No pictures, no catchy Brick related title, just an issue that I feel like writing a little bit about tonight. I have been reading several articles today regarding North Carolina's ban and Mr. Obama's "new" stance on gay marriage and now it seems to have reached Facebook. I've read several short comments and a couple of long debated threads both of support and derision regarding the President's announcement and frankly it has me smiling a little bit to read what my "Facebook friends" think on this issue. The main reason for my bemusement is that I would have guessed wrong about which side of this issue these people would have come down on in about half of the cases. I also find it intriguing that this is the issue that is stirring the passions of this particular group of people since very few of my friends are gay and would want to avail themselves of the opportunity to get married given the chance. So it leads me to speculate on the cause of the polarizing nature of this and like issues of moral or ethical standards and why so many people have opinions on these issues even when they do not directly have any bearing on their own lives.
One of the most consistent things I do when teaching my Honors US History classes is conduct debates. Two people are randomly selected and given their side of the debate while the rest of the class is free to choose the side that they wish to write a position paper on regarding the debate prompt. During the actual debate the class forms a circle with the two debaters in the center and the rest of the class lined up behind the debater that supports their position. Although the two people debating do most of the talking, everyone in the class is given the opportunity to rebut the person with an opposing opinion. And all of the students help in writing a closing argument for their side to conclude the debates. The prompts are based on historic events and usually are pretty straight forward questions of ethics such as "was the war in Vietnam justified" or "were the industrialists of the late 19th Century Robber Barons or Captains of Industry". The point for the students is to force them to take a side and defend it. Since the prompts are all centered on an issue of ethical or moral behavior the very first debate each year is "are your morals based on Universal Truths or on Cultural Relativism". This usually freaks the kids out and it generates at least one or two parent phone calls each year. It will be the first time for most of these students to be faced with a philosophical question of this nature and then be required to research and support a position. It really is one of the best things I do in the classroom and the thing we do that causes the most student agida. So when I see people voluntarily debating these issues of ethics of their own free will I chuckle a little bit because more than a few of the people that I am referring to are former students. It does a heart good.
And so I want to present my argument in favor of the concept of Universalism. The belief in Universal Truth basically means that certain things are either right or wrong regardless of public opinion or evolution or consensus or any other man-made philosophy. These things transcend human thought because they are well... universal. Not every issue is subject to a universal truth. Many acts of humans are basically ambiguous. For example is it not inherently and universal right to eat eggs for breakfast and sinful and wrong to eat pancakes. That is a choice without a corresponding universal determination of the ethical and moral weight of right or wrong. But there are somethings in life that I believe are truly right or wrong, good or bad, something to emulate or something to avoid, for everyone in every situation for all time. And from those universal truths stem our ability as humans to construct ethical codes for actions that fall somewhere in between the universal and the ambiguous. So what things are subject to universal truth? I believe that they are issues where an individual with malice and forethought seeks to harm another individual. So it would be universally wrong to murder someone else. It would be universally wrong to physically attack or rape another person. It would be universally wrong to steal from another person. It would be universally wrong to lie to another person. Since I am a Christian I can pretty easily wrap this into a neat little maxim for myself called the Golden Rule. But I won't try to justify Universalism based on a "faith" based religion because if you don't share that faith my arguments along those lines will be meaningless to you. I will attempt to argue Universalism on the basis of logic.
To begin I think there must be an understanding of the other side to this debate and that is Cultural Relativism or the Fletcheran offshoot sometimes referred to as "situational ethics". Relativists believe that there are no universal truths only human agreement of the nature of right and wrong. Therefore what is determined to be right depends on all of the circumstances surrounding a particular action. What is the cultural norm for the person making the decision? Are there mitigating circumstances that might tend to lead the person to believe that their actions, although at times considered wrong, might serve a greater good? Is the person making their decision based on love? When all variables are weighed it is then the responsibility of the decision maker to determine the rightness of the action based on his best assessment of the relevant data and anticipated outcome of the decision. This is just a thumbnail sketch of Relativism and not a particularly flattering one so if this is your particular bent than I will be happy to give you equal time to make the case for your philosophical belief.
So why do I believe that Univeralism is true and Relativism is false? I have two logical arguments to support Universalism. The first argument is that without a universal truth no action of another person can ever be judged as wrong. Since individuals are free to determine for themselves the rightfulness of their actions based on the available information they can always claim and truly believe that what they were doing was correct for the given situation. And even if there is a consensus of opposing opinion about a particular action, it can be argued that a consensus can change over time. Therefore calling something wrong today might leave you in the position of having to amend that opinion if, overtime and circumstances, a new consensus is formed. (i.e. gay marriage) It is hard to believe that the public consensus would ever change enough to accept as correct the actions of someone like Hitler, but remember it was the democratic process that brought him to the office of Chancellor of Germany and that was after he spelled out his political and social agenda in his book Mien Kampf. So my point is that within his community he felt, and the community supported, his final solution because it would serve a greater good for the Third Reich. A Cultural Relativist would have to consider that before condemning his actions as wrong. An interesting "catch 22" to this argument is also that while a Universalist is not only free, but also obligated, to charge a Relativist as being wrong a Relativist can not charge a Universalist as being wrong because within the community of Universalists that philosophy is the accepted norm.
The second logical argument that I present to support Universalism is that within Universalism you never have to assume an unknown outcome like you do within the Relativists' world. Let me use an example that I typically present to my classes:
One day while your sister is taking a nap in a hammock in the backyard a 6'8 hulking man rings the front door bell and you answer it. He is covered in gore and is holding a 12 inch knife also dripping blood. In a very sinister voice he demands, "where is your sister?" Since you like your sister you are reluctant to tell him the truth knowing that she is completely vulnerable in the backyard. And even though you have been brought up to believe that lying is wrong, certainly this would be a case where telling this guy that she just went to Hawaii for an extended vacation would be the right thing to do to save her from whatever evil this monster has in mind for her. So you lie believing that you know what would have happened had you told the truth and assuming that what you have done is morally and ethically correct. What you didn't know was that this man is actually a very good friend of your sister and he had just been fighting with a guy even bigger and uglier that wants to kill your sister and this real bad guy is on his way over to your house. Meanwhile because of your lie the only guy big enough to protect you sister is at the airport trying to catch the next flight to Honolulu.
So how would a Universalist deal with this same situation? If a universalist has determined that lying is wrong in every situation then he would not lie. He would have the option of not answering. He could question the person regarding his motives. He could slam the door and run to the backyard to warn his sister. None of these things would be considered Universally wrong. And even if the protector goes away and the harmer comes and harms the responsibility is not on the shoulders of the person that did not lie, the responsibility is with the person that did the harm. You might want to argue that he is culpable for not preventing the attack, but did he truly possess the ability to prevent it? Sometimes bad things will happen even when the right things are done. That doesn't mean that they weren't the right thing to do.
So back to the issue of gay marriage or at least back to the moral dilemma that this issue seems to have generated for the average American Facebook friend of Brick House. I think I can identify several groups on both sides to this issue. On the pro gay marriage side I think I see Relativists that want to support and show love and acceptance to this particular constituency and also want to deny Univeralists their belief in the wrongness of the act and in so doing are violating their own basic tenant of not judging as wrong the actions of a different community. On the other side I see Univeralists mis-identifying a legal issue as a moral/ethical issue and resenting the fact that their moralizing opinions are being challenged. Now I am not trying to be condescending to either side and my opinions are just that, my opinions. I also am not speaking for any Christian community or all knowing pontificating brain trust. This is just my take on this debate. In essence I kinda look at it as a non-issue. I have not commented on any of the postings or given my opinions on any of the threads. I figure that this little isolated corner of cyberspace is all mine to wax philosophically within and so I intend to limit myself and my take on life to only those people that have had the intestinal fortitude to read through this entire blog. And in so doing you have earned the right to comment so please do and have a good day.
No comments:
Post a Comment