One of the things I try to do in my life, with widely varying degrees of success, is to apply the principle of moral and ethical consistency when I'm considering my position on a topic. What's that mean? It's a form of intellectual fairness doctrine that I find easier to illustrate with a couple of examples rather than a philosophical position statement.
How many people give to charity around Christmas time but never the rest of the year? Is hunger more acute over the holidays? What percentage of Americans send relief money overseas but would walk over the homeless on our own streets? How many of us rant and rave about our freedom yet cast a blind eye to injustice toward others?
How many NRA members also belong to the ACLU? Since many claim that their defense of the Second Amendment and its protections of the relationship between a boy and his guns is based in large part on the need to be ready to defend freedom, why not support an organization which was created to defend all of the Bill of Rights? What percentage of Second Amendment supporters who claim to be willing to die to preserve the original wording of this addendum to the Constitution are in support of a new Amendment to limit the definition of marriage? Many who would recoil at the stereotyping of gun owners would seem to have no compunction badmouthing those dreaded liberals who think that the rest of the Constitution is pretty important as well. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone but this is a classic example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. It becomes a somewhat circular argument unless you accept the notion of ethical and moral consistency. If you think the Constitution is fine the way it is, then you cannot support any modifications. If you want to see it modified for some purpose unpredicted by the founders, then you have to accept the fact that any part of the Constitution is tentative as well - including your personal favorite parts. That's moral and ethical consistency. Of course the founders told us how they viewed the matter by creating a method (just hard enough to pull off) to evolve the document in the first place. (I find it hard to imagine any of the wealthy property owning founders attending a modern gun show and writing the Amendment as it is today...). The point here is not to bash gun owners but merely to try to illustrate an example of how we often seem to have no problem being inconsistent in our beliefs.
I'm curious what others think about this. For me, this attempt at balance allied with empathy is my ideal approach to complex issues. And it's one I often fail miserably attempting.
How many people give to charity around Christmas time but never the rest of the year? Is hunger more acute over the holidays? What percentage of Americans send relief money overseas but would walk over the homeless on our own streets? How many of us rant and rave about our freedom yet cast a blind eye to injustice toward others?
How many NRA members also belong to the ACLU? Since many claim that their defense of the Second Amendment and its protections of the relationship between a boy and his guns is based in large part on the need to be ready to defend freedom, why not support an organization which was created to defend all of the Bill of Rights? What percentage of Second Amendment supporters who claim to be willing to die to preserve the original wording of this addendum to the Constitution are in support of a new Amendment to limit the definition of marriage? Many who would recoil at the stereotyping of gun owners would seem to have no compunction badmouthing those dreaded liberals who think that the rest of the Constitution is pretty important as well. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone but this is a classic example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. It becomes a somewhat circular argument unless you accept the notion of ethical and moral consistency. If you think the Constitution is fine the way it is, then you cannot support any modifications. If you want to see it modified for some purpose unpredicted by the founders, then you have to accept the fact that any part of the Constitution is tentative as well - including your personal favorite parts. That's moral and ethical consistency. Of course the founders told us how they viewed the matter by creating a method (just hard enough to pull off) to evolve the document in the first place. (I find it hard to imagine any of the wealthy property owning founders attending a modern gun show and writing the Amendment as it is today...). The point here is not to bash gun owners but merely to try to illustrate an example of how we often seem to have no problem being inconsistent in our beliefs.
I'm curious what others think about this. For me, this attempt at balance allied with empathy is my ideal approach to complex issues. And it's one I often fail miserably attempting.
22 comments:
I like consistency. I like truth. I would love to proclaim that my love of these things stems from a high moral position.
Mostly it stems from laziness. I can't remember lies. The truth is easier. I like consistency because it has the comfortable familiarity of habit.
That said, I several years ago studied the idealized knight of the Middle Ages. I was amazed to find myself in many of the ideals. I actually live by a personal code that is quite similar to the codes of the idealized knights.
I really have no idea how I adopted these ideals. As far back as I can remember they were just there, a part of me.
I cannot imagine living apart from such ideals. I cannot understand how the creatures I babysit (I am a correctional officer in a local jail) can live as they do. It is a foreign way of thinking, alien and strange.
Even so, I love liberty enough to extend great freedom even to those who live and think differently from myself. Again, not such a high road as it seems. I expect the same liberty in return.
Freedom, Love, and Honor.
Michael Lockridge
"Mostly it stems from laziness. I can't remember lies. The truth is easier."
Hmmm. I agree, and yet I did not know that I thought that this was true until you said it.
"For me, this attempt at balance allied with empathy is my ideal approach to complex issues."
I think that that is good thing to strive for, because I think that that is what the human sense of justice actually is: natural empathy expanded so that it is applied in a balanced, objective, and (mostly) unbiased manner. Since, as empathetic as most people are, they still tend to have more for those within their group(s) than for those outside of them, and that's what a balanced and consistent application (as you go into detail about) is meant to counteract. Am I understanding this correctly?
Since, as empathetic as most people are, they still tend to have more for those within their group(s) than for those outside of them, and that's what a balanced and consistent application (as you go into detail about) is meant to counteract. Am I understanding this correctly?
--------
I believe so. better stated than I did.
I think if people really applied the principle of consistency most of the objections to gay marriage for example might evaporate.
Mostly it stems from laziness. I can't remember lies. The truth is easier
-------
there is a great passage in the Movie 'critical care' where Edward Herman plays a malpractice attorney deposing James Spader's doctor. He describes how those telling the truth have nothing to fear from him because when they get confused all they need do is fall back to the truth whereas the liar has to remember all the little made up details.
What an interesting Post!!
It may seem ironic that a Jewish Agnostic (me), sees "The Golden Rule" in this issue. If one truly behaves so as to do (or refrain from doing) unto others what one would hope to see in return, the world would obviously be a much happier place. Although I do not believe that Jesus ever existed (at least as we are told the story in the New Testament) the teachings he espoused with regard to human interpersonal relationships and behavior certainly make a lot of sense. I believe that people do not require a threat of damnation to see that certain behavior towards others is much more likely to have positive results or to avoid negative outcomes.
I think one can look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a set of restrictions on the Government. In this sense, it uses the Old Testament statement of the Golden Rule (Do not do unto others....), rather than The New Testament version in which it is stated positively (Do unto others...). Clearly, if people abided by "Do unto others" all the time, no one would need to have the intellectual dishonesty demonstrated by supporting those portions of our laws that they happen to like or benefit from while actively trying to deny the other protections for anyone else. The same thing would obviously apply to giving charity, or just trying to be kind and helpful to others when the opportunity presented itself. Unfortunately, it seems to me, the majority of us (even those of us who profess to be followers of Christ's teachings) generally only pay lip service to our moral and ethical lives, rarely taking the time to think about how our behavior impacts on other people.
What an interesting Post!!
It may seem ironic that a Jewish Agnostic (me), sees "The Golden Rule" in this issue. If one truly behaves so as to do (or refrain from doing) unto others what one would hope to see in return, the world would obviously be a much happier place. Although I do not believe that Jesus ever existed (at least as we are told the story in the New Testament) the teachings he espoused with regard to human interpersonal relationships and behavior certainly make a lot of sense. I believe that people do not require a threat of damnation to see that certain behavior towards others is much more likely to have positive results or to avoid negative outcomes.
I think one can look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a set of restrictions on the Government. In this sense, it uses the Old Testament statement of the Golden Rule (Do not do unto others....), rather than The New Testament version in which it is stated positively (Do unto others...). Clearly, if people abided by "Do unto others" all the time, no one would need to have the intellectual dishonesty demonstrated by supporting those portions of our laws that they happen to like or benefit from while actively trying to deny the other protections for anyone else. The same thing would obviously apply to giving charity, or just trying to be kind and helpful to others when the opportunity presented itself. Unfortunately, it seems to me, the majority of us (even those of us who profess to be followers of Christ's teachings) generally only pay lip service to our moral and ethical lives, rarely taking the time to think about how our behavior impacts on other people.
Sorry for the double post, I don't know how it happened.
Harvey it was a great response so i didn't mind reading it twice. ;)
I agree that the golden rule is a pretty great way to live. (ethical and moral reciprocity) since it is pretty self-leveling for all but the sociopaths.
Plus it predates Christianity by several centuries.
I like this one Pliny :-)
I have tried for quite a few years to live my life as honestly and forthright as I possibly could. I have tried to be non-judgemental of others. I have tried to see others viewpoints as valid opinions....I too have failed miserably.
Balance ?
I like to think I am political conservative, a social liberal, and, a sexual anarchist !
By conservative, I don't mean the current neocon BS( that aint truly conservative) I am kind of a throw-back to something akin to a Goldwater type of conservative, with liberal social ideas.
As to the NRA and the ACLU, you are right. How many NRA members even respect the ACLU? Conversly, how many ACLU lawyers will even think about tackling a second ammendment issue? I've not seen many ??
I suppose that's where my conservatism comes from: don't fuck with the Bill of Rights ! No way, no how. It's a slippery slope. Once changed, the subsequent changes become easier and more frivolous. Case in point; the Eighteenth Ammendment, a silly thing made more silly by the ratification of the Twenty-first !
The Eighteenth remains the only Ammendment to be comepletely repealed....as of today??
"Heller Decision and the Second Amendment
So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."
-------
Taken from the ACLU website
Thank you.
I did not know about the Heller case.
I think the Golden Rule (in a conjunction of the "do unto others" and "do not do unto others" forms) is a good concept (and actually exists in some form in other religions) because it is a natural description of basic morality (reinforced, once more, by empathy). In fact, in its two different forms,it refers to two different forms of morality (which are even distinct neurologically!): restraining yourself from prohibited actions and compelling yourself to do necessary/beneficial actions (as defined by your interpretation of how they will affect others).
I loves mah parentheses.
great most pliny!
what i have always found as a puzzling ethical inconsistency is that of people who are anti-abortion and pro death penalty.
how do they rationalize not allowing a woman to abort an embryo (it's an embryo, not a baby!) under ANY circumstances (even rape) then be the first to say when someone should be executed?
they even go so far as to embrace the idea of cruel and unusual punishment in capital cases. it's always "they should tie him to the back of a truck then drag him naked down a gravel road til his skin peels off then dump battery acid all over him and let him suffer til he's dead!"
it kinda makes their "sanctity of life" argument goes right out the window.
yeah, so i meant to say great POST.
pardon my inability to proofread myself...
"they should tie him to the back of a truck then drag him naked down a gravel road til his skin peels off then dump battery acid all over him and let him suffer til he's dead!"
------
That one's not on the books in Texas I hope ;)
Your great example of the consistency paradox reminds me of the first time I ever posted. I had the poor sense to ask the question you posed - how many who opposed abortion had adopted kids and opposed executions? You'd have thunk I had done something rude with the Pope's funny hat by the measure of the bile in the response I got.
And don't forget compassionate conservatism - We'll defend every embryo in every womb, but once born you're on your own.
"We'll defend every embryo in every womb, but once born you're on your own."
oh gawd, how could i forget this one? i lived it after all! i lived in wyoming when i got pregnant at the age of 18 by a guy who i was not married to.
a majority of the people in the city i lived in were very anti-abortion. and that wasn't a problem for me at the time in my particular situation because i had decided as soon as i found out i was pregnant that i was going to keep my baby.
the problem for me was after my son was born. i had tried to do the right thing and marry the father, but he cheated on me and wouldn't stop drinking and was a mean bastard so i kicked him to the curb.
so now i have to get on public assistance to support my son and i. and i'm sure you can imagine how the conservative community views public assistance. they just thought i was the scum of the earth because i was on food stamps, public housing, and day care assistance even though i was a full time college student and working 2 part time jobs as a single parent. i seriously doubt many of them could have done what i did because it was damn hard.
it just doesn't make any sense.
Richelle - I fear this may sound patronizing but I'm not eloquent enough to say it properly. Your child is very lucky - I know how much hard work it is to raise children with 2 parents running interference for each other. Even with that it's sometimes exhausting. I honestly don't know how single parents do it. But clearly many do. Add to that the burden of having to work your way out of a hole to get an education. You've had to be a thousand times stronger than I ever have had to be.
This is one of the worst examples of moral inconsistency I know of. Every life is precious? - but not so precious that we give up anything as a nation to help the kids resulting from prohibiting abortion. I know there are exceptions but for many antiabortionists it seems like a cheap cop out. It costs them nothing to be all high and mighty opposing abortion, but ask them to dig down and make the lives of kids better and it's the old 'pull yourselves up by your bootstraps', rant. Yeah get an education but by the way we won't help with daycare, etc. crap. Nutrition is vital to the children's development but we have no money to feed the child. And on and on. For every success such as yourself how many women couldn't pull it off? 2, 3, 10? In my mind the issue of abortion cannot be debated without equal consideration to the children. That's moral consistency.
Sorry for the flaming liberal rant, but this is a hot button for me. Justice and opportunity in our society has to be defined by how we treat the least advantaged of our people or it means nothing. Most of us don't live in the world of Ward and June Cleaver. Sometimes we need a hand to make our particular version of the family come out ok.
It is the very complexity and difficulty of managing the human condition that leads to the inconsistency. Fair is a nice idea, but executing fairness is very hard.
Equal education and opportunity for all? An ideal. The reality is that some get lots of goodies, some don't. Some have to work hard, and probably still fail. Some don't have to work at all, and have resources to "succeed" at everything they do.
Humans as individuals and as groups are complex and inconsistent. Hence, you have that person or group that embrace a ban on abortion and the practice of execution for some criminals. Or the liberals who mean well but sometimes will leverage equality and opportunity with vast debts for society that will loom and swell and eventually crash down.
Humans can do great and terrible things. As individuals we often filter what we see and hear through some system of belief. That system makes things appear better and more understandable, but also leaves us partially blind and deaf.
Open yourself up fully to the experience of the human condition and you will likely end in despair.
It's not easy being me. It's not easy being you.
Yet it is wonderful.
Mike
Nice post Mike
Michael said,
"Fair is a nice idea, but executing fairness is very hard."
This sounds a lot like the stuff Botts was always saying: That Jesus' message of 'loving thy neighbor as thyself' is the hard road.
Hope everything is going well for you, Richelle. I'm with you in spirit as far as being a single parent (I have two teens), a college student (went full time for 8 straight semesters from Fall '03 thru Spring '07, graduated cum laude), etc.
Me 'at's off to ya!
Post a Comment