Moral values in the public arena

One of the most astutue and insightful pieces of political philosophy I have read recently is Michael Sandel's Justice. I highly recommend it to you. It is well written, in lay people's language, and argued with clarity and passion.
In it Sandel compares and contrasts three positions that are at work in contemporary political/social dialogue. The first two, utilitarianism and libertarianism, are driving the polarization in today's environment. Do not be turned off by big, philosophical labels if you are unfamiliar with them. Simply stated the former argues for the will of the majority (the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) and the latter argues for laissez faire, free market rules. Or in Sandel's terms, welfare and freedom of choice. He does a masterful job illustrating the positive (benefits) and negative (shortcomings) aspects of each. But then he reminds us of ancient, Aristotelian ethics and invites us to a restoration of virtue and honor as guiding values in today's contentious debates.
I have argued in earlier blogs against the first two positions, and honestly probably more strongly against libertarianism. But I have tried, then and now, to insist on a place for morality and virtue in guiding public policy making. I firmly agree with Sandel on the necessity of a moral basis for decision making, and with him, I do not claim to occupy the moral high ground in every instance. I believe there are good moral people on both sides of practically every debate. I do not think or expect that one side is always going to have the correct, moral answer. But there should be a respectful, vigorous moral debate in the public arena. I reject the "rights" claim of moral superiority. I reject the "lefts" abandoning of moral values and principles in public decision making.
I agree with the Danish Christian existentialist Soren Kiergegaard, "every decision is a moral decision." Join the debate. Silence is complicity.

Church and Culture

As if we needed to be reminded or shown for the first time, the discussion over gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook and the fiasco in Washington over the holidays are just two examples of the fact that the American "church" has renounced its core values and succombed to the values of the culture around it. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that "religious" people can seriously defend the arming of the public, increasing access to semi-automatic weapons, and, with a straight face, say that this is the "Christian" thing to do.  It is inconceivable to me that so-called religious people can claim that this country was founded as a Christian nation, claiming to base their lives on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and elect and support leaders who would balance a budget on the backs of the sick, the poor, the marginalized, the stranger/immigrants while endorsing and favoring the wealthiest 1%
of our population. It is inconceivable to me that the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and over 60% of Americans are so stupid as to take the Bible literally, denying biological evolution, and run on platforms of anti-intellectualism and anti-feminism and flagrant militarism. And racism continues to fuel their hatred of Obama!
Where is the church? Where are those who claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth? Where are Jews, Muslims, and all others claiming alligiance to the Unknown grounded in love and compassion?
The Darkness is not coming----it is here. Silence is complicity.
People of good will, people of faith, whatever your tradition, be the light where you are. Speak for truth. As Mother Theresa said, we are not called to be successful; we are called to be faithful.
Peace

God and Guns

 

An open letter to people of all faiths and good will: by whatever name you call the unknowable—Brahman, the Way, Yahweh, Christ, Allah, Nam—with you I yearn for the peace towards which we all lean. Love and compassion are at the core of every tradition, and yet we all fall short when it comes to living those ideals. In the face of unspeakable horror, tragedy, and evil, it seems so inadequate to say “I’m sorry.”

Words must be complemented with action. Everyday at least one person in this country dies from a gun shot. How utterly tragic that it takes twenty young, innocent lives plus eight adults to get our attention. And for how long?

Do guns kill people? YES!

Do people kill people? YES!

Is stricter gun control needed? YES!

Is better mental health treatment needed? YES!

Is better gun use and safety instruction needed? YES!

Are better background checks necessary? YES!

Is an armed citizenry necessary? NO!

Is visible protection and deterrence necessary? YES!

Are more armed guards, teachers, ministers, shop owners, citizens the answer? Absolutely NO!

Someone (Einstein?) said that to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is stupidity. The NRA not withstanding, narrow minded politicians hiding behind the excuses of needing more time, study and  money not withstanding, the lack of will and concern not withstanding, we must respond for good, for the future, for love of one another.

How paradoxical that in a country that claims to be so religious, we are the most violent, militant, racially and sexually discriminatory. The gap between our self-righteous delusions and daily reality is as wide as east is from the west. I wonder how many of those people who ran out last week and bought hand guns, semi-automatic assault rifles, and ammunition attended a house of worship this weekend or would at least give loud lip service to some religious tradition. “God’s” heart is broken for all who have died AND for all who carry hate and complicity in their hearts.

What is the answer to the violence in our world? I think it begins with people of faith and good will living the values of their faith and not surrendering to the perversion, stupidity, and evil around us.

There is a rabbinic saying that if the world lived God’s will together just one day, the messiah would come and the world would be transformed.

Justice and the American Way

We have just endured another divisive and polarizing political season. It seems that we are either red or blue and only 6 million votes determined a winner in the current contest. From the outside and to the uninformed observer, it appears to boil down to a question of small government vs big government, more taxes or less taxes, "freedom" vs government control. At least seven legislators chose not to run for reelection citing gridlock and acrimony as their reasons. We seem to have reached an empass or stalemate and spiraled into political paralysis. Where to from here?
Michael Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University and author of Justice, has offered a possible solution and new direction that I think is worth considering. There are many kinds of justice--retributive, distributive, etc.--, but what he is talking about is what the law should be and how society should be organized. These are questions of justice which our polity has answered in terms of maximizing welfare and respecting freedom. But lest you think one is blue and the other red, let me quickly clarify by saying that welfare can have red and blue inplications as well as freedom. Welfare can pertain to economic incentives for personal achievement as well as social programs to care for the unfortunate. Freedom can refer to individual choice on ALL matters and creating a level playing field through government regulations, e.g. Affirmative Action. We have been and are sharply divided within and between these definitions.
Sandel interjects into this conversation the third idea of promoting virtue. He asks, "Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Should law be neutral toward competing comceptions of virtue?"  Ancient theories of justice start with virtue; modern theories start with freedom. Do we decide as a society what is just or do we let "each man do what is right in their own eyes (as the Book of Judges describes it)?"
Obviously all aspects are important and to be considered, but I stand with Sandel in advocating a return to virtue as our guiding principle.

Laissez faire economics

The third misconception alive and well in our world today is laissez faire economics. Adam Smith warned us in Wealth of Nations to beware of capitalists behind closed doors. He knew their base inclination was to take advantage of the powerless for their own greed and wealth accumulation. Grounded in the religion of his day, Smith recognized the benefits of sound, altruistic economics, but he also was aware of human nature left to its own devices and lacking moral foundation.
I was sadly overwhelmed during this past election to witness the agressive, open expression of selfish, self-centered political philosophy and the blatant disregard for the health and welfare of this nation by the Republican platform and its spokesmen-----and one of them a Bishop in his church. The anger, hatred, lies, and yes, racism, has continued unabated. Just look at the increase in the sale of firearms this Black Friday over last year. The Internet is full of claims of voter fraud (never mind what the Republican party did in Pennsylvania and Georgia to try to deny voting privileges to minorities!). The Birther lies continue. So let's just ignore the mindless, ignorant foghorn--Fox--of the Republican party. But all of this was supposed to be offering a "new" vision of prosperity based on "free" unbridled business initiative. If government does not protect us with its power, since who among us can stand up to Exxon Mobile?, fracking is going to destroy our air and water and future generations--if there are any--will pay the price in poor health while the few and favored reap the rewards for themselves. All in the name of laissez faire economics.
I digress. Is communism the answer? Of course not! But somewhere between heartless, impersonal government and heartless, selfconsumed capitalism there has to be an answer that requires from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to their needs. This is fair! This is necessary! We must NOT settle for less!

Second greatest misconception

I am going to leave the history of the development and implementation of the idea of private property to others and only address the philosophical and moral foundations for such a principle.
How can anyone own this earth? How can anyone assume private control and use of the land? How can anyone own the air we breathe? Just one example: how could the king of England assume to own the land across "the pond" and give it (or use thereof) to a privileged few----when there were already human beings here using and sharing that land?
We come into this world with no choice or volition or action of our own. We bring absolutely nothing into this world with us. And we will take absolutely nothing from this world when we die. It is total arrogance to assume that it is our "right" to take, to use, to hoard, to refuse to share, to deny responsibility to give and help. There is a dearth of humility in denying that life is a shared experience from beginning to end and thinking that we are self-sufficient.
If I have not lost you already, let me quickly add and try to balance what I am trying to say. I am not denying or discouraging the use of individual talents and the appropriate rewarding of personal achievement. I am not arguing for faceless equality (although I would not rule this out IF everyone accepted their responsibility---but let's not be too naive) but for equitable distribution. It has been said by someone more eloquent than I, "from each according to their means and to each according to their needs."
It is a question of where we begin. Do we start with egotistical, self absorbed individualism OR do we begin with a recognition of and commitment to love and care of the "other?" Each has far reaching implications for social, economic, legal, and spiritual living. The soul of a nation is seen in the degree to which it takes care of the weakest within it. The soul of a person is seen in the degree to which they live in service to others.

Hopefully of interest

Email:   hallittleton@gmail.com
Website:   www.haroldlittleton.com
Recent book:   Jesus: A Would Be King    available through www.Amazon.com

Speaking engagement:
FCCChurch in Hendersonville, NC
December 16 at 9:30 am
Subject:    Mary Magdalene, the "Other Woman"