Ethics and Inevitability

                                                                                                                                         Photo: Enoch Lai

It is inevitable that other nations will not enforce American copyrights and patents in violation of their treaties. Is it ethical then for the United States to break its promise and not enforce those countries' copyrights and patents? 

A couple years ago, a controversial scientist testified before Congress that "The development of human cloning is inevitable." If his statement is true, would advocating against human cloning or for restraint be futile? Would it be anti-science? 

It is inevitable that political partisans will use unethical arguments and mudslinging to persuade the weak to their cause. Does that justify using ad hominem and mischaracterization to push a political agenda?

Cheating in school is inevitable. There are a surprising number of students who cheat on college and graduate school entrance exams. Most polls seem to show that a majority of both high school and college students cheat. Since others are getting a leg up, is it ok to level the playing field by cheating?

The answer to all four of these questions is a resounding NO. It is not inherently anti-science or anti-progress to oppose the inevitable. The announcement of inevitability does not signal ethical finality. The assertion of inevitability in ethical disputes is not an appeal to morals at all; it is an effort to abandon ethical considerations altogether.  Just because something will happen does not mean we shouldn't fight against it. Courage is standing for what is right even if you stand alone.

Virtue Politics

Honor is a harder master than the law.

Today, political campaigns seem devoid of moral justifications for their social policies. Instead, politicians mask their foundational beliefs and defend their proposals with mere facial arguments from liberty and equality. While considerations of liberty and equality are relevant and important; alone, they are insufficient defenses for policies regarding abortion, marriage, affirmative action, drugs, immigration, capital punishment, pornography, and a whole gambit of other social issues.

Today, society is increasingly gripped by the notion that religion and moral beliefs have little or no place in the public sphere. Science is supreme. When you debate political issues, you aren’t supposed to defend your views with notions of morality. You are supposed to say how it will affect the economy or how it will affect public health or what will be “fair” in a sort of morally relativistic way. However, science can only inform our decisions; science cannot determine values. But, I say that religious views and moral considerations should be involved in our debates over social policy. When politicians capriciously remove these fundamental beliefs from their speeches and debates and pretend that they have no bearing on their platform, it leaves public deliberations on the issues debilitated. It unilaterally disarms anyone that believes in anything other than liberty of choice or equality as the sole and ultimate objectives of human societies.

Those who claim to be morally neutral do so misleadingly; they hold their moral beliefs so dogmatically that they do not even recognize that they are not really neutral. There can be no political community that is morally neutral. Their vision of a good society is not supported by science but is a moral conviction. The values these people esteem above others (without scientific support) are free self-expression, liberty of choice, or some notion of equality. All good goals, but at the same time, these people cheapen historically ubiquitous virtues like wisdom, courage, kindness, temperance, or transcendence.

What kind of society does this purported neutrality give us? It aims towards a polis that implicitly accepts that there are no right and wrong and no real human virtues. It affords no reverence to tradition. Tolerance and sharing are the only values in such a dispirited society. This intensely individualist sort of social contract would only have the benefit of avoiding religious or moral disputes. But, it aims too low. As society allows room for the basest parts of human nature, evil actions become normalized and acceptable. The saying of the day, “I can do whatever I want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” proves untenable. We cannot do evil without negatively affecting those around us directly or indirectly. People too often underestimate the harm they do to others. Similarly, society underestimates the effect of removing public disapproval of evil.

This disenchanted “neutral” society wherein all we can do is “get along” is not the best we can do. We can strive for a wise, courageous, kind, temperate, and transcendent culture and society. But, we have to be willing to say that these virtues really are better than characteristics like stupidity, guile, selfishness, overindulgence, and corruption and that we will not condone them. And, can we not say that? I am not advocating here a tyranny of the majority where the values of the powerful are always imposed on those less fortunate. Plurality is a wonderful part of American government. However, I am advocating a liberal society moderated and elevated by the traditional and fundamental values we inherited from our founding fathers. We should bring our beliefs to the ballot box with us, but not establish a religion or state indoctrinated moral code. Politicians should be more open and candid about the moral values that undergird their social policy proposals.

Freedom and equality are instrumental in obtaining a virtuous society; they are not the ends in themselves. Let us stop pretending that those values are somehow more scientific or morally neutral than wisdom, courage, kindness, temperance, and transcendence. Virtuous living supersedes the value of cultural diversity (though cultural diversity is certainly to be celebrated). A virtuous society precedes a prosperous one just as a corrupt and decadent society precedes a nation in decline. Facilitating a virtuous society must be the first goal of American politics, then freedom and equality.

Heterophobes and Fried Chicken

                                                                                  Photo: Port Charlotte NJROTC

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A's Baptist President and Chief Operating Officer, is not sheepish about expressing his support for traditional marriage. His father founded the successful fast-food chain and fostered a corporate culture based on Christian beliefs. The chain is closed on Sundays and, not surprisingly, the President and faithful Baptist supports traditional marriage and opposes same-sex marriage. 

Demonstrating blatant disrespect for freedom of speech, the Mayors of Chicago, Boston, Washington D.C., and San Francisco have announced that Chick-Fil-A is not welcome in their cities. They claim that Chick-Fil-A values are not their cities' values and that they might well attempt to block Chick-Fil-A from opening up new locations in their cities. 

The Mayors' threats are obviously a political ploy. No one could take an attempt to block a new Chick-Fil-A location too seriously. The ACLU says the Mayor's threats constitute a "constitutional problem with discriminating against someone based on the content of their speech.” It is unconstitutional to block strip clubs; obviously it is unconstitutional to block a restaurant chain. Although I don't imagine very many people consider the Mayors' threats seriously, the vignette of politics brings to light a serious problem with policy debate in America. The problem is that many secularists and same-sex marriage advocates push their agenda primarily with ad hominem and hostility rather than addressing the scientific, philosophical, ethical, political, psychological, and religious arguments of their opponents. These advocates are quick to cry "bigot" and "oppression" at anyone's suggestion that same-sex marriage may have negative policy effects or if anyone shows discomfort with the notion of same-sex marriage. These are the same advocates that use vague expressions of diversity and tolerance as their primary argument. Yet, too many attack their opponents rather than their opponents' arguments. Their strategy is no longer to convince the other side but to embarrass, shut out, and shut up their opponents through mudslinging and name-calling. 

The Roman Catholic Church also opposes same-sex marriage. They also operate many of the largest and most efficient charities in the world. Are their values not Chicago's values? Will radical same-sex marriage advocates boycott the charities? Individuals are free to do so. But, for politicians to use their position to attack organizations and individuals because of their political beliefs (especially those shared by half the population) seems to go too far in itself. But, threatening to do clearly unconstitutional actions is, wow. 

The public discourse is eroded when fallacies like ad hominem are employed in the place of arguments of real substance. Unfortunately, playing on peoples fears and needs of acceptance works. Many people are not trained to think critically about what they hear. However, to coerce by threats of hate and rejection rather than to try and honestly and intelligently convince the opposing side is immoral and hostile to the democratic process. Our discourse about policy should not be modeled after cable news political commentary, which is a parade of confirmation bias and vitriol. Yes, it sells. But, no it is not good for public discourse. Rather, we should try to model our debate and discourse after academic discourse which is more self-examined, honest, comprehensive, and helpful. Perhaps, our discourse should allow emotion and religion more of a place than it has in academic literature. But the mature respect for the opposing side where reasonable minds differ should be present in public discourse as it is in scholastic debate.