March 23, 2011

Moral debates in American society are fraught with confusion. Often people who invoke moral principles seem to be talking past each other, rather than engaging with each other. For example, one person states a moral position, such as “abortion is wrong” or “America should not meddle in the affairs of other countries.” Rather than examine these issues on the merits, the response is something like, “Yes, but that is your opinion.” Or, “I understand that you feel that way, but I feel differently.” Or, “I agree with you, but who are we to impose our values on other people?”

Upon examination we see the influence of powerful philosophical currents at work. The notion that morality is simply a matter of private opinion is an expression of subjectivism. The notion that people “feel” differently about issues contains the premise that morality is a function of feeling, and is not fundamentally a matter of reason or argument. The assumption that values cannot be imposed carries the implication that values are relative, one person’s truth is another person’s falsehood, and therefore the only social consideration is to keep one man’s convictions from trespassing on other people’s freedom.

Are the assumptions that lie behind these viewpoints valid? This is the province of moral philosophy. The very term “moral philosophy” suggests that morality is not simply a matter of private conviction of feeling. Moral convictions may be deeply felt, but they can also be examined, and studied, and argued about. “Moral philosophy” is the application of reason and thought to matters of right and wrong. The founder of the tradition of moral philosophy in the West was Socrates, who famously argued that it was better for human beings to suffer wrong than do wrong.

Today’s moral issues are quite different from the ones that Socrates faced. Our society debates such questions as “Is capitalism based on greed?” “Is inequality unjust?” “Do one’s private failings make one unsuited to public office?” “Should homosexual marriage be permitted?” “Does cloning violate human dignity?” And so on. Although these issues seem discrete and unrelated to each other, our arguments about them carry certain underlying premises: for example, the notion that there is a special sacredness or dignity to human life, or the concept of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.”

These premises suggest that our public debates merely reveal the tip of the iceberg; beneath them are clashing worldviews. Fundamentally, people are arguing about substantive goods---things like prosperity and safety and love and meaning that make up the good life. Moral philosophy does not provide a formula for reconciling these goods or coming up with an easy answer. But by looking at issues at the core level, moral philosophy can help us think more clearly about what is going on in our society, so that we can most effectively respond to the great issues of our day in the light of enduring principles that have been vindicated both by reason and by experience.

Responses to Christopher Hitchens and the Tyranny of God:

A member of my church has battled stage IV esophageal cancer and won. At least the doctors report that he is now cancer free after many months of chemotherapy and aggressive surgery. When his eight year old son announced in church that God was going to heal his daddy, I felt really bad for this child. His case was so uncertain at the time. Now, that little boy says that his father's story is "proof" of the "power of God" in the world. It certainly is a time to pray for Mr. Hitchens, not to condemn him....unless one is qualified by Christ's standards to start throwing stones. - J. W.