We're in a struggle these days in America. The country was originally based on what is commonly called "the Judeo-Christian ethic". It wasn't uncommon for laws to be derived from biblical sources. Even if laws weren't called directly out of the Bible, there was a common morality in this country that was based, primarily, on that same ethic. We, of course, have evolved pass that point. In 1947 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used the phrase "separation of church and state" and the concept stuck. The division has advanced so far today that the perception is largely "You can believe what you want, but don't bring it into the public square." Having removed religion (Christian or otherwise) from any right to provide input to laws and morality, we have radically and quickly modified our morality as a society. In terms of moral perspectives, what was "evil" yesterday is "normal" today. What was "normal" yesterday is "archaic" today. Having removed any mooring in something solid, we're drifting, morally speaking. Now, I'm not trying to argue or bemoan anything at this point. I'm just telling you where we are.
At some point we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?" We've had examples of bad laws that get changed. Civil rights issues have come up and positive changes have occurred. Excellent. Women's rights issues have come up and laws have changed. Very good. It is undeniable that there have been bad laws on the books and that some of those bad laws have been changed or removed for good reason. There are other changes, however, that I would argue aren't so good. But we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?"
The Spanish Parliament recently passed a resolution that the great apes should be provided "human rights". Spain is not the first. New Zealand passed such a resolution back in 1999. Other countries are following down that path. It's the product of a campaign called The Great Ape Project based largely on the work of Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer. They argue that, just as racism and sexism were bad, so also is "speciesism" -- discrimination on the basis of species. So while Singer, for instance, sees no problem with killing or using human beings for medical testing if those humans are incapacitated (please read up on Dr. Singer to more completely understand his position -- I'm being brief here), he is anxious to extend protection to apes that he won't extend to those humans. And Dr. Singer's view on the apes has prevailed.
At some point we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?" If we strip off religion, for instance, on what do we base the notion of "human rights"? You can't use science. Evolution simply proves that we're all part of a common growth, so to speak. Evolution will support "all creatures are of no ultimate value" just as easily as "all creatures are of equal value." And if the concept of "human rights" has no real basis, on what do we base any sense of specialness to apes? It seems that we're arguing for religious values without allowing religious voices.
So we have to ask, "Who gets to decide?" Christians would like to say, "We do! We're right!", but that is obviously ... well ... not largely accepted. The more common answer would be "The majority does!" That carries its own problems. If the majority, for instance, is racist, then we have a majority making racist laws. That's not good. America's government structure with its checks and balances is nice, but it isn't foolproof. Congress is still capable of passing bad laws. The President is still capable of signing bad bills into law. And we all know that the court system is fully capable of legislating from the bench, as in California recently where they not only ruled that a law prohibiting the marriage of homosexual couples was unconstitutional, but also told the state that they had to resume marriages in 30 days. That's not merely ruling on a question; that's legislating.
But I'm still stuck here. Who gets to decide? We've determined that Christians (any religion) don't get to decide. We've proven that a majority rule isn't the best choice. We know that a representative government is still fully capable of making bad rules. So who gets to decide? If we eliminate the voices of the religious, the voices of the majority, and the voices of the government, what are we left with? It seems as if the best possible choice we can come up with is ... anarchy.
No, that's not the best option. Could it be that we already eliminated a better choice?
10 comments:
You must have had the same thing for breakfast that I had, Stan. The concept you are describing is non-anthropocentrism; the idea that humans are not unique. Its an expensive doctrine to follow. Ask the millions killed by Malaria each year.
The idiocy in Spain is that apes can't be treated more like us without us becoming more like them, in value, that is.
"You can believe what you want, but don't bring it into the public square."
I have heard this from secularists and it wouldn't be bad if it were true, but what a secularist believes is allowed in the public square.
It seems like more than one of these arguments are applied one-way. "Believe what you want, but don't bring it into the public square ... oh, but I can." "You're so judgmental ... and I'm allowed to be judgmental about your judgmentalism." "You need to be more tolerant ... and I don't need to be more tolerant of you." Hardly seems right, does it?
Actually, the American system, as an ideal, is pretty good. A method derived to not only provide majority a strong say, (think the House of Representatives), but provide equality to allow the minority position to be protected (The Senate.)
Further, the concept of checks-and-balances (again, as an ideal) is a valid means of attempting to prevent government from running amok. The President can veto a law. But the President’s veto can be over-ridden. Even if the President and the Congress agree, a law which violates the Constitution can be set aside. The Constitution can be changed, with enough consensus.
Only Congress can enact laws; only the Executive branch can enforce the laws, and only the Judiciary can interpret the laws.
The problem is in the populace. We don’t care. How many people know what their Congress is voting on today? How many know what bills are in Committee? If it doesn’t affect us directly, we don’t care. Until our gas prices start to affect our own pocket book, we let the government do what it wants; when it wants. And if those choices hurt others, most shrug with a “Meh. Didn’t bother me…” and forget about it tomorrow.
We have let our own government become the monster that makes the choices. However—this doesn’t mean it is irresolvable. It doesn’t make anarchy the “best choice.” It means we must re-focus on attaining the ideal once proposed.
I actually agree that the American system of government as an ideal is probably the best available. (Well, if I were to be completely honest, as an ideal I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship, but "as an ideal" and reality especially in that case never coincide.)
My problem is your final conclusion: "We must re-focus on attaining the ideal." How, exactly, do we do that? Whose interpretation of "the ideal" do we use? The ideal was originally premised on a moral society -- a society whose primary focus was not self interest -- that no longer exists. How do you fix that problem? What "moral structure" would we agree to use in place of the original notion that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"? You see, it gets really sticky ... and still leaves me with my original question: Who gets to decide?
Stan,
Don’t you present the answer in your own question? It is society.
First you claim the ideal of the American system was “originally premised on a moral society.” I agree the society of 18th Century America is no longer the same society as 21st Century America. (We will leave the debate over the qualifier “moral” for another time.)
If society was the entity that “decided” the original notion—why isn’t it society that makes the same decision now? This is why I see the answer in your question. When society agreed with your set of morals—you were perfectly happy with answering the question “Who gets to decide?” with “Society.” (At least that seems to be how this is presented.) Nothing has changed. The same grouping is still making the decision. (Sadly by apathy more than anything else.)
It is still society making the choices. You may not like these choices, and certainly have the Constitutional right to speak your mind on your own morals against these choices. Perhaps you can influence society to ascribe to your morals. Yet that would still be society making the choice.
P.S. “…Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” was in a document declaring revolt against the established “society.” The American ideal is framed within the U.S. Constitution—not the Declaration of Independence.
dagoods: "It is society."
Ah, but here is the difficulty (again). First "society" is not the same one that made the original. Without the original understanding and intent, how do we revive the original? (Indeed, do we want to?) Second, removing "the Constitution" from the equation (because it is the Constitutional government that is supposed to be the end product), we're left with "society" in terms of a majority. Now we're back to the problem I gave in the post -- majority rules. Soooo ... seems like we're back at an impasse.
As to the P.S., here we have a fundamental problem. The concept of the Constitution (okay, well, the Bill of Rights) is premised on common rights. In other words, it is premised on rights endowed to all human beings. Rejecting that premise, you're going to have to come up with some other reason to think that human rights include free speech, free religion, freedom of privacy, all that stuff you and I hold dear. A person who accepts the premise of the Declaration of the Independence would argue that those are human rights endowed by our Creator. You would argue ... well, I don't know, nor would I want to put words in your mouth. Society says so? For how long? It's a changing proposition when society says so, isn't it? And, frankly, do we really want to trust society to make these decisions ... you know, the one that is so apathetic?
So ... we're back to problems with getting back to the original, aren't we?
The “original intent” includes the ability to modify. Hence the reason a Congress was enacted to create laws (but not in violation of the Constitution) and the reason even the Constitution provides for amending itself.
To some extent, it is “majority rules”—however this is a bit simplistic when pragmatically applied. More like the majority reaches a consensus (sometimes including a compromise to even become a majority) of a method to derive laws. Here are two examples of what I mean:
1. Imagine a busy residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph. Where the majority of the people driving on the street desire the speed limit to be higher than 25 mph. A simplistic notion (not that I am saying this is what you are demonstrating) would be that “Majority rules” so the speed limit is raised to what the majority wants.
However, the majority also recognizes that, as individual drivers, they live on residential streets. Streets in which they are the minority, but equally desire a 25 mph speed limit. So we agree, as a majority, to enact a method to limit our speed, since as a majority we want it for ourselves, while we may not want it for others.
2. At the Federal level and the State level, the majority agreed to give the Supreme Court the ability to review a law and declare it non-constitutional. Voiding the law. Now, there may be a situation in which the majority of the people of the state desire a law. The majority of the legislatures desire a law. Yet such a law could still be struck down, because prior to such a majority, a “super-majority” (to coin a phrase) declared a method in which even a future majority may not prevail.
The situation in California is demonstrative of this. Once, the majority of the citizens of the state of California enacted a law stating it was acceptable to discriminate in housing, based on race. However, a previous method in place allowed the California Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional—thus denying the majority its position.
The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is a good example of a majority compromising in order to become the majority. Some the states would only ratify the Constitution if it included the Bill of Rights. (Why the 10th Amendment in particular was written.) There was a concern of a central government re-instituting some of the very practices. Certainly Locke had influence on the Bill of Rights, and the claim natural rights are derived by a creator, but such a claim is not dependent on a creator. We could claim it from the arguable reason we are the humans to which it applies, and who are implementing it.
Do I want to go back to the “original”? (Presuming late 18th Century.) Yes and no. As to slaves, female equality, racism—absolutely not. As to protection against the State when charged with a crime—yes. As to the morals—I would have to say not. I like not wearing a wig into court. I like wearing a bathing suit. I dislike tar-and-feathering. Lynching is bad, too.
Vigilantes and wilderness outlaws would be bad, too. It was not all smiles and roses, ya know!
Do I “trust” society? Not really, because society is made up of a whole bunch of people. But what choice do I have? Even if there was a god—it is societies choice of acceptance or rejection of that god-concept which dictates morals.
Since you don't trust society, I suppose that you're agreeing with me that the best we have isn't trustworthy. ;)
Might I recommend 'By This Standard' by Greg Bahnsen
Are you suggesting the Greg Bahnsen has come up with a mutually agreeable approach that our society will surely embrace? ;)
Post a Comment