03 AM11
Break the law, damage your body, damage other people's bodies.... but do it "safely". What about the people these drug users victimize. The thefts, murders, children and spouses that are abused physically, emotionally and econommically. Drug users are a plague on our society. Yet moral relativists want to protect their "right" to be a plague on our society. Only moral relativists can claim it is good to promote and safeguard those who do evil.
It's quite a leap from "Break the law, damage your body..." to "...damage other people's bodies...." Yet these "consequences" are presented as if they logically follow from one another - or all necessarily follow from drug use. They do not.
The ultimate good is to force these people to hit bottom as soon as possible. Arrest them and dry them out. Giving them a second chance to do good in their lives instead of doing evil.
Thank you for revealing the "ultimate good" for us, oh wise one. Humans have struggled with the question of the ultimate good for millennia - it is truly amazing that you have found it, and deigned to share it with us, your intellectual and moral lessers. Thank you, thank you - a million thank you's.
Just as a side note, please consider the abject failure of the strategy you suggest as embodying the ultimate good: "forc(ing) these people to hit bottom as soon as possible." Has it worked so far? I mean, just how successful do you think the so-called "War on Drugs" has been? And as for this - "Arrest them and dry them out" - if that were the reality of the War on Drugs, we might at least be able to claim some moral high ground here. But that is not the reality. The reality is more like "Arrest a first-time drug offender and, thanks to minimum sentencing guidelines, put them in prison for 30 + years."
As to the issue of the "good lie". No one ever has to tell a lie. They can be evasive or they can say nothing. Rationalists always use the idea of the "good lie" to promote their rationalizations. They never point out that lies are used, in the vast majority of cases, to victimizes or otherwise manipulate other persons. But the rationalist says "its good for me so I'm going to do it".
This is just willful ignorance. You seem to indicate that "lying" and "being evasive" are completely different. Get it straight, my friend - any word or action designed to deceive or mislead is a lie. I can say for myself that if I was hiding a Jewish family during the horror that was the Nazi regime, I would have lied my tail off to protect them - and felt wonderful about it. If the SS asked me, "are you harboring Jews?", and I hemmed and hawed around (being evasive) or just said nothing, what would happen next? It would be exactly like saying, "Why, yes sir, I am harboring Jews! They're right upstairs in my attic! Let me go get them for you." And so I (the "rationalist" [?]) think to myself, "It's good for humanity that these people not die at the hands of an evil empire trying to wipe them off the face of the earth, so I'm going to do it."
Does that sound like "If it feels good, do it" to you?
Moral reativists never act for the ultimate good.
Quite a bold pronouncement. "Never" is a very long time. Are you absolutely sure that "Moral relativists" (the existence of which the author of this post went to great lengths to question) never act for the ultimate good? I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I guess in your black and white world, only you and some of the people that attend your particular church can really act for the ultimate good. I forgot - you've got the secret decoder ring.
.............
Moral relativists are promoting opinion based on very limited knowledge and clear misunderstanding of why we are here.
Limited knowledge, huh? You know, before I read this line of yours, I'd have wagered dollars to donuts that I, for one (as one of your "moral relativists") am operating in the world with quite a bit more knowledge than you are. But, as your superior knowledge of philosophy and religion indicate, you have all the answers.
Man, it must be nice to live in a world where you can just say whatever inane thing pops into your head, and never see yourself as mistaken about anything, let alone God and His intentions.
{/rant}
T
posted on 05.21.2005 7:01 AM12
RA:
Break the law, damage your body, damage other people's bodies.... but do it "safely". What about the people these drug users victimize. The thefts, murders, children and spouses that are abused physically, emotionally and econommically. Drug users are a plague on our society. Yet moral relativists want to protect their "right" to be a plague on our society. Only moral relativists can claim it is good to promote and safeguard those who do evil.
It wasn't always so. If you go back and read about the history of prohibition of marijuana and heroin, you'll find that a) addiction rates were lower when they were legal, and b) consequences of drug use were less.
Prohibition, in effect, incentivized criminal activity by tying it to an addiciton. By making many people's fixes dependent on getting lots of money and dealing with criminals, in effect, then you make the addicts have a choice where theft, and sometimes violence, is seen as a better choice than dealing with the addiction.
Are you honestly going to tell me that you think it's morally acceptable to have incentives to commit crimes?
13
Kevin Keith: This discussion is quite wonderful. I typically avoid, at all costs, any evangelical blogs, as they make me crazy. Just a fact---tying to keep my blood pressure down. But, I found this link to take a quick look at your article and ended up reading the whole thing. I see just above this post a comment an ad for generic valium, and I don't need it here, except for the posts by RA and Elwood. I agree with Yasonyacky and Mumon relative to their remarks about RAs little diatribe and Elwoods imperitives. I also agree with AndyS's point that Different is better terminology than Fewer. He makes a good point. And, so does your thesis. What is does for me, and obviously for most of these other bloggers is indicate the dilemnas we all face when trying to do the right thing. The bottom line for liberals is, we all do the best we can for everyone's sake, which in these days and times is better than the religious right's imperitives to control everyone under their moral "christian" restrictions, and it also beats a stick in the eye .... or a theocracy for that matter.
Great thesis and I plan to read more ohilosophy now.....in my little to no spare time....I'm late for a meeting as it is!
posted on 05.21.2005 11:11 AM14
Many problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-
made religions and humanistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The
balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason
cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the intellect
can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives
and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However,
as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater
than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance
and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason
to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the
rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot
invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks
a predictive capability. Without instinct or transcendent
criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight
and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight,
man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly
committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and
worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a
functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-
dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith,
initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His
Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the
choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-
made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival equip-
ment for today and the future.
Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his
environments, institutions, and respectful relations to his
fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots
are in the Order of the universe.
posted on 05.21.2005 11:13 AM
15
Fulfilled Prophetic Validation? That only washes inside the circle of faith. Outside that circle, all your arguments about 'humanism' could be replaced with 'christianity' or any other belief system.
posted on 05.21.2005 11:57 AM16
Thanks for a thoughtful and helpful post.
I can't help being struck by the sheer "ships-passing-in-the-dark" nature of a few comments, specifically those insisting that the Judeo-Christian scriptural canon (however compiled, edited and translated) provides all necessary moral guidance to all humans.
------------------
To "Broken Messenger" (in good will). You say:
"Christ taught the love of our neighbor as second only to that of our love for God. Moreover, loving our neighbor is validation of our love for God (see 1 John 4:19-20). Those who think killing an unbeliever is God's will, do not believe the words of Christ Himself." Alas, I sympathize with your understanding of what Jesus taught. But the historical record indicates that far too many--who also insisted they followed what Christ taught--thought it their duty to kill unbelievers, or even more urgently, misbelievers.
You will say, in all seriousness and good will: "Yes, but they were ipso facto not Christians." Yet they called themselves Christians, and how am I, not a Christian in any sense, to determine who's "really" a Christian? I look at the language of some who call themselves Christian today, and I see the same elements thriving that led to the burning of Cathars, to the Te Deums across Europe after the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, to the defense of the execution of Servetus, and so on. I am (alas) not reassured by your statement, therefore, much as I wish it were true.
-----------------
To RA: Your substantive claims have been addressed by others. I wish it were true that it is never necessary to lie, for example -- but only someone who has never experienced an odiously repressive regime, or read no history, could say that with any seriousness. Be thankful for how protected you have been!
But I wanted to address a different point of your message. You said: "Only moral relativists can claim it is good to promote and safeguard those who do evil."
Now, you (carefully?) didn't identify your view as a Christian one, so perhaps the comment below is not a correct response (though I think it could be adapted to fit most major religious traditions, along with Christianity). But I'll assume, given this board's nature, that you are coming from a Christian perspective.
One part of Christian understanding of the world, is it not, (not in all denominations, but in most) is that humans are in fact inherently sinful...that is, all humans since the fall "do evil".
So, to translate what you said: "Only moral relativists can claim it is good to promote and safeguard any human being since the Fall." That is not, I submit, a useful position on moral authority and behavior. Moreover, as most Christian denominations insist, we are in fact called to -- by divine moral authority -- not only safeguard, but in fact to _love_ those who do evil. In fact, if I read some parts of the NT correctly, (especially those reporting what Jesus said), it is _most_ important to love your enemies, those who don't just do evil in general, but who do _you_ evil. You can disavow this, of course, but for my part, I don't see how your post demonstrates much love. The Inquisitors who burned heretics insisted that they acted out of love, too...but I don't buy it.
------------
Finally, to JF Baxter. Your evocation of the limits of human knowledge, moral or otherwise, is powerful. Most secular humanists that I know, including myself, are deeply aware of this conundrum: we are put here with a strong urge to find what is right and to follow it, yet the world of nature and reason and evidence give us too little evidence to do so with any confidence. Our lot is to question constantly, to scrutinize our motivations and our behavior, and to regret our failings. (Oddly enough, that doesn't sound too different from the ideal 17th century Puritan, so perhaps the Christian worldview is more closely connected to Western secular humanism -- in contrast to, say, carnal hedonism or pharisaical self-satisfaction -- than one might think.).
However, your solution -- turn to the Bible, in contrast to "man-made" philosphies and religions -- is, as has been pointed out, epistemologically inadequate. Surely, every serious Muslim, Buddhist, Jew or other religious person finds that their source of spiritual authority (Quran, Sutras and teachings, Torah and Tanakh, traditional lore, spiritual guidance from their guru, etc.) fulfills exactly the two criteria you establish: Transcendant Criteria and Prophetic Validation. By the same token, they (and I the secular humanist too) find your claim that the Bible provides these to be so threadbare as to lack seriousness.
This is not a problem with the Bible: it's a fine collection of human-made texts, as far as I can see. It's a problem of what you want to make of the Bible: that source of certainty that the universe we live in -- for reasons we cannot know -- does NOT provide the guidance that we seek. So we have to figure it out, as best we can, with perseverance, charity and hope, using human standards but always scrutinizing them, because there is NO ALTERNATIVE.
Sorry, I wish that wasn't true: but the record shows that every self-proclaimed "Transcendant authority" ever established has been used to hurt, dispossess, kill, denigrate and otherwise harm those who find its claims unpersuasive. This suggests that insisting on "non-human truths" is not merely misguided, but actively dangerous. (Some may be better than others, and all can equally claim to have furthered healing, restitution, life, respect and other signs of lov, too, by the way).
Living over the abyss of uncertainty is hard and dangerous. Welcome to the world we live in. (Yes, I know that I am making ontological claims, and thus thinking "religiously" myself, here. I don't claim that my understanding has more validity than other such claims, but I also refuse to accept that it has less--especially since my view, unlike many others, does NOT rely on blind acceptance that a particular text, tradition or person has access to truths that no other source does).
posted on 05.21.2005 10:52 PM17
Oddly enough, the post made me think of Gollum.
At one time Christians were more open-minded than they are today and more willing to accept that they themselves might have flaws in the way that they perceive what God's word actually is. Now most seem to be wannabe Dominists.
J.R.R Tolkien was considered, at least when I was growing up, a primarily Christian author. Yet within his work was one of the first lessons I learned about moral ambiguity. The creature, Gollum, was an evil thing, a degenerate person. He deserved to die. But if he had been put to death, the greater evil of Sauron would have been triumphant. Frodo, the "hero" of the tale actually fails in his mission and succumbs to evil. Only by the actions of Gollum is he redeemed. And Gollum did not do this as a change of heart to the side of Good, he did it as his final selfish act.
I am a moral relativist. I also believe in God and I see no contradiction in that. The reason you should not judge someone else is not because you think they can do no wrong, but because it's not your place to do so. That is God's job. And God may have different plans for Gollum than what you think is best. What ever happed to "All things work unto good"? Don't they preach that in church anymore? That is where I learned it.
Christianity as today practiced, at least in the public eye, is no longer about what God wants, it's about "spiritual warfare", and the personal indulgence in righteous rage while defending Christianity from the attack of the bogeymen, moral relativism and secularism. Instead of being examples of good Christians in order to inspire others to follow them, they want to make a Christian Country for themselves where only the Saved are allowed in. And they can't do that if there are any sinners around who aren't interested in repenting. If Gollum was actually around today, unrepentant little critter that he was, he would probably have ended up dead in a Texan death chamber. And Sauron would be in the White House.
posted on 05.22.2005 1:11 AM18
Very interesting post; thank you.
I would add that many liberals, including myself, do not see some of these issues as "moral" ones - but as "human rights" - separate and different from morals. For instance, I see abortion and contraception as human rights issues, totally separate from morality. Murder would fall under a 'moral issue'. One huge problem with absolutism is it allows nothing for different situations, a point you mention. For instance, murder done as required for self defense of one's life - my morality does not waver about murder per se, but my view of it's *morality* changes according to individual circumstance - murder for self defense is justifiable, and therefore not immoral. If one can allow for 'moral relativism' in that type of instance, why not others where strong situational reasons exist? A problem is that absolutists insist on absolute standards regardless of all harm caused by the standards - while my "liberal" outlook weighs all sides to decide the 'most moral' choice.
Although I began to strongly believe in a god a few years back, (after an absolutely spectacular, er, spiritual experience) my morals and ideas of human rights, right and wrong have never changed. And I see the Bible as spiritual literature, not as the word and laws of god.
I'm sure some will deride me as having met " a pretender, an evil masquerading as god" - frankly, I don't care what anyone thinks. ;)
A Jesuit priest that I spoke with about it told me that the Catholics have a name for what happened to me - Desolation and Consolation. ( I asked a Catholic Jesuit because of their decades of scholarship and breadth of experience, not out of any denominational leanings) After the grace and the power and goodness and splendor that visited me - well, no words from anyone professing to know all these arbitrarily damaging *absolutes* from God will ever have a whit of effect on me.
19
A very interesting post - and I did well with it all until this:
Rule-bound moralists, on the other hand, have to spend their entire time checking every act and circumstance to see whether someone, somewhere, is having a good time – so they can put a stop to it.There is certainly a lot of this around. I find the opinion that only a christian knows what Good is; and you must become a christian in order to know what Good is prevalent enough. CS Lewis:
There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. [This point is Lewis's central proof of God]Of course, this is criticizing a philosophy by its worst representatives, or at least by those that do not understand it. Some like to stack up the bodies created by one religion/ethical systems or another, and measure truth by who has piled up the least number of bodies.
I do not want to talk about political liberalism or conservatism (both of which have some serious issues with Christianity - see here and here). What is important to me are the immense misconceptions about both the moral teaching of the Bible and its use to guide action seen above. Let's start with Patrick:
Yet within his work was one of the first lessons I learned about moral ambiguity. The creature, Gollum, was an evil thing [not completely - smeagol was there], a degenerate person. He deserved to die.Tolkien wasnt just primarily christian, he was a noted theologian. The mercy shown to Gollum is the essence of christianity - not moral ambiguity. Gandalf's (one of the types of Christ in the book) lessons to Frodo (another type of Christ) about Bilbo's mercy to Gollum are PURE CHRISTIAN TEACHING. We are all in ways evil, and we all deserve to die; but as Gandalf points out it is not for us to make that decision - and we cannot know what future good someone who may act evil might do (as someone above said God uses all things for good). Now Pquincy:
"You will say, in all seriousness and good will: 'Yes, but they were ipso facto not Christians.' Yet they called themselves Christians, and how am I, not a Christian in any sense, to determine who's 'really' a Christian?"You are absolutely correct:
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We' cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word . . . When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian -- CS Lewis, Mere Christianitybut, then you start piling up bodies on the christian side (as if yours has none) and then go on to state:
since my view, unlike many others, does NOT rely on blind acceptance that a particular text, tradition or person has access to truths that no other source doesThe Bible itself warns against this - so the christian view doesn't rely on this either.
The Bible is not a list of moral rules and regulations where in any circumstance you can look up the scripture and know how to act. Especially not for christians (there is some argument that the old testament Law of Moses could serve that function for Judiaism - but I am not Jewish so I cannot say). The Bible is a way to understand God - learn His character, how He views us, what He considers important. Those insights, built into your heart and mind, give you tools as you view and act on your world - assuming you have the Holy Spirit in you to help you understand it.
Even where there are clear Biblical warnings about our behaviors - they should not be taken as moralism trying to "stop us from having fun"; but the Creator's operating manual on how we function for our own good as in: "Do not operate electrical devices while sitting in a bathtub full of water". If you feel oppressed because I tell you not to set the fan on the edge of the tub - I am sorry. You may certainly electrocute yourself if you want; but I am not violating your freedoms by warning you of the danger.
So lets take just one of those clear warnings in the Bible that you may think constitutes the calling in of the "Fun Police":
the Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner or else total abstinence.' . . . if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is quite true most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much . . . if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village . . . You can get a large audience together . . . to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see . . . that it contained a mutton chop . . . would you not think that . . . something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? . . . One critic said that if he found a country in which such strip-tease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving . . . If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation . . . In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age . . . Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion . . . You find very few people who want to eat things that really are not food or to do other things with food instead of eating it. In other words, perversions of the food appetite are rare. But perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful . . . for the last twenty years, [we] have been fed all day long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other natural desires and that if only we abandon the silly old Victorian idea of hushing it up, everything in the garden will be lovely. It is not true. The moment you look at the facts, and away from the propaganda, you see that it is not.-- Lewis, same source [Please remember this was written in the early 1940's.]
God designed humans with the strongest sex drive in nature; and coupled that with our greatest biological pleasure being experienced at organism [Someone might add this to the mind/brain controversy]. He did this as a gift because He loved us. Along with this beautiful, and terrible, gift he gave us the "rule". Since you will bond body, mind, and soul with anyone you have sex with - it should be with one person for life. Not moralism, but practical advice. I've heard the sex act (search your own experiences) described as similiar to gluing two sheets of plywood together, and then trying to get them apart. You will be able to separate the two sheets, but neither will be the same: pieces of both stuck to the other and they will be irretrievably altered. You will repeat this process with each new partner, dragging little psychic pieces of all previous mates into each new relationship while leaving pieces of yourself behind. And this doesn't even include STD's
The Bible teaches that you should not have sexual relations until you find the person you will bond to for life. Again, not moralism, but the Creator's operating manual for our sex drive. Look at what we have instead:
* Well over half of all websites are sexual in nature [one of the tenants of liberalism is that pornography constitutes objectification of women (men, children, small animals) and supports and encourages sexual violence.The largest number of people viewing them are under 21];
* We have 46 million abortions per year in the world. Approximately 3 million of these would be in cases of life of the mother, health of the child, and rape or incest. That leaves 43 million because we will not control our sex drive rationally. [When christians say the solution to abortion is to abstain, or have sex responsibly - including accepting the results (including pregnancy) of your actions; we are treated as if we grew another head]
* In 2004 (worldwide): 39.4 million people are estimated to be infected with hiv/aids; 4.9 million new infections; and 3.1 millions deaths. [The worst of course is sub-sahara africa where the epidemic is attributed to long-haul truck drivers unable to stay away from prostitutes - one of those victimless crimes]
* How many divorces due to adultery; how many sexually molested children; how many rapes, etc.
I take the state of sex in the world as an indication that the owners manual is correct: sex with life partner only. Are christians just moral prudes trying to destroy the "fun" of those around them; or is our moral position [not actions - I am the first to admit our failure to live up to the standards. Does that mean the standards should not be spoken?] a guiding light to accurate behavior in world seriously in need of just that? And to the degree that you support consequentialist ethics in regards to sex are you supporting the horrendous consequences of sex gone bad.
When I was a left-wing radical (non-christian) living in a collective in the early 70's there was a women who initiated sex with every man in the collective [Hey, she wanted it, and sex is fun - it was consensual - we hurt no one]. I was actually the last - she left and went back home. Her mom [probably one of those prude christians wanting to stop our fun] mailed a copy of her suicide note back to us. She talked about not being able to live anymore with the feelings of being used, but not loved. [Hey, how could I know she was unstable?]. Oh, in case you think my christianity is some guilt trip based on this - I never felt guilty at all. She killed herself, it wasn't my fault was it?
posted on 05.22.2005 7:10 PM20
Quote from Kevin the Retard: The most moral act is the one with the best moral consequences. What could be simpler, or more obvious? By definition, any other moral theory endorses (at least sometimes) acts which have outcomes that are morally worse than the available alternative - which can’t possibly be right.
Uh...wow that theory of morality is really messed up as is that entire waste of bandwdith that you call a post. You are really educated and so even more misinformed.
By definition the moral action i.e. present future imperative can't be determined by the best moral consequences i.e. future happenings as they haven't yet happened. You cannot base what you knowledge of you "should do now" on what "will be later" unless you have knowledge of what will be later which is impossible. Thus if such absurdity known as consequentialism is the basis of liberal/leftist "morality" then now wonder one finds leftist to lost without a compass in the moral lanscape as all they have to guide them is their personal hopes and wishes that what they are doing is will result in the best. Totally Pathethic...
Oh is if the final consequences also determined the rightness of one's action then one could argue that genocide is a good thing if those under races like EVIL Joos are prevent the advance of the much larger super German race then it must be a good thing to kill those EVIl Joos and ensure prosparity of the German people....Gee isn't consequentialism fun?
Kidnapping third world blacks and taking them to American is also right because the child will have a better future in America....etc..
All Evil is done with hope good will results.
That is not a morality system but its antithesis.
Now that I destoryed your entire moral philosophy
by pointed out that is merely the wishful thinking fallacy...we procede will debunking the rest of this dibble.
Quote: It is easy to imagine situations in which following Kantian rules rigidly requires, for instance, telling Nazi police that, yes, there is indeed a family of Jews hiding in your attic, or where, in a case of limited resources, it is impermissible to choose who will live and who will die, and thus you must condemn all to exhaust their resources and die together.
Ah the Kantian Strawman...point to a flawed interpetation of Kant and dismiss all nonconsequencalist systems.
Quotefor Kevin : Consequentialist thinking would in both cases accept the obvious solution of doing some bad in order to prevent much greater harm – telling a lie to save a life, or letting some die so that many can live.
Thats a contradiction because is the best consequence is realized then not bad doing has occured.
Quote for Kevin : Similar comparisons can be made against other relatively inflexible moral systems (explaining, for instance, why many conservative religious thinkers insist on restricting access to birth control or clean drug needles, where consequence-minded liberals are more willing to adopt a “whatever-works” stance and endorse any program that effectively reduces severely bad consequences – unwanted pregnancy, infectious disease – even at the cost of lesser bad consequences – risky sex, drug use).
Whatever-works is depandant of your conception of what defines "works." I submit we have different standards. We are NOT working for the same goals.
You want to decrease infectious disease by increasing risky sex? Hello? Hello? Is anyone home?
Idiotic...stunningly stupid.
Quote: Where the predictable outcome of an action is clearly better in one case than another, and especially when the objection to it is not that it actually entails bad consequences but merely that it breaks some rule (e.g., is a “sin”), the attraction of consequentialism is again clear: deliberately choosing bad consequences out of concern for a rule and not for the actual lives of the people affected seems absurd and, worse, morally indifferent to the good or harm people experience.
False presumption of knowlegde of future events...aka wishful thinking. These "rules" are not based on mere predilection but principles of truth which are in most cases likely result in the
best. You misunderstand the application of the principles if you think Christians diliberately choose the worst consequences. Unlike yourself, we
don't place all of our faith in our own judgement
unlike consequencentialism does. In our system, there is room for faith, hope, and yes even doubt.
Quote: Utilitarian consequentialists (“utilitarians”) define the good in individualistic terms – what is good for a person is morally good for them, on the grounds that there can be nothing good or bad for a person in any sense other than that which furthers or harms their interests.
Aka pure selfish narcissism.
Quote: As to those interests, the person themselves determines what they are. (Most utilitarians have been atheists, hence see no imposed good from un-earthly sources. As to an earthly good, what else could it be but what helps or harms the person in question, and who could judge what “help” or “harm” means in this context other than the person themselves?
Translation: Who needs a God when I've made a god out of myself?
Quote: John Stuart Mill offered a somewhat weak “proof” of the theory of utilitarianism by observing that everyone has interests and values, but they are unique for each person – thus we cannot promote any particular value as best among all human values, but must allow each person to seek their own good.
Mere assertion follow by nonsequitor. I reject the
notion that everyone's interests are unique. Human
beings have human natures which have interests inheirent to their existance. This is one of the fundamental flaws of leftism; the denial of the existiance of human nature. A most irrational and unscientific dogma. Even if interest of unique it
doesn't follow those interest are of equal value unless one assumes that this perticular value of
"there is no best" to be true and thus violate your own system's rule. I love how all leftist moralitty system's always end up saying all people
are equal but some people are more equal than others... Kevin...George Orwell dubs three Knight of Doublespeak.
Quote: Since good and bad are defined in terms of personal interest, and no other definition of good or bad seems possible, the task of morality is to promote the good – personal benefit or interest – as much as possible.
Okay...goood...goood...
Quote: Further, there is nothing about any one person that makes them better or more worthy than another – if “the good” is defined in terms of personal interest, and everybody has such an interest, and those individual interests are all different, there is no way to say that some people are more important than others, or that some people’s interests carry greater weight than others.
Uhhhh wrong! Since I determine what my personal interest is and I decide that it is in mine interest to make all other interest less than
my own then it is good to seek my interest to insure that I rule over everybody else and that I carry more weight than everybody else then how could you say I my interest is wrong than that your interest of "nobody carry more weight than anybody else" is better than mine? Unless you are saying that your "equality" interest has more moral weight than my inequality interest which make you no different than me.
Ladies and Gents that is self contradictory nonsense. Poeple, read what Kevin writes ,it makes no sense. It is illogical and irrational. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could go to school for as long as Kevin has and believe this rubbish but since I understand what purpose of modern "education" is I am not surprised.
Quote: For reasons that should be obvious, consequentialism – specifically, Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism – was the foundation of the political movement now known as “classical liberalism.” Though what today we call “liberalism” is rather different from that, and does not directly emphasize utilitarianism for the most part, it retains many features of classical liberalism and its consequentialist reasoning.
*mouth hits floor* *shock* Utter Crap...total BS. Where the hell did you get this? Get a refund on your tutition. That is it. I'm not even going to bother...you just lost any respectibility you had which wasn't much. You are officially the Ward Churchill of this site.
p.s. I haven't this correct the spelling and grammer.
posted on 05.23.2005 4:06 AM22
God designed humans with the strongest sex drive in nature; and coupled that with our greatest biological pleasure being experienced at organism [Someone might add this to the mind/brain controversy]. He did this as a gift because He loved us. Along with this beautiful, and terrible, gift he gave us the "rule". Since you will bond body, mind, and soul with anyone you have sex with - it should be with one person for life. Not moralism, but practical advice. I've heard the sex act (search your own experiences) described as similar to gluing two sheets of plywood together, and then trying to get them apart
You assume that sex only has one purpose and you appear to rather narrowly define it. What is the difference between sex and physical intimacy? Is a French kiss sex? Is holding each other naked, warm and tight but not engaging in genital stimulation sex? And note that I am not classifying these things as actions that lead to sex, although I admit they can, but as separate acts on their own. What other things do they create and express? Do they express affection, and provide comfort? If it isn't sex, at what point does it become that? And how?
If you engage in sex to express your affection, for someone else, or to comfort a friend whom you do not consider a potential mate, it does not necessarily cheapen the act. Keep in mind I'm not describing anonymous one-night stands.
[Hey, she wanted it, and sex is fun - it was consensual - we hurt no one].
This is a sad story, but don't virgins and married people commit suicide too? But I might agree with you, depending on the circumstance and the emotional maturity of those involved with this that you did not engage in sex in the proper way. If you continuously use the physical act and pleasure of sex as a barrier in order to avoid emotional intimacy, then you should be going to a shrink or priest, not a singles bar.
I will also point out that what you define as the ideal - it should be with one person for life. is not what young men are being taught, often not even by Christian parents and schools. Settling down with one person and not having sex until being married is not defined as a very masculine thing to do in our society. Male self-esteem is often based on sexual prowess and conquest and that is in part the true inherent nature of what it is to be a man. To do as you ask is in some ways considered to be the feminization of a man. And most people, even most Christians I think, would believe that is a bad thing. It is against his inner nature. Or is it? Or does it instead say something about the poor regard for feminine qualities that our culture has? Is this the "Patriarchal" set of Biblical values we should return to? I think not.
In order to participate in such a relationship properly as you have described it is necessary that the man yield some of his ego. But to yield and be passive is a feminine quality. And the woman must also come forward to claim and take her place as equal beside the man. But to take is a masculine quality. How is can this work? (And it does work!) Is it possible there is a bit of the woman in the man and the man in the woman? Adam's rib perhaps?
posted on 05.23.2005 9:43 PM23
Patrick
You assume that sex only has one purpose and you appear to rather narrowly define itGood implied question. For which I have no real answer. The context in which I heard the plywood example was intercourse. I think that is the "one flesh" framework of scripture also. Where in the process of mutual sexual satisfaction and intimacy do you weld the sheets together? Got me.
The story itself was sad, but it was meant to show the power that sexual intimacy has for good, and bad - not to jerk tears. Sex is never casual - unless we have so walled off our mind and spirit from the physical act that we have become callous and beastial. And of course I didnt engage in sex in the right way - or I would have had enough true intimacy with the person prior to sex to know what she was really looking for and needed (and perhaps been her friend instead of her "lover").
And you are right - this is not what I was taught about sex by the church I was raised in; or my father; or my friends; or my own sex drive (the famous "flesh, world, and satan").
But in the thread, how do we really gauge the real consequences of sexual decisions outside of committed relationships where we can see the long-term results? And are we ever be able to fully wall off our logic from our selfish desire for sexual gratification? I was "lucky". Have all of us who have glued together, and ripped apart, from other people kept track of those folk to see how they are fairing years later? Have we left scars on them? What scars have we retained? I got to see that answer in a couple of different circumstances - this and another. So when I heard the "plywood" analogy it struck home.
Knowing humans will always strike lower than their aim - shouldn't we strive to aim high at all times? I do not think we can guage the consequences, at least in sex, enough to alter our ethics.
As to the "inner female" question - or our dual natures: I think God, while we call him "He", really is not "male"; but carries both gender's qualities in full - He is fully male and fully female. I think men and women also carry parts of the opposite gender in their character - but I would be really careful to define what character traits are "male" or "female". I think the idea of marriage is that a man and a woman unite body, mind, and spirit to form one entity - something that more fully reflects God's dual gender character.
Now I know your question is: if two men (or two women) unite do they also unite the male and female parts of their characters into this same single "one flesh" reflection of God's dual gender nature? My initial reaction (please note that phrase!) is no. Certainly the Bible only relates to this in a heterosexual relationship. And in the same context, homosexuality is described as a sin in the same book. So, I will toss that ball into your court brother - what say thee.
posted on 05.24.2005 12:17 AM24
"Now I know your question is: if two men (or two women) unite do they also unite the male and female parts of their characters into this same single "one flesh" reflection of God's dual gender nature? My initial reaction (please note that phrase!) is no"
The correct answer is yes an no.(surprise) ;-)
However, I would start with your definition of God as dual-gender. I don't think you can make that assumption. Gender is a thing of the natural world. If God is truly "supra"-natural (above nature), then you are seeing him through the imperfect human lense of perception.So to God, "gender" in any form may not apply at all. God is unknownable.
However, since you are a Christian I'm going to assume that you believe that God revealed himself through The Bible, in which case I would say that the God of the Bible is pretty clearly male in aspect.
Of course, since I'm NOT a Christian of a particular bent I don't believe the Bible in "inerrant". So to me it represents what a culture from over 5000 years ago thought about God. It's not necesarily wrong, but it is filtered through the culture and the times it was written in. Whew!.
OK, back to the duality of marraige (which is really a quadality in practice). I suggest that the correct way to evaluate whether a gay relationship is a "marriage" is through means testing. In other words, spend a month living with a gay couple and then spend a month living with a straight couple. Then, other than gender, name the differences and similarities.
You will find that on a practical basis, they work and function almost exactly the same way. The relationship still has the same give and take that is the hallmark of a couple. The ingredients of male-female are there.
However, if you put gender back into the mix, there are differences, because of the quantity of the ingredients. And this is where it starts to get real fun because in a sense a gay male couple works differently from a lesbian couple, so they are not directly comparable. Again, all the ingredients are in place, but just in different quantities and mixtures.
So what you end up with is interesting. If you look at some of the primary things that are defining aspects of a marriage, such as monogamy and stability over time, you will find that lesbian couples are the most monogamous and long lasting, then the straight couples, and at the bottom of the list gay male couples.
However when ever anyone debates "gay marraige", or gay anything for that matter, the primary objections, promiscuity, etc., are about the gay male couple. Why?
posted on 05.24.2005 12:35 PM25
Patrick,
If you engage in sex to express your affection, for someone else, or to comfort a friend whom you do not consider a potential mate, it does not necessarily cheapen the act.Nothing "cheapens" the sex act- it is a beautiful gift of God to us. The act of intercourse has huge physical, mental, and spiritual meaning regardless of our potentially cheap reasons for taking part - we can cheapen ourselves, not the act posted on 05.24.2005 4:34 PM
26
Patrick,
I do think you can make the assumption about God's complete nature - we were after all created in His image. That is obviously not our physical appearance - but a spiritual likeness (ability to think, being made for eternity, passion, etc). This includes men and women, both the hunters and the nurturers. I think He must include all of our individual good qualities in His nature. Even the bad ones for that matter, since I am not Dualist I do not grant evil any creative power. Only the power to corrupt the good qualities God created. Like sex. Now take God is Love as an example: not that he loves, or likes to be loved, but is love - it isnt what He does, its who He is. Now isn't that a more feminine characteristic?
Why would you make that argument anyway? You believe men and women are "dual gender" in the same way. And we are on a material level - both have male and female hormones. Why wouldn't that be a reflexion of God's nature? In relationships, a 50/50 mix; an 80/20 mix; and a 20/80 mix would all be very different relationships. The question is: does the creator want it to be 50/50 ish? Or does He really care?
As to Bible inerrancy: Yes, and no. There is allegory in the Bible; there are social systems like slavery that do not exist to the degree (although when I was an old marxist I didnt have trouble with the words wage slave - so inserting employer and employee for master and slave isnt a great leap). There are things that are cultural in the Bible - any good teacher will understand those reference points for the purposes of interpreting the Bible. But have the ten commandments failed? No. Go to the Sermon on the Mount. Have the beatitudes failed? The wisdom of proverbs and Psalms? Not in the least. Setting aside homosexuality for an instant - have any of the teachings on sexual sin been wrong? I would say this culture proves the opposite. The Bible is correct: 'Either marriage [monogamy, life partner, etc], with complete faithfulness to your partner or else total abstinence'. A harsh program, but really it is the owners manual for the 2005 Human SexDrive. The Bible is inerrant as a guide to knowing God, understanding what God wants for us, and how he wants us to follow Him.
One more example of the unknown consequences of consequential ethics. Much of the hatred that radical Islam has for the West is the flood of "modern" Western culture (and primarily sexual promiscuity and images) eroding their culture - and their children. Go figure.
Now we are this far in the discussion because I know you believe in monogamy too. I am running ill today - so I am going to leave before I talk about your very good question about why gays, and not lesbians, bear the brunt of the attack. But, I gave you plenty to tell me I am crazy about so its probably a good stopping point.
posted on 05.24.2005 6:17 PM27
James Fletcher Baxter:
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot invent criteria greater than himselfActually, he did, and he called it "God." *ducks* posted on 05.31.2005 3:54 PM
28
JCHFleetguy:
It's funny that you should cite Lewis' sex/appetite comparison from Mere Christianity, because it is (in my estimation) one of the sloppiest arguments in the entire book. The comparison is invalid on its face. Eating is virtually guaranteed to fulfill its biological purpose (providing nutrition and sustenance), whereas sex is nowhere close to doing so. Not every sexual encounter will result in pregnancy (in fact, relatively few will), and until fairly recently, there was a good chance that any offspring created would not survive until adulthood (which is probably still true, if you consider fertilized eggs which fail to implant, as discussed in a prior thread).
Thus it makes perfect biological sense that we should crave sex more often than we "need" to have it (if "need" is expressed in number of children). And yet, despite that, I know of no one who has sex (or even masturbates) anywhere near as often as they eat. And never mind the fact that nobody asserts that once you eat a cheeseburger, you can eat nothing but cheeseburgers for the rest of your days. :)
So the whole "sex as gluttony" thing falls flat.
That leaves 43 million [abortions worldwide] because we will not control our sex drive rationally.Funny that you should use the word "cannot." I tend to agree with that assessment. Sounds like a design flaw to me...
The worst of course is sub-sahara africa where the epidemic is attributed to long-haul truck drivers unable to stay away from prostitutes - one of those victimless crimesNever mind the heavy influence of religious dogmatics railing against condom use.
How many divorces due to adultery; how many sexually molested children; how many rapes, etc.Read your old testament. These were common even then.
I take the state of sex in the world as an indication that the owners manual is correct: sex with life partner only.I'd be interested to see how you get from point A to point B, especially in light of your "cannot" attribution above. It looks to me as if it doesn't matter whether the "owner's manual" is correct, because we cannot live by it. It's my experience that when people are held to an impossible standard, they stop trying to live by any standard at all. posted on 05.31.2005 4:10 PM
29
Nice blog. How are you?
Travel
Timeshare, Car Rentals, Honeymoons, Vacation Rentals, Hotels, Travel Insurance, Las Vegas, Cruises, Airline Tickets, Business Travel Health
Contact Lens, Health Insurance, Diabetes, HGH, Dental Plans, Weight Loss, Hair Loss, Spas, Health Care, Vitamins Homes
Home Loans, Renters Insurance, Home Insurance, Real Estate, Home Selling, Moving, Apartments, Furniture, Interior Design, Air Purifiers
Finance
Debt Consolidation, Refinance, Cash Advance, Mortgages, Credit Repair, Credit Cards, Credit Reports, Auto Loans, Investing, Online Payments Internet
Spam Filter, Popup Blocker, Parental Control, Web Hosting, Domain Names, Internet Service, Web Design, Internet Marketing, Internet Security, DSL
30
Nice blog. How are you?
Travel
Timeshare, Car Rentals, Honeymoons, Vacation Rentals, Hotels, Travel Insurance, Las Vegas, Cruises, Airline Tickets, Business Travel Health
Contact Lens, Health Insurance, Diabetes, HGH, Dental Plans, Weight Loss, Hair Loss, Spas, Health Care, Vitamins Homes
Home Loans, Renters Insurance, Home Insurance, Real Estate, Home Selling, Moving, Apartments, Furniture, Interior Design, Air Purifiers
Finance
Debt Consolidation, Refinance, Cash Advance, Mortgages, Credit Repair, Credit Cards, Credit Reports, Auto Loans, Investing, Online Payments Internet
Spam Filter, Popup Blocker, Parental Control, Web Hosting, Domain Names, Internet Service, Web Design, Internet Marketing, Internet Security, DSL