“Peace if possible, truth at all costs!” Thus heralded Martin Luther half a millennium ago, and let no man accuse him of failing to practice what he preached. Of course, whether or not a Christian agrees with Luther’s particular interpretation of truth will determine whether he is a Catholic or a Protestant. But less obviously and perhaps more interestingly, whether or not a modern American agrees with Luther’s principle—that despite the very real goodness of peace, truth trumps it each and every time—will in large part determine whether he is a conservative or a liberal.
It’s no secret that these two contemporary political labels are problematic. Unfortunately, ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are too often associated with just two distinct sets of seemingly randomly connected positions on the hot-button issues of our day. But perhaps the two contemporary camps identified by these labels of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are not as random as they seem. And perhaps Luther has presented the key for understanding their primary difference.
The question is this: Why does the pro-life camp typically align with the anti-“same-sex marriage” camp? Why are those in favor of the death penalty so often the most outspoken critics of euthanasia and assisted suicide? The answer cannot simply be partisan loyalty, for a large number of critically reflective persons today would just as soon have no affiliation with any political party.
There indeed is something deeper linking these various positions together: while the conservative agrees with Luther and recognizes truth as a higher good than peace, the liberal would again and again subordinate truth to peace for the sake of maintaining societal harmony.
Take “same-sex marriage” as a case in point here. A popular New York City subway ad captures the relevant liberal sensibility quite well: “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married.” The idea there, of course, is that while everyone may not agree about whether or not a same-sex couple is capable of becoming a married couple, the law should leave that discernment up to the discretion of each individual. As is heard so often today, “one should not impose one’s own personal morality upon others.” The Left thus seeks to preserve peace by letting everyone decide the truth for himself.
On the conservative side, while of course societal peace is always a consideration, the key question is rather one about the truth of the matter. Even the so-called “New Natural Lawyers,” a morally traditional philosophical camp famous for drawing a fairly rigid distinction between metaphysics and morality, have realized that the primary question in this whole debate is very simply ‘What is marriage?’ Conservatives thus try to get at the nature of marriage to determine whether or not it even makes sense to talk about a marriage between two persons of the same sex. This is the reason I have been putting “same-sex marriage” in scare quotes throughout this article: not to purposefully give offense to those who disagree with me, but rather to emphasize that the central issue here is whether or not that phrase even makes sense. If marriage is necessarily oriented to procreation, then no legislative or judicial fiat can make homosexual unions into marriages at all.
We similarly could break down any number of other examples into this type of truth-peace distinction. In the case of abortion, conservatives say that the truth of the unborn child’s right to life makes killing him reprehensible, while the liberal tries instead to preserve peace by insisting that every woman ought to be able to decide that for herself. Likewise with euthanasia, and the list goes on and on.
So, who is correct, the conservative or the liberal? Which is the higher good: truth or peace? To ask that question is to answer it, for of course what the question wants to know is the truth of the matter about which is better. But, should the reader remain skeptical, here are two further arguments to persuade the unconvinced.
First, we can know that truth is more important than peace because the only peace worth having in the first place is true peace. Hence Jeremiah’s curse on those who cry “Peace! Peace!” when there is no peace. But truth, on the other hand, is worth having even when it leads to conflict. For example, battling slavery in the United States led to animosity, violence, war, and death. But because of the importance of the cause—namely, upholding the inherent dignity of all human persons—peace could be justifiably sacrificed to defending this truth.
Secondly, a la C.S. Lewis in his essay “First and Second Things,” we can know that truth trumps peace because when we subordinate truth to peace, we lose not only truth but peace as well. The eugenic plots of so many totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century are a prime example of this. The goal there was essentially to stabilize and thus bring peace to society, but because such important personalistic truths were sacrificed at the altar of utopianism, there was less peace and more instability than ever before. In a less bloody but no less real way, the unrest in America today regarding abortion and “same-sex marriage”, even once both have been deemed legitimate by civil law, also reveals that peace itself is lost when truth takes a backseat to it.
So while the liberal’s desire for peace is good, he errs in putting peace first, making toleration the summum bonum, and embracing moral relativism for the sake of avoiding conflicts. The conservative on the other hand, following in the longstanding tradition that stretches back to Aristotle and beyond, recognizes that our political order ought to follow from the moral order, which itself flows from our human nature.
Where does this battle between conservatives and liberals finally end? If our opponents emerge victorious, nowhere good. For the logical conclusion of liberalism—which liberalism fights against in the name of peace, but which liberals insofar as they are men must be led towards by the natural reason they try to suppress—is Nihilism, the most terrifying worldview imaginable. Eventually, “my truth” and “your truth” are seen for what they really mean: No truth. And a culture without any grasp of truth is a culture without any connection to reality, a culture thus doomed to die. We can still avoid demise, but to do so, we need a hefty dose of metaphysics, a serious consideration of truth to serve as the guiding principle of our civilization.
Michael Hannon studies philosophy, religion, and medieval studies at Columbia University.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
And so far as religion goes, Luther's rhetorical flourish-Peace if possible, truth at all costs-rings hollow when some of his political moves are considered, such as his support for a patron's bigamy or his cession of control over the church to the rulers who supported him on a supposedly emergency basis that lasted even longer than Luther's life.
In reality, such liberals do not exist or are extremely rare. Most self-described liberals are just as insistent on the importance of truth as self-described conservatives. They disagree about what is true, especially when it is a truth of human nature.
"Every human being has a right to liberty." One abolitionist says this is a truth of human nature. Another says it is not, it is simply a good principle for ordering society. A slave-owner agrees that it is not a truth of human nature and he thinks it is not a very efficient principle for ordering society. This is not a disagreement about the relative importance of truth and peace; it's a disagreement about human nature. But human nature is a notoriously hard subject to argue persuasively about. (It never seems to have occurred to Aristotle or Augustine that slavery might contradict any truth of human nature.) It's much easier to accuse the second abolitionist of "putting peace first."
The non-existent will not emerge victorious.
She could obviously not answer the question with the logic of her pacifism, which would of course be to submit "peacefully" to the criminal's intentions, no matter how murderous. Initially she attempted to evade the question, but ultimately admitted that she had "all sorts of" defense mechanisms, including a black belt in karate, dogs and alarm systems to deter those sorts of things!!
The problem with the liberal positions on virtually every issue is that when properly examined, they always fail the test of consistency. They advocate the gruesome right to murder innocent unborn children, but then oppose the death penalty for murderers because it's "barbaric". They want religion out of the public square, but only if it has the tag of Christ. They want to achieve lasting world peace, but by first getting rid of America's nuclear weapons.
At least in the effort to legalize same-sex "marriage", they are being consistent in their ongoing efforts to destroy the nuclear family as the bedrock of society.
I am often left wondering whether these immoral, illogical and self-destructive positions reflect voluntary historical amnesia, wishful thinking or a grand desire to wipe out western civilization as we know it, or all of these. Its one thing to desire peace, its another thing entirely to the undermine fundamental truths that have kept human societies together since the beginning of time.
To add one more liberal/conservative divide: the question of abortion hinges on this same dichotomy--personal convenience or truth. There can be no compromise in the end.
I am growing weary of the tendency of certain brands of conservatives claiming that those who disagree with them subscribe to "moral relativism." Many people support same-sex marriage because they believe it is just and fair, not because they believe allowing people to "do their own thing" will bring peace.
Much more convincing than the argument that conservatives are good and liberals are bad is the work of Jonathan Haidt, showing that liberals and conservatives tend to give different weight to Care (or Harm), Fairness, Loyalty (or Ingroup), Authority (or Respect), and Purity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
And I am puzzled as to why it is regarded as consistent rather than contradictory that "those in favor of the death penalty so often [are] the most outspoken critics of euthanasia and assisted suicide." In Catholic thought capital punishment, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are all considered part of the "culture of death."
It seems to me that it would be better to say that there are bundles of issues that one party holds as true and dear while the other party is willing to "live and let live" and vice versa. Mr. Hannon has identified some of those bundles of issues correctly, but I think he is mistaken to take up the issues that he says liberals adopt a "live and let live" position on, and extend that "live and let live" attitude to all possible issues. Conservatives likewise--no Christian conservative I know is calling for round ups of the greedy or the gluttonous even as those sins demonstrably harm both the sinner and the rest of us as well (but try to by a food item with trans-fat in it in liberal New York City!).
One can support the true definition of marriage without supporting the threat of violence as a deterrent for gay couples who want to get married. I support both truth and peace by believing that gay marriage is wrong, but not using law to try and institute my belief into some sort of civil statute, which is nothing but the threat/application of violence against a person who behaves in a certain manner.
To imply that I am putting peace before truth by not voting to use police force to prevent gays from obtaining a marriage license is an extremely shallow way of thinking about this matter.
I believe abortion is wrong, but should my solution be to put to death all women who attempt to obtain an abortion? What good have I achieved? Views on how to apply law is a very poor way to go about judging how someone views the "truth" vs. "peace" debate.
Several commentators above have pointed out that very few of the liberals described would consider themselves relativists, and that rather than acting on no principle, they see themselves simply acting on different--but very real-- principles. Fair enough, but I would argue that the the "other principles" cited (justice, fairness, care, loyalty, respect, purity) are in a completely different category from the type of truth that Hannon talks about. Justice, fairness, care, loyalty, respect, and purity are all--or at least have the potential to be--virtues. But (Aquinas anyway) explicitly says that truth considered broadly isn't a virtue--"the virtue that is called truth is not truth in general....Hence, one cannot infer anything about truth in general from these particular senses of truth." To make any real sense, to really exist in an individual’s actions or in a society, justice has to be informed by truth--the same way that true peace must be informed by and ordered to reality, to the truth. A “justice” that does not subordinate itself to truth cannot really be just, as “peace” that does not flow from truth cannot, ultimately, be peaceful.
Flannery O'Connor once said that "if you live today, you breathe in nihilism." And I think that there is a large amount of truth to this: I think there is a very, very widespread sense that the sort of insights into reality that allow the knowledge of essences (of human nature, of marriage, etc)--and give us truths which can guide our ordering of society-- are terribly difficult, if not impossible. I don't think that nihilism (at least, a practical epistemological nihilism) is so foreign to any of us as we might on our first instinct think. Perhaps then the line to be drawn is not between conservatives and "liberals," but between a certain type of conservative and everyone else. If so, the need for the "hefty dose of metaphysics" Hannon calls for is even more important.
Of course, it is a perfectly disastrous motto if you happen to be mistaken about what the truth is.
Also, isn't the assumption that "hefty doses of metaphysics" would lead all people to the same conclusion?
As to truth, it is far from clear to me that the secularist has any reason at all to value truth for its own sake -- indeed, I think the value of truth to believers is only an instrumental value. Why value truth, unless it will give you something else of value, like happiness or friendship or oneness with God? Nietzsche was right to point out that philosophers have made a cult of truth, and this cult might be inimical to living a good life.
However, since Jesus is the way AND the truth, Christians believe that the value of truth lines up with those values that matter the most. But I do not see how we could convince the secularist of this, unless we convince them (falsely) that truth is always the most valuable thing. (It's unclear why they should care about the real definition of marriage, if they are happier in pretending that it is something other than it is. The question is: does this really lead to happiness?)
Sure... except that it's a *very* high instrumental value. As author David Gerrold put it, "We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is *extraordinarily* useful."
You're right, about practical truths. But not all truths are like that. It may be practical to believe some things with very little evidence, if our lives are made better by the belief -- consider, for instance, the belief that democracy is the best form of government. It is highly advantageous, in the current intellectual environment, to believe in democracy, even if I have evidence against the superiority of democracy. Likewise, as a professional philosopher, it is highly advantageous to me (job-wise) to believe that religion is a private matter, whether or not my evidence points that way.
Same sex marriage is not illegal where it does not exist, it is simply not legally sanctioned. No force of law or threat of violence is being used to "prevent" anything, certainly no coercion; it is merely that certain relationships are not recognized as having a certain legal standing. No violence is used against people who wish to enter into such a relationship, nor is it deemed a "crime" to attempt to marry a person of the same sex (unlike bigamy) -- there is simply no legal pathway for it.
It is as though you were saying there is a threat of violence that prevents people from getting a license to grow flowers in their yard, therefore becoming a "licensed home horticulturist." The government is not "preventing" anyone from acquiring such a license, nor do people who go to City Hall asking for one get thrown in jail; it simply doesn't exist.
I realize that the two things are not equivalent from a moral perspective, but the situation with both relative to the law is the same.
The writer needs to broaden his circle of contacts. In fact, this nonsensical argument is based on a liberal-leaning bumper sticker.
I challenge the rightbwing to start to enunciate their opponents arguments with respect.
Years of fighting the culture wars and preaching "error has no rights" has taught the right wing that they don't have to respect the left, merely score cheering points in a right wing audience.
Do better. Tragically, the left wing has begun to show up the rightmwing for thoughtfulness.
The writer needs to broaden his circle of contacts. In fact, this nonsensical argument is based on a liberal-leaning bumper sticker.
I challenge the rightbwing to start to enunciate their opponents arguments with respect.
Years of fighting the culture wars and preaching "error has no rights" has taught the right wing that they don't have to respect the left, merely score cheering points in a right wing audience.
Do better. Tragically, the left wing has begun to show up the rightmwing for thoughtfulness.
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/09/the-mystery-of-liberal-behavior/
Pretending belief is not the only possible strategy. If one loves others - one's children, say - it might be worth going through trouble and difficulty now to establish a better, less democratic regime for them to inherit later.
To analyse it, think of this hypothetical argument:
"Let's take healthcare as an example. Liberals want the state to provide healthcare for everyone, conservatives believe that each individual should choose for himself. For conservatives peace trumps truth."
For this argument to work the "truth" of universal healthcare must be assumed. Similarly for the arguments in the piece above to work the truth of the conservative view has to be assumed.
In addition, I agree with David Nickol's questions: "How does it explain the fact that it was liberals who supported the Civil Rights movement? How does it account for libertarian conservatives?"
For example take economics. Most economic conservatives (this position is often shared by conservatives in general) want less regulation and government involvement in the economy. I find it difficult to maintain that such a position is truth while government intervention is not. Conservatives believe that a state with less government intervention is better (generates more peace), while liberals believe that a state with more intervention is better (generates more peace). Neither position is truth.
Your identification of liberals as those who would always cheerfully sacrifice truth on the alter of peace is specious and simplistic. Also, beware of creating dichotomies that allow you the smug satisfaction of knowing that you, of course, belong to the superior side.
If liberals want states to provide health care and conservatives believe that each individual should select a private health care provider themselves, then for both of these statements to be true a true universal health care must be assumed.
First, my argument here is not 'Bulveristic', for it is not an attempt at refuting the matter of liberal positions at all. It is only the form of the thing that I am (here) calling into question. Whether or not "same-sex marriage" is possible, whether or not abortion is moral, whether or not the death penalty is permissible--all these are further questions that this article was never meant to answer. True enough, I haven't concealed my own views on these issues, but I certainly haven't stated them as conclusions of the present argument. The goal of this piece is to get everyone to recognize and admit that it is truth, that it is reality itself, that we are battling over. Once we all get on the same page there, seeking truth on the specifics becomes possible. Until then, we have different measuring sticks of successful argumentation, and discussion of these issues between disagreeing parties is unfortunately therefore more or less moot.
Second, re: the request that I define 'conservative' and 'liberal' more clearly, I'm not sure I can do any better than anyone else here. It is, as I admit early on here, a messy and loaded vocabulary. But it is also, as far as I can tell, the best we've got to make ourselves understood when discussing the present divide in political philosophy. As was hopefully obvious, the brand of conservatism I am endorsing is not just the go-to philosophy of the Republican party of 21st century America (largely because, as best I can tell, the party rarely has any philosophy backing it anyway). No, I mean by 'conservative' what Ben Wiker meant, when he described the divide thusly:
"A true conservative regards moral limits as somehow natural, somehow written into our nature, something that must be conserved to protect human nature from tyrannical manipulation, degradation, and destruction. By contrast,... liberalism regards these limits as artificial, mere accidents of history or evolution that are not to be revered but tested and surpassed... A conservative considers such moral limits to be inviolable because they are natural and sacred; that is, what is natural and hence good has been defined by a great, wiser power. A true conservative will not violate these limits even if he can, and in fact, considers his moral caliber to show forth most clearly when he can violate them but he will not. By contrast, the... liberal as techno-sophist believes we can demonstrate that the limits are not natural or sacred simply by violating them."
This comes from a commentary on CS Lewis' The Abolition of Man, so naturally the focus of this description is on how each side approaches our "improving" the human species. I think the point is more widely applicable though. As I put it in the above article, "So while the liberal’s desire for peace is good, he errs in putting peace first, making toleration the summum bonum, and embracing moral relativism for the sake of avoiding conflicts. The conservative on the other hand, following in the longstanding tradition that stretches back to Aristotle and beyond, recognizes that our political order ought to follow from the moral order, which itself flows from our human nature." J. Budziszewski's True Tolerance is a great read for unpacking this the cardinal error of liberalism. Wiker's Ten Books Every Conservative Must Read is wonderful for tracing the conservative tradition, thus understood.
Third, to those who commented that it is wrong to equate Christianity with conservatism, I wholeheartedly agree. Whether Christianity is more at home with conservatism or liberalism (again, thus understood) is an interesting question, to be sure. But I don't believe I argued for anything remotely resembling that in this piece. In fact, aside from the opening few lines, I never even mention Christianity.
Lastly, because my alluding to the death penalty seems to have perturbed so many commenters, let me briefly defend at least the defensibility of the death penalty, if not its permissibility. To group capital punishment with euthanasia and abortion, as more than one commenter has done here, is a gross confusion. For in the latter two cases, it is innocent human life that is deliberately taken. In the death penalty, the state acts in its role as judge to enact justice and work for the common good of society. It is not innocent blood that is spilled in capital punishment (assuming the trial process discerned correctly), but the blood of one who has committed so heinous an offense against society that the act of taking his life becomes retributively justified. I agree that all human life is sacred. It is for that very reason that I think the death penalty is justifiable. Human life is so sacred that deliberately taking it, particularly repeatedly or on a mass scale, is a crime that in justice demands capital punishment. (Mercy can of course be extended there, but the lessening of a justified sentence is not a moral requirement, by any means. Thus the death penalty is in itself still acceptable.)
For a great essay by Budziszewski on this theme, read:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BudziszewskiPunishment.php
Peace be with you all. (But truth first, of course.)
That endorsement aside, now for opprobrium! The claim that the binary of the American right/American left corresponds to the binary of truth seekers/nihilistic peacemakers is both specious and shameful. What does the Gospel have to do with a 19th century liberal historicism that values free markets and democracy as the true end to history that one finds implicit in the discourse on the right? About as much as any nihilism on the American left, I wager. And what of your claim about the death penalty as if it should be placed in the same category with the rest? Catholics and Orthodox Christians would certainly disagree, as would many others who would call themselves pro-life or who advocate for traditional marriage. And does your description of the right as the champions of a moral order and the left as nihilists really hold true? It seems like a caricature. There are moral relativists on the right who believe that freedom grants them license to do what they please, such as laying off thousands of workers to overcompensate CEOs. How can such freedom be reconciled to Aristotle, who understood the end of commercial activity as provisioning the family and freedom as coming into accord with human nature? It seems like the American right is too drunk on constitutionalism and liberalism to be consistent about a moral order.
The greatest danger though, is to equate a historically confined political movement as backed up by Christian truth. This is good neither for theology nor politics.