I was all set to dash off something brilliant on this topic when a co-worker sent this to me. It is by Michael Josephson, founder of "Charater Counts". And I think he says it pretty well ...
"On many issues of morality we are deeply divided.
The volume and virulence of disagreement on issues like stem cell research, abortion, and gay unions is testimony to the undeniable reality that millions of Americans are lined up on opposite sides of a chasm, appalled at the ethical poverty of those with whom they disagree.
According to a May 2005 Gallup poll, about one-third of Americans think it’s morally wrong to test animals for medical research (30 percent), to buy and use animal fur (32 percent), to gamble (32 percent), to conduct stem cell research (33 percent), and for unmarried men and women to have sex (39 percent). At the same time, a very large majority believe such conduct is morally acceptable. One-third may be a small minority, but it’s a lot of people.
On the most socially contentious issues, the nation is almost equally divided -- with about 50 percent believing that doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and homosexual relations are morally reprehensible.
On each issue, believers are sincere and passionate. No amount of discussion is likely to change their minds.
So what are we to do? As to what our laws will permit or prohibit, the majority rules, but the legal solution often intensifies rather than resolves the controversy. After all, morality is not simply a matter of voting.
But who’s really right and who’s wrong?
Although I have strong personal convictions on all these matters, I can’t honestly say I know. I only know what I believe. While it’s hard for me to accept contrary views, I can’t claim superiority in either intelligence or integrity -- lots of people I disagree with are smart people of good character. Is the opposite of a moral truth a moral lie?
Ideological intolerance evolves into self-righteousness, condemnation, and ultimately persecution -- and I know that’s wrong.
I've been thinking alot about this lately...ideological intolerance--bigotry as a major factor in most human conflict, especially violent conflict.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to agree that "On many issues of morality we are deeply divided" and ideological intolerance "evolves into self-righteousness, condemnation, and ultimately persecution".
But how do we reconcile, compromise, and cooperate in the face of such deep ideological rifts?
It's difficult to sustain a relativistic perspective when I am compelled to necessitate the legitimacy of my own worldview.
Maybe it isn't necessary to be truly empathetic or wholly understanding of an other's particular worldview in order to avoid self-righteousness condemnation or persecution.
I think an ethics of reciprocity is the key--as said by confucious, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself", or in the bible, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Consider the issue of abortion. The "pro-lifer" would of course have no problem imposing the "pro-life" position on the "pro-choicer" and vice-versa, however, if neither the "pro-lifer" nor the "pro-choicer" will likely be converted, it is fair to say that each would prefer not to be imposed upon by the other's moral choice. So now, common ground has been made. I know this conflict is much more complex than I'm saying here, but I just wanted to point out that neither would choose to have conflicting moral views imposed upon them by any means.
As a side note--the "pro-choice" position is much more tolerant because it makes room for the "pro-life" position to coincide. The "pro-life" position seeks to pressure the state to enforce its moral position and eradicate the "pro-choice" position. The role of the state should not be to enforce the superiority of either side's moral position, but to assure that neither side is imposed upon by the perceived moral superiority of the other. Although, I happen to think that because the "pro-choice" position tolerates and cooperates with it's opposite that it is the superior moral position.
In the end, maybe we can't act without some sort of moral compass. Relative or not, if this is true on some level, then it seems to me that making room for others to act freely within their creative moral trajectory should be our greatest effort to overcome self-righteousness, bigotry, & persecution.