The West is having an identity crisis. We are supposed to be societies based on principles, particularly, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” an idea that has spread far beyond America’s shores.
In times of even the worst difficulties, principle serves as our lodestar. A society that runs on principles, worked out over time and hewed into firm guideposts, has the stability necessary to remain vibrant and cohesive in even the worst of times. In our issues, this used to mean–as just one example–no euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath made that clear, as did the laws of the land. But that didn’t mean allowing people to die in agony. Empathy and compassion demanded more, and hence, hospice was born.
Adherence to principle is not without its problems, of course. Everything depends on the nature of the principles that govern. Moreover, a society firmly grounded in even the most just and benevolent principles can become unjust by a strict adherence to nakedly legalisism. To avoid this, we developed a safety valve over the centuries–known as “equity”–to soften what can sometimes be very hard edges of principle without causing the principle itself to lose vibrancy . But equity only works if it is the frosting on the cake. When, as now, we have mostly frosting and little cake, equity devolves into expedience–to the point that we are often not governed by principle at all.
The contemporary voice of expedience is the emotional narrative–and can anyone deny that it is the most powerful force driving society today? Indeed, in the face of the cry of anguish shown in closeup on TV, we are like the ship on a stormy sea without a rudder, driven hither and yon without course or purpose. With our attention focused myopically on the despair or intense yearnings of the individual–if rational principles get in the way of what the subject of the narrative of the day wants–to heck with the principles! And if “society’s rules” impede the narrative, to heck with the rules, too! You are you to judge?
But right and wrong based primarily on emotion and individual circumstance lack substance. Relativism rules. And so we are whipsawed by Oprah culture, leading to a form of moral anarchy. Some think that protects the outcast. But in an unprincipled society, the weak are actually the most at risk.
I thought about all this–now you see why I am not invited to many parties–after reading an essay in the American Thinker, a conservative on-line journal, by Jeremy Egerer, and thought y’all might like to ponder it too. (What he calls “empathy,” I call emotional narratives.) He is writing about criminal justice, but his concerns are pertinent to our discussions, as well. From “Law in the Empathetic Society:”
Without objective standards, law is reduced to a game of emotional manipulation, seeking compassion for whoever has the most depressing story, and seeking immoral laws to back that so-called justice, according only to whim. In our postmodern and liberal society, sometimes our public supports the child who was shot after throwing large rocks as a police officer. Other times we side with a black man in jail, not because of what he has done to someone else, but simply because of how we emotionally perceive. In a world devoid of objective legal standards, compassion for aggressors can very easily become the enemy, because because suffering is everywhere, and everyone — both offenders and offended — has a story. It seems, then, that anyone can be a victim.
Indeed. And that undermines institutions, because what are principles in the face of intense feelings? In such a milieu, for example, it sometimes seems we care more about animals than people.
Egerer ends his essay with a pertinent question:
My question to my readers is this: living in a secular, multicultural, postmodern world, there is an increasing cacophony within the world of compassion…My question to you is, do you know where to draw the line between compassion and injustice?
We desperately need a unifying principle to ground our society and guide our private and public policy decisions. Egerer sees it in Christian principles. I think that is too narrowly dogmatic. For me, it is human exceptionalism, a secular principle I see as essential to protecting the vulnerable, permitting human thriving, and guaranteeing human equality.
What say you? Should there be a universal value system for society to which each of us is duty bound to respect–even if it means sacrificing what we would prefer for ourselves and turning a cold shoulder to many emotional narratives no matter how poignantly voiced? If so, what would that principle be? If not, can we truly have a “society” in which we are obedient to no unifying governing principle?
December 31st, 2010 | 3:08 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: Shall We Be Ruled by Principle or Emotional Narratives? http://bit.ly/gUsCcN #tcot [...]
January 1st, 2011 | 3:28 am
[...] This post was not mentioned on Twitter by Aaron Dooley. Aaron Dooley did not say: SHS: Shall We Be Ruled by Principle or Emotional Narratives? [...]
January 1st, 2011 | 4:44 am
Do you believe, that there exists absolute evil?
If you don’t, then there’s nothing to talk about morality. Whatever happens, happens, and that’s it. You cannot tell the difference between nursing a baby and cutting her to pieces with a sword, because there’s no evil. If you cannot bear this outlook, you must have an undeniable evil.
Then you must have good. You cannot posit brokenness without having an idea what is the proper state of things.
If you have good and evil, then you must have a moral law by which you judge between the two. If you don’t have a moral law, you end up with moral relativism: some things are good, some things are evil, but who are you to judge between them? This reduces morality to the whim of every passing generation.
If you have a moral law, then you must have a moral lawgiver.* If you don’t know the source of the moral law, how can you even know they exists**? If you know the source of the moral law, how can you be sure it is enforced***?
http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/advanced/no-god-no-good.htm
* This is the least obvious and the most crucial part of the argument.
** Suppose you belive in objective moral values which simply “are there”. Where? Why are they “there”? Why you claim to have knowledge about them? Why should I believe your morals?
*** Imagine that one person on this planet has an invisibility cape, which allows him to pass undetected trough any security measure and side-step any law enforcement official. If he does some evil deeds and always escapes, what obligation does he have to obey any law?
This is a variant of the question: “What would you do if you were invisible?”
— PS —
This argument is about moral ontology, the existence of moral values and duties. It doesn’t talk about moral epistemology, or what can we know about the moral values and duties.
If you disagree with me, please don’t take this argument as an insult. I take this subject seriously, and will listen to counter-arguments.
January 1st, 2011 | 10:52 am
This is a sign of intellectual maturity after centuries of confusion. Assertions can be divided into statements of fact (which are in principle objectively true or false) and normative preferences. All of our “principles” are just an obnoxiously complicated way of stating our preferences. One of the fundamental preferences/drives in humans is altruism towards others.
“Emotionalism” is merely a reminder of our altruism towards others in support of a policy which benefits others.
This way is far superior to “natural law” or “moral realism” or religion or other nonsensical formulations which support arbitrary (and usually malicious) normative preferences under a false pseudo-objectivity.
January 1st, 2011 | 11:23 am
Something always happens to realign our values when they go totally ape. Usually it’s something bad, although occasionally it’s something good. I’m hoping that even if things go bad, the pendulum will start swinging back the other way.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. And abide by His rules, even if they’re “inconvenient” by modern standards. It’s the only thing I know that works.
January 1st, 2011 | 1:50 pm
Hardly mature, AH. It is being driven by the currents. If you accept altruism as the lodestar, it seems to me that is a principle. Then, you have to decide among competing claims for altruism when there is conflict.
Emotionalism has no foundation. He or she with the most tears wins.
January 1st, 2011 | 6:34 pm
AH -
Then you would have to say that there are no moral absolutes, which would mean that someone who, say, raped another person wasn’t really at fault. Biological drive necessitated that a man who rapes a woman show his dominance and fulfill his sexual function, so that his seed has a better chance of spreading to different women and passing on his genes. At least, that’s one theory I’ve read (have to find the link), but it doesn’t explain why some women sexually molest men or other women, or men raping men, or why children, who are unable to conceive, are victims of rape as well.
Either some things *are* absolute, or nothing is. If some things *are* absolute, they have to be protected as truth, as a solid structure. If nothing is absolutely true, then the world is in *big* trouble.
January 2nd, 2011 | 9:27 am
[Jeffrey: I was going to allow you to have your little rant about issues you perceive conservatives push. But then you accused them of racism and believing that the earth only belongs to the select few. WAY over the line and I guess I need a baby sitter for you, too. Disappointing.] As to HE and its sources, we’ve discussed that here often and I write about it often. Research it yourself.
January 2nd, 2011 | 10:01 am
Tabs:
There are no moral absolutes that are independent of their contextual times and places. Our values change demonstrably from generation to generation. Your use of the rape example is based on the values of Western society in 2011. It wasn’t always considered a crime to rape one’s neighbor’s wife or daughter (especially by the victors in time of war), but rather an offense against his property. We in this forum in the year 2011 may believe our present values concerning the female gender is “an improvement,” but our view is simply that; our view, and not a universal value. Consider this: we claim as a universal value that life is sacred, yet we ignore “collateral damage” when we find it expedient to engage in war.
Consequently I support Wesley’s theory of human exceptionalism in this single respect: the capacity for self-delusion is uniquely human, and virtually limitless. No tiger, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, has ever rationalized its desire to kill its prey.
January 3rd, 2011 | 12:58 pm
HistoryWriter put very aptly the moral anti-realist position.
I believe it is logically defensible, but impossible to live out.
January 3rd, 2011 | 6:12 pm
One of the problems, of our modern world, is the propensity, at least among some intellectuals, to deny objective truth (postmodernist silliness), and, particularly, objective moral truth. Moral truth, is analogous to logically sound, and mathematically sound discoveries. One could argue, like logic and math, morals are discovered in an “a priori” manner. Therefore, morals are not dependant on any religious notions. Any religious, atheistic, or agnostic person can discover them, using his or her reason.
Of course, there’s a strong emotional element to morals, but the emotion should not distract us, from the a priori nature of moral reasoning, and justification.
January 4th, 2011 | 11:11 am
Bret Lythgoe: I agree with you on some aspects with morals. They can be discovered, or “sensed” by intuition. This applies to all persons, also atheists and agnostics. (This is moral epistemology)
Tough, I disagree that morals can be grounded on reason alone. I can imagine many different views on morality, and many of them can be logically coherent. But when comes the time to judge between them, we have a problem. They can be in serious conflict with each other! To find out which one of them is true, one must say
1) I need a standard outside of these moral theories.
2) I don’t have a standard outside of these moral theories, so it doesn’t matter which one I choose.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:16 pm
Markus, don’t we seem to have a similar problem with mathematics? that is, we have not way of justifying mathematical claims, with a standard, out side of mathematics.
Bertrand Russell, attempted to provide a logically airtight foundation for math, but didn’t succeed, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, among many other things, put an end to that. Be we certainly don’t, as a result, conclude that math therefore has no rational foundation.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact