If you’re a social conservative, chances are you’ve had a conversation something like this:
Conservative: “But if we accept homosexual behavior as normal, how do we retain other traditional taboos, like the one against incest?”
Liberal: “That’s just a straw man. Nobody’s going to advocate incest.”
Now, read this, from Tauriq Moosa, tutor in ethics, bioethics and critical thinking at the University of Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of Dale Nelson):
Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim [incest is] “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).
Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.
Pretty lively for a straw man, isn’t it?
Liberals—I want to share a serious word with you, in honesty and without malice. If you have any principles—any at all—I promise you that, if you continue on the Left, you will eventually either have to give them up or move to the Right. Because liberalism is not a position. It is a process. That process evolves continually. Nothing is out of bounds for it, given enough time. That’s why so many ‘60s radicals are Reagan Republicans now.
For years, people have been telling me (to take another example) that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual behavior because homosexuals are born that way (I’m still not convinced of that, but it’s beside the point for this discussion). The argument is, “If it’s inborn, it’s natural and right.” Christian liberals say it must be God’s will.
“Why would anyone choose to be gay?” the liberal says. “It’s penalized in our culture. So it must be inborn, and the gays have no choice in the matter.”
Bear that argument in mind when you read this, from Italy’s La Stampa.
A study conducted by neuroscientists at Turin University and researchers at the department of neurological science of the University of Milan asserts that pedophilia is caused by a defective growth factor called pleiotropic protein Progranulin (PGRN). The results were published in the journal Biological Psychiatry and presented during a recent convention of the Neurological Italian Society in Turin.
Now, if this theory is true, explain to me how the previously stated arguments for homosexuality don’t apply just as well to pedophilia.
And no, “You’re a Nazi,” does not count as a valid argument.
In the same vein, alcoholism and drug addiction have been shown to be more prevalent among certain genetic dispositions. From a liberal point of view, we should cheer them on as they systematically inebriate themselves into oblivion because it’s what they were made to do. From a Darwinian perspective, we should recognize that leading them into sobriety only weakens the gene pool. On the other hand, the Christian worldview understands that though Man was created good, he is corrupted by the fall. Thus we know that parts of our nature, while appearing natural, are actually unnatural. Only through redemption and transformation can we hope to regain our original uncorrupted nature once again. Therefore, the only legitimate reason for expending resources on addiction treatment programs comes from the Christian worldview. However, we can be thankful that many liberal Darwinians are inconsistent in applying their beliefs to the point that they fund treatment centers and encourage moderation if not sobriety.
Pedophilic behavior is rape.
Evaluating behavior from a perspective of secular morality is about evaluating harm. Homosexual acts occurring between consenting adults do not demonstrably harm either of those individuals (religions prohibitions aside). We’ve come to understand that children do not have the mental development to adequately consent to sex with an adult, the power and experience differential are too great, and the likelihood for harm is high. Thus, we’ve agreed it’s wrong for adults to have sex with children.
Incest has a similar ethical reason for the taboo — first, any offspring from incestual relationships are much more likely to be genetically deformed, second, a societal tradition of incest seems much more likely to foster a culture of child abuse as well — older children coercing or seducing younger children would cause the same harm as pedophilia. Thus, we’ve developed a strong taboo against incest, and we’ve come to understand that it is wrong.
Secular morality condemns plenty of inborn behaviors — violence and excessive greed to suggest just two. But the benefit to building our societal rules around the evolving understanding of ethics is that we can change our minds without a lot of complicated hand-waving.
By contrast, to change our mind about a religious proscription requires that we assert new meaning in old texts. Whereas we used to believe X because the Bible said so, now we believe Y and even though the Bible still says what it said before, we now understand that we were wrong in our old interpretation of it. (A good case study here is Slavery, which most Christians believed was moral, and justified through passages in the Bible condoning and encouraging slavery.) I’d contend the difference between X and Y is the advancement of secular morality. As a society we’ve learned that slavery is wrong, and we’ve adjusted our interpretation of the Bible to agree with our perspective.
So I’ve got a counterpoint to ask: what arguments against homosexual behavior can you bring to a culture whose laws must be secular?
Greybeard: You’ve misunderstood a couple key ideas regarding Evolution and human society. First, the fact that the unguided “red in tooth and claw” perspective of competition exists among many animal populations does not mean that we’re obligated to toss one another under the bus. The adaptations that have made human beings so successful as a species have to do with being social animals; we’ve come to recognize that we do better when we respect and help one another. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, addiction treatment helps individuals recover who may go on to benefit us all through their contributions to our shared society and knowledge.
Second, evolution is the process by which life in all forms progresses on the planet. But that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily Good nor that we’re obligated to surrender our individual or societal will to principles based on it.
And by the way, if you’re seeking to have an actual conversation with people on the other side of the fence, I wouldn’t recommend using the term Darwinists. It doesn’t actually apply to very many people today, since our understanding of evolution has shifted significantly since On the Origin of Species–like calling physicists “Newtonians”. That term also tends to be used by people–and I’m making no judgments about your own knowledge on the subject here, just writing from experience–who know very little about how science actually understands evolution, so using it tinges any argument you might make as likely to be cliched and uninformed.
Brendan, thank you for your measured response. However, I’d be more impressed with your appeal to the no-harm principle, if I didn’t know what liberals in fact mean when they use the word “harm.”
In college sociology classes, my liberal professors informed me that nothing (except, I suppose murder, but I’m not sure) is essentially wrong in any culture. Only custom and social pressure make various acts honorable or shameful.
Thus pedophilia (which has been accepted in several cultures, the Tahitian culture, for instance) is only harmful to children because of social taboos and stigmas attached to it. For the pedophile activist (and there are such people), the problem is not how to fix pedophiles, but to reeducate society. If the social penalties are removed, and children (in state-sponsored schools, of course) are educated that adult/child love is a joyful activity, a thing to be celebrated, then there can be no harm. (Any parents who might object can, of course, have their children taken away, since all minors are properly wards of the state.)
“…what arguments against homosexual behavior can you bring to a culture whose laws must be secular?” I’d call that a red herring. There was no evolution of public consciousness that brought the corporate masses to a sudden epiphany that what had been rejected for thousands of years was now to be embraced. The change in attitudes toward homosexuality was brought about by a systematic propaganda campaign in the media. One might as easily ask by what authority movie studios, television networks, and publishers shoved their opinions down the throats of the public. I remain convinced that most Americans are not comfortable with homosexuality, but have been bullied into acquiescence. The battleground on which we now fight is to what extent the government is going to be allowed to penalize individuals and organizations who won’t get with the program.
Lars, I have met several liberals who actually say nothing is absolutely wrong. When you start pressing them, they either admit they find something absolutely wrong (challenge a secular Jew who believes this on the Holocaust or challenge a woman on rape) or become ashamed when you press them on something like slavery that they know deep down is wrong but they cannot give a reason for why.
Brendan, I’m glad you presented your moral arguments the way you did, but there are many authoritative voices who argue for different conclusions, perhaps pointing to select studies that say a particular act is harmless, and there doesn’t appear to be any way to decide between the arguments except popular opinion. And so politics has become moralized and morality politicized. Is abortion moral only because we know scientifically that unborn infants are pre-human and devoid of basic rights? What happens when we change our understanding? That’s the problem with morality based on social studies. It’s the same as what you described for changing one’s understanding of the Bible (only a little different).
I read A.J. Jacobs memoir, The Know-It-All, some months ago, and he describes how we would have said morality is a societal thing, but upon reading the actions of many people in history, he realized some things cannot be anything but evil no matter who does them or for what reason. The problem secularists will have is not one of making a secular case for a traditionally religious moral claim, but how to make any moral claim completely within a secular philosophy. Like you said, evolution cannot give us a moral framework, but if it is entirely true, where are we supposed to get our morality? It seems to be morality is left entirely to individuals, in which case we have no argument for anything.
Thank you Lars.
Regarding absolute morality:
I guess my response to your comment about what your college professors said is to ask what you mean by “essentially” wrong. Where do we find this essentiality? How do we negotiate that essentiality in a secular society?
I disagree with anyone who would say that nothing is essentially wrong, but would differ with you about how we get to determining what is or isn’t wrong. In secular morality, that conversation begins with a philosophical discussion about what it means to be human and how we understand “right” and “wrong.” I suggest that shared communication CAN find common ground from which we can understand that some things are right and others are wrong; this common ground gives us moral authority to argue about essentials across cultures. From common principles, logic, and reason, we can learn morality, a process that has been underway since human beings began building civilization.
I reiterate my point about Slavery – we came to understand slavery as wrong through _secular_ advancement of principles, not religious. The core texts of religion did not change, our societal understanding of them did.
Regarding secular reasoning:
This is absolutely NOT a red herring — it’s the point. If we live in a country with religious freedom, our laws CANNOT be based on religious texts. They MUST be based on secular reasoning, or they are unethical. To compel a Christian to forego bacon because Jewish and Muslim people believe eating bacon is sinful would be against our country’s founding principles. We make laws based on principles established in the common square, even if our individual motivations might be religious.
Thus, if we’re going to make secular laws prohibiting two people from marrying, we need secular reasoning for doing so. Whether or not a large percentage of the population finds that marriage offensive is beside the point. (Consider, for instance, the arguments made against inter-racial marriage sixty years ago.) Given that marriage confers significant secular benefits that would cost significant time and money to secure through other means, it behooves us to have a clear sense of why we’re limiting access to those benefits.
I contend there is no secular reason for prohibiting homosexual activity or marriage.
Regarding popular opinion of homosexuality:
I disagree with you again. Recent polls have shown the nation to be pretty evenly split on the issue (I just did a quick Google search and glanced at the top few recent results). My continuing experience with college students leads me to think this is also generational, and that the growing acceptance of homosexuality will continue to rise as individuals raised without a stigma against it age and have their own children.
Thanks, Phil. I think we were composing at the same time. We get our basis for morality from our shared discussion of morality. We’re better at it now than we were before — that’s how we’ve come to understand that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong, and so on.
The problem with referring to a particular text for our morality is thus:
1. What about people who don’t believe our text is the right one?
2. What about people who believe in another text that contradicts ours?
3. What about people who don’t agree with our interpretation of the text?
In the end, we still use the same collaborative philosophical discussion to determine what’s right and wrong, we just have to couch those terms in the context of whichever book our group agrees on. Thus, to argue that slavery is wrong, we ignore the parts of the Bible that tell us how to handle our slaves, or we reinterpret them to mean something else.
What do you think of Jacobs’ book about living Biblically?
Brendan, I disagree on the point of slavery. Slavery was accepted as a fact of life in the Bible (which was of great practical use to the majority of people in history who have lived in slave-holding societies), but slavery was neither commanded nor praised as such. The Bible tells us to hold marriage in honor. It never says to hold slavery in honor. Slavery in the Old Testament was a form of indentured servitude, with a time limit.
What I don’t understand is how you respond to Mr. Moosa’s argument. He says there’s nothing wrong with incest if there’s no apparent harm done. Do you agree with him? If you don’t, do you deny his facts, or do you just find it “icky?”
There are numerous secular arguments for traditional male/female marriage, most of them based on the importance of rearing children with role models of both genders. Modern society no longer believes the two sexes are essentially different, and so sees no need for traditional marriage. I believe this is empirically wrong, but we’ll have to mess up a whole generation or two of kids to prove it. Perhaps democracy demands such an expensive experiment. I feel justified in objecting nevertheless.
One more thing, Brendan. You say, “In secular morality, that conversation begins with a philosophical discussion about what it means to be human and how we understand “right” and “wrong.” I suggest that shared communication CAN find common ground from which we can understand that some things are right and others are wrong; this common ground gives us moral authority to argue about essentials across cultures.”
Here is precisely the point I was getting at in my post. This is a principle you hold. My prediction is that one day (likely sooner than you expect) you will find yourself standing against powerful arguments that follow Mr. Moosa’s logic, saying that incest is good. At that point you will find yourself the hide-bound, doctrinaire moralist, clinging to outmoded superstitions. And then you’ll have to decide whether to abandon your principle or go with the flow. Because, when it gets down to it, liberalism is all about conformity.
Thanks for your comments, Lars.
Regarding slavery:
If the Bible is supposed to be an enduring book that gives us the means for understanding what’s right and wrong, shouldn’t it be clear about whether one is allowed to own another person or not? If one can say the passages condoning slavery (or failing to disallow it) are no longer relevant in a modern world where we’ve come to value individual liberty over economic value, how can one insist with certainty that the same is not true for the passages about homosexuality? Perhaps the people who wrote the Bible thought homosexuality was “icky.”
The Bible’s willingness to tolerate slavery but outlaw shellfish undercuts any claim it has to absolute authority, which means we’re back to interpreting it based on our own perspective.
Regarding incest:
I DID respond to Moosa’s argument. Two significant factors continue to support the taboo against incest: because incest causes genetic problems AND would more likely foster child abuse, we cannot tolerate incest as an accepted practice, even among consenting adults to whom it might individually not cause harm. This is the same argument against computer-generated child pornography: it cultivates an atmosphere of acceptance which would likely lead to harm.
Secular marriage is not about child-rearing. If it were, childless couples would not be allowed to stay married, nor would people who are sterile be allowed to marry. We’ve embedded numerous rights unrelated to child-rearing in marriage, so it remains unjust to bar people who are not raising children from marrying.
I disagree regarding the role gender equality will play in shaping our society. I’m glad my daughter will have access to fulfilling careers if she wants them. As you say, though, we’ll see.
Regarding your last point:
Perhaps I will find myself arguing from an indefensible position. If I’m intellectually honest, though, I will consider the arguments being offered to me on their merits and either rebut them as violating the basic principles I started from OR adjust the principles on which I build my morality.
That said, the concept that our society can grow toward more perfect morality depends on our ability to change our collective mind about what is right and wrong. I hate to beat a dead horse, but Slavery stands to me as a clear example from our present perspective of something that is essentially right or wrong. We’ve come to understand that it’s wrong, but we haven’t always understood that. It’s the evolution of secular morality that has given us that insight.
Brendan, I take you to mean that you can be argued into approval of incest and pedophilia, if the arguments are strong enough. This is consistent, but I will still believe it’s wrong when that happens. Because my values come from revelation.
As a point of fact, who were the secularists who abolished slavery? I take it you don’t recognize the efforts of Wilberforce, Beecher, Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and other Christians who led the Abolitionist movement. Who were the secularists who really led it?
Yet, oddly if it was secularists who said slavery was wrong, it was religious people who led the fight against slavery. William Wilberforce of England. St. Patrick fought to end it in Ireland. St. Paul’s instructions to Philemon include “Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since I know that you will do even more than what I say (vs 21).” If you read Paul’s instructions to treat them rightly and fairly, then all that is left to do more is left him go.
BTW, Lars is correct that the slavery the Bible talks about is indentured servitude. It has a time limit. Moreover, contrary to the rules other nations had about their “walking tools,” the Bible recognized their indentured servants as people with rights and a 6 year time limit. If you beat your servant, he was freed. Another difference, most of those who entered servitude such as this did so voluntarily.
If you study the structure of the ebedim in the Bible, you find it is quite different than the slavery practiced later on. To say that the slavery as practiced in the New World is the same as the ebedim requires a lot of stretching and confusing of points.
You might want to read this article for an examination of the OT rules regarding slavery.
Regarding slavery:
If those rules are just, as your continual excusing of them implies, then why do we not follow them anymore? And how did one get into slavery? I thought someone could be captured?
Regarding secularists leading the abolitionist movement: I wrote that secular morality influenced the reasoning behind anti-slavery statues. Religion has been such a strong force in culture for so long that secularists have never been a very big part of the general population. That said, those arguing against inter-racial marriage and in favor of slavery have long used religious reasoning to support their beliefs as well. My point was that perspectives change as society evolves, but that the religious text does not — it’s unreasonable to think the religious text is the thing that made society decide something was right or wrong.
Or to reiterate: is it right or wrong to own a person? If it’s wrong, why doesn’t the Bible say so directly? Ambiguous books written in archaic languages seems like a poor way for the almighty to communicate with us.
Regarding being talked into agreeing with incest or pedophilia, the premises that inform my understanding of personhood, family, mental development, and ethics of consent lead me to believe I could not be talked into it. But lots of people have been talked into lots of things, both good and bad. My only judge of my current and future mind state is my own experience, as, frankly, is yours.
Regarding revelation:
How do you _know_ your revelation is right? Once we get to “faith” as an answer, we’re back to using secular discussions to determine right and wrong, unless you live in a theocracy. And how do you know that the things revealed to you now are more right than were the things revealed to people of your faith 300 years ago?
>And how did one get into slavery? I thought someone could be captured?
The link I offered above has a very detailed explanation on how one entered slavery in the OT. And prisoners of war were not made edebim, they were made into a mas, serfs or vassals.
I honestly admit that some of my reasoning rises from faith, which I do not define as a blind leap in the darkness, but a reasoned choice between world views, based on a rational assessment. Only the Christian world view satisfies both my reason and my subjective human feelings.
I take it as an act of faith on your part, for instance, when you assume that a lot of Christians were really acting as secularists when they abolished slavery.
The Bible is not ambiguous, but it isn’t simplistic either, so everything in it has a context. The ban on eating shellfish was for a reason, and it was lifted. To your point on slavery, Frank has said many good things. I think I can say (I could be wrong however) that the Bible doesn’t argue against a type of economic slavery that has been found in some societies. The reason slavery as we think of it is immoral is not the raw economics of it. It’s the abuse of another person–that’s the sin of slavery. We have people who are technically slaves to the state in our current society, and I think it’s immoral of the state to condone it in the guise of compassion, but the Bible doesn’t speak to that kind of thing.
I haven’t read Jacob’s “Living Biblically” book yet, but I hear it was transformational for him as well, far more than the Britannica was.
How do we know our understanding of revelation is right? It’s rational, for starters. Those who point to the Bible to make wild claims are properly rejected by most Bible believers. It’s the same in the secular world. There are wild studies that come up and are argued at Princeton sometimes, but many secularists and humanists of other stripes reject them.
We can also know our beliefs are correct because they are faithful to the Scriptures, but every belief we draw is not a firm one that all believers must hold. There’s room for disagreement on some things. Not slavery, but issues like social dancing.
Of course, you point to slavery because you think the church tolerated or believed it was good many years ago. That’s partly true, but just like secularists have been powerfully wrong in many ways, so have many pastors and Bible teachers. The church universal has never held that our concept of slavery was a God-honoring thing, even though some in the South and North United States argued in favor of it. They were wrong, and I think we can demonstrate that biblically, not by pointing to sociology studies.
Hi, Lars– I haven’t time to join your discussion right now, but you may be interested in the following article re: the failure to think through our culture’s ‘prime directive’ of ‘tolerance’.
http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2011/12/03/wrong-culture-right-teacher%E2%80%99s-surprising-discovery/
I’m still not convinced by the idea that we’ve become more moral by continuing to refer to the same ancient text; I think the civilizing effect of the enlightenment (which certainly has its negative sides as well) is the force that has caused change. If the Bible were the force behind change, it’s still unclear to me why our understanding of what is right and wrong has changed over time. The shellfish argument still holds for me here — if the ban on shellfish was lifted, why not the ban on homosexual behavior?
I find it interesting to use ‘reason’ as an argument for your faith, as I’ve always understood faith to be the point at which reason fails to work. I tend to come from the perspective that a claim should be doubted until there’s good reason to believe it, and the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the evidence required. I’ve not yet found reason to believe the supernatural claims of the Bible over those of any of the other world religions, and since the Bible’s claim to moral authority stems from these claims, I don’t give it any more credence than wisdom from other religions. (That’s why I’m Unitarian Universalist, we agree for sure that there’s a life here, so we should do what we can in this world.)
Thanks for the good discussion here. I’m going to have to bow out for time’s sake, but I’ve enjoyed the commentary. I will check back one more time in a couple days to see if anyone has written anything else, but I won’t be able to post any more–end of the semester and papers are piling up.
“This world is ruled by violence. But that’s better left unsaid.” – Bob Dylan
The downfall of relativism will be the need to defend it against those who would seek to subdue it by force. The seekers will likely come from an absolutist philosophy. If he holds to relativism, he cannot declare the absolutist wrong, but if he fails to oppose it the his relativism will soon be defeated and rendered moot. In order to defeat an absolutist enemy, the relativist will have to declare them wrong and himself right. In order to do that he will have to deny relativism and become an absolutist himself. Either way, he cannot remain a relativist indefinitely.
As for the shellfish thing, Christians differentiate between ceremonial law and moral law. The moral law is encapsulated in the Ten Commandments, and stands permanently valid. Also any law reiterated in the New Testament (as the prohibition on sodomy is) remains in force. Old Testament legal penalties have no New Testament standing.
As for believing in biblical Christianity, here’s my rationale.
It’s true that faith begins where reason leaves off. But the decision to take that step is itself a reasoned one. It’s as if I were to take a course in mountain climbing. When I decide to do that, I implicitly accept the idea that I will soon step outside my range of knowledge into territory where I’ve never been before, and do things that make no sense to me. I am prepared to follow my instructor’s commands, even though he tells me to do things that seem counterproductive or even suicidal.
As a Christian, I am obligated (and I’m happy about this) to accept the validity of reason. But I also understand that it takes more than reason to describe the universe I actually live in. Every person alive (unless they have a serious personality disorder) understands this. We accept, at some level, that men who live for possessions alone are living an impoverished life. We accept that beauty matters. We admire people who give up their lives (the only lives they’ll ever get, in the materialist view) for a principle or a loyalty.
So the question is, does this relate to the nature of the universe, or is it just a biological fluke? It seems to me that unless humanity itself is a cruel cosmic joke (a possibility that must be considered, but one I find incredible), there must be something in some way like a human being at the very back—behind the last veil—of the universe. Because otherwise, we would have to say that the things we value most—love and truth and beauty, for instance—are in fact less important than entropy and light speed. And if that’s true, we’re well and truly screwed and our beliefs are of no significance anyway.
But if there is something like a Personality behind the universe, how are we to know about Him/Her? Obviously we won’t be able to reason Him out, any more than a dog could propound a Theory of Humanity.
Dogs can’t understand their owners, but owners can understand dogs, and communicate with them in a substantial way. The greater comprehends the less. So it would be up to this Ultimate Being to send a message to us, speaking. Very. Slowly. With. Very. Small. Words. Chances are we still wouldn’t understand perfectly, but we could assimilate enough to get the essential message.
If only someone had received such a message from the heavens.
Well, as it happens, there is a group of people who believe they have received such a message. Agreed, there are several such groups. But when I note that one of them has managed to coordinate material and spiritual conceptions successfully enough to create the greatest civilization in the history of the world, matching unprecedented technical achievement with an unprecedented degree of personal freedom, well, then I think I ought to pay attention to their claims.