mickeyone
(I hope this will be an opening salvo in the current cultural war)
Numerous articles, editorials, and opinion pieces in the New York Times and other publications make repeated reference to the issue of morality. While morality is a matter that (for better or worse) concerns society as a whole, it is particularly well trod territiory for thinkers on the right and around which the conservative movement has rallied and whose terms they have attempted to define for the rest of us.
It’s vital that in an open society, those who do not hew to a fundamentalist ideology, and who wish not to play second banana in a discussion so important to society and to the electorate, understand that what is meant by morality, and moral behavior as defined by the conservatives and religious right, are not necessarily what others may consider ethical behavior.
Unfortunately, the distinction between morals and ethics is not obvious; the two terms are generally used interchangeably, and while they were once mostly synonymous, the understanding of morality has come to mean in contemporary terms, something unique. The social conservatives claim the moral high ground-it fits them as securely as the miter on the Pope’s head. Morality, as practiced, or more often, paid lip service in the twent first century, is not quite what Chaucer had in mind when writing in the fourteenth century.
Morality as we have come to view it, is generally based on doctrine of a particular group, culture, religion, or other social order. The morality of one hierarchy often stands in stark contrast to that of another; advancing globalization of commerce and the ideas and mores that accompanies it, tend to incresingly blur the non-sectarian boundaries while at the same time, sharpen the the conflict between different, and often competing belief systems.
Not so blurry is the global conflict we call the “War on Terror” where we see radical moral claims as expressed by the fundamentalist Christians on one hand, in bold relief and in mortal combat with the morality of extremist views of some many followers of Islam. My God is bigger than your God.
Doctrine defines the root and nature of conflict, and morality is the handmaiden, and the language of doctrine. Whether moral behavior as defined by a radical Shi’ite in the form of an exploding acolyyte, is rewarded by a first class ticket to heaven with 72 virgins (in coach) thrown in, or by a handshake from St. Peter at the Pearly Gates in reward for one’s martyrdom in the service of Jesus Christ, the doctrine that gets one there is defined by its relative moral value. And yes Virginia, Morality is relative.
To navigate this confusing, conflicting war of beliefs, warning signs should be posted at the borders of the myriad “moral” territories. JewIsh law, culture and history, take highly nuanced and reasoned positions, as gleaned from the Torah, Talmud and other texts regarding such modern issues as stem cell research; their position says that in certain circumstances and various conditions stem cell research can be viewed favorably, not as immoral, in other words. Other religions adhere to stricter tenets of faith, linking inevitably and in general terms, stem cell research with abortion, thus making it bad, immoral.
We speak of a moral compass; mine points south, yours, to the north. The Inuit people of the Great White North often set its old people who became a considerable hindrance to the survival of the clan, adrift on ice floes to freeze to death, making them one less mouth to feed. a clear and stunning contrast to us in lower North America where the Ten Commandments hold sway commanding: “Thou shalt not kill”!
Ethics has no compass; it doesn’t need one; it’s the same on all 360 degrees and in every dimension; it’s the same on Earth as it is on Mars. It speaks for itself, does not require a CEO or a Pope, a board of directors, or a council of elders; no priests in the pulpit, no Sunday School teachers, no presidents or prime ministers. Ethics dictates only one thing: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you”!
Let the right carry the Morality banner, while the left applies the principle of ethical behavior in every human intercourse and transaction and demands it of its leaders and candidates. Settling for moral solutions, especially when it’s so often a poke in the eye, becomes yet another and bigger source of human conflict.
Numerous articles, editorials, and opinion pieces in the New York Times and other publications make repeated reference to the issue of morality. While morality is a matter that (for better or worse) concerns society as a whole, it is particularly well trod territiory for thinkers on the right and around which the conservative movement has rallied and whose terms they have attempted to define for the rest of us.
It’s vital that in an open society, those who do not hew to a fundamentalist ideology, and who wish not to play second banana in a discussion so important to society and to the electorate, understand that what is meant by morality, and moral behavior as defined by the conservatives and religious right, are not necessarily what others may consider ethical behavior.
Unfortunately, the distinction between morals and ethics is not obvious; the two terms are generally used interchangeably, and while they were once mostly synonymous, the understanding of morality has come to mean in contemporary terms, something unique. The social conservatives claim the moral high ground-it fits them as securely as the miter on the Pope’s head. Morality, as practiced, or more often, paid lip service in the twent first century, is not quite what Chaucer had in mind when writing in the fourteenth century.
Morality as we have come to view it, is generally based on doctrine of a particular group, culture, religion, or other social order. The morality of one hierarchy often stands in stark contrast to that of another; advancing globalization of commerce and the ideas and mores that accompanies it, tend to incresingly blur the non-sectarian boundaries while at the same time, sharpen the the conflict between different, and often competing belief systems.
Not so blurry is the global conflict we call the “War on Terror” where we see radical moral claims as expressed by the fundamentalist Christians on one hand, in bold relief and in mortal combat with the morality of extremist views of some many followers of Islam. My God is bigger than your God.
Doctrine defines the root and nature of conflict, and morality is the handmaiden, and the language of doctrine. Whether moral behavior as defined by a radical Shi’ite in the form of an exploding acolyyte, is rewarded by a first class ticket to heaven with 72 virgins (in coach) thrown in, or by a handshake from St. Peter at the Pearly Gates in reward for one’s martyrdom in the service of Jesus Christ, the doctrine that gets one there is defined by its relative moral value. And yes Virginia, Morality is relative.
To navigate this confusing, conflicting war of beliefs, warning signs should be posted at the borders of the myriad “moral” territories. JewIsh law, culture and history, take highly nuanced and reasoned positions, as gleaned from the Torah, Talmud and other texts regarding such modern issues as stem cell research; their position says that in certain circumstances and various conditions stem cell research can be viewed favorably, not as immoral, in other words. Other religions adhere to stricter tenets of faith, linking inevitably and in general terms, stem cell research with abortion, thus making it bad, immoral.
We speak of a moral compass; mine points south, yours, to the north. The Inuit people of the Great White North often set its old people who became a considerable hindrance to the survival of the clan, adrift on ice floes to freeze to death, making them one less mouth to feed. a clear and stunning contrast to us in lower North America where the Ten Commandments hold sway commanding: “Thou shalt not kill”!
Ethics has no compass; it doesn’t need one; it’s the same on all 360 degrees and in every dimension; it’s the same on Earth as it is on Mars. It speaks for itself, does not require a CEO or a Pope, a board of directors, or a council of elders; no priests in the pulpit, no Sunday School teachers, no presidents or prime ministers. Ethics dictates only one thing: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you”!
Let the right carry the Morality banner, while the left applies the principle of ethical behavior in every human intercourse and transaction and demands it of its leaders and candidates. Settling for moral solutions, especially when it’s so often a poke in the eye, becomes yet another and bigger source of human conflict.
