Morality: Part Four - No Longer All for One and One for All

In Morality: Part Three, I mused upon what a primitive society and its morality might look like. But we all know that primitive societies did not remain primitive and that somewhere along the line we got chiefs and kings. We also got religion. There are a lot of variables that take a society from simple hunter-gatherer clan-based to a "civilization". These variables, in general, lead to greater complexity of social interactions, specialization, change from nomadic to settled existence all of which eventually lead to changes in what is viewed as moral or ethical, although some moral views outlive their usefulness and remain as traditions that no one knows the reason for or origin of. What changes in circumstance caused changes in moral outlook?

In a tribal or clan society, furtherance of individual wants is subordinated to the needs of the group simply because the group would die off if all members were not contributing their fair share. One change that changed the way that people interacted was the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals. Domestication of animals was the transition from hunting animals for their meat, skins and other parts, a labor intensive occupation, often occupying all the adults in a clan, to having those animals on hand ready to be slaughtered when their meat was needed. While far from a leisurely activity, tending to a herd of cows or a flock of sheep was very different than hunting the night's dinner one animal at a time. A related activity, at least in its affect, was the development of agriculture. Both of these changes spurred the differentiation of roles as some tribesmen tended the flocks, some raised the crops, some processed the animal products (skins, furs, bones) while others concentrated on preparing the produce for consumption. Bakers of bread and brewers of beer became professions. As the core of the people were no longer nomadic, following the seasonal migrations of the herds, people built permanent dwellings, which spurred more new professions. The need to have fields dedicated to the crops necessitated having a stable territory to control. Some of the hunters transitioned into warriors to protect this territory.

No longer was everyone the same. Now everyone had "their place".

Gates of Midnight

The Gates of Midnight
Lit by darkness, disluminating
Casting shadows of light
Caverns of Murk
Fog bound enwreathed
Where shadows lurk
The Gates of Thought
Chained against the winds
Although for naught

Nightmare

Creaking
chairs and wind
that speaks to ancient fear
shakes me awake
Shivering

Morality & Torture

"Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person (or animal), usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the  control or custody of the torturer and unable to defend against what is being done to him or her."

Torture, broadly speaking, has two main goals: to elicit confessions and to punish. In the category of punishment, most modern societies exempt capital punishment, i.e. execution, from their definitions of torture, even though some methods of execution could hardly be distinguished from non-lethal torture. In modern times torture as a punishment, at least as officially recognized, is illegal and is viewed by most as immoral. The United States Constitution itself prohibits "cruel & unusual punishment". However, retaliatory violence falls within the personal moral codes of many people as a reaction to physical attacks, theft or insults. Pope Francis' assertion that he would answer an insult to his mother with a punch in the nose is an example, albeit mild, of this. The Paris killings of cartoonists who "insulted" Islam's Prophet Muhammad is a more extreme example. Granted neither of these example could reasonably be called torture, but rather retaliation or revenge. 

Torture as a means to extract admissions of guilt or to yield valuable intelligence is alive and well not only in military situations, but also in many police departments. Torture has likely operated behind the scenes and unacknowledged over the years, but in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, torture has been redefined and utilized in an effort to prevent further attacks. Recently a Congressional Report on the use of torture was published with differing opinions shrilly expressed on either side. The ethics of torture of been debated and argued, but one thing stands out in the report, something that any expert on torture could have told you beforehand...

Torture doesn't work. 

Some of the biggest proponents of the use of torture in the "war on terror" admit that they gained no useful intelligence when torturing prisoners. Not only did torture fail to yield any usable information, but at least 25% of those detained at Guantanamo had committed no crime, were not associated with terror groups and in fact had done nothing wrong. Yet these people were repeatedly tortured for information that they did not have and pressured to admit to acts that they did not commit. 

Many supporters of torture make the case that we should not wring our hands over the rights of "terrorists", posting pictures of the burning towers or the jumpers as a visual rebuttal to those who recoil at our use of torture. These people, perhaps with full knowledge of the point that they are making, perhaps ignorantly, are asserting that the fact that a person is accused is proof enough of their guilt and that revenge is appropriate. 

These people are advocating, not torture as a means to save other lives, not as a means to determine who is guilty and who is innocent, but as a primal response to extract the pound of flesh to make someone suffer for our suffering. 

If we are going to have a debate on this subject, let's stop pretending that it is about gaining confessions or intelligence, that it is about preventing future terrorist plots or capturing those who previously conducted acts of terror. Let's make it about whether we want to sink to the level of those who would conduct indiscriminate violence for the sake of violence, whether we want to be the people who committ atrocities over real and imagined wrongs, whether we are the people who don't really care about who actually hurt us as long as we make someone hurt. 

From what I hear from many Americans, we already are those people. 

Morality: Part Three

Morality can be looked at as how we behave ourselves, i.e. the actions that we take, primarily in how those actions relate to or affect others and secondarily actions that are undertaken in isolation, i.e. having no appreciable affect on others.

When defining "others" and their relative importance to "ourselves", we can look at the degree to which another's state of being affects ours. To what extent are others included as "one of us"? Knowing and understanding this connection will help define what is acceptable behavior. "Otherness" can be classified in several different ways: similarity toward self (family, religion, ethic group), interconnectedness (residence in the same city, working at the same business), or status (hierarchical, income, social).

One way to look at morality is as an evolutionary development to ensure the survival of the group. Before the development of agriculture, not to mention cities, most people lived in small groups, small enough to not overtax the local resources, but large enough to maintain genetic diversity. What might morality look like in a small clan or tribe of a few dozen people, or at most a few hundred? Surely individuality would not be valued; there would be no tolerance for anyone who went against the norms of the clan. People setting their own rules would lead to division and imperil the continuance of the group. An expectation that everyone contribute to the group would be a requirement as well. Freeloaders would imperil the health and welfare of the group. In short, the sense of self-preservation that an isolated individual would apply to him or herself would be extended and enlarged to include the group.

Moral laws that are common today could have had their roots in these smaller societies. A prohibition on killing would make sense: killing off members of the clan would weaken the clan, although an exception might be made when an individual's behavior put the whole clan at risk. Lying could be frowned upon due to its tendency to erode trust - in a small group, similar to a small town today - everyone knows what everyone else is doing and a known, habitual liar might be ostracized. Stealing would disrupt order, although one can imagine a communal society with common ownership as well. Other analogues to the biblical ten commandments could depend on the situation and environment in which the clan finds itself. Would what we think of as adultery strengthen or weaken the clan? Rules and standards of behavior would develop organically to respond to the need for the group to survive and thrive and to keep relations among the clan members relatively smooth.

So what about "the other"? Does the neighboring tribe or clan's existance strengthen or weaken the home clan? Or perhaps it's neutral. Are they of similar strength? In a nonspecialized, hunter-gatherer, nomadic society it's hard to imagine how the presence of another clan nearby could be a benefit; at best they would be neutral, not figuring in at all. Get close enough and another clan would be competing for the same resources: game animals and access to water. It would not be hard to imagine that internal prohibitions against killing would not apply to the "other". The continued existance of the tribe would necessitate either killing the rivals, driving them off, stealing from them or absorbing them into the tribe. All of these things happened. Stealing horses was not considered wrong by many tribes native to North America. Folk migrations were very common in Europe over the centuries as peoples displaced others in a quest for the best land or in response to being displaced themselves. Wars large and small have been a fact of human existance for as long as there has been human existance. And what were wars usually fought over? Resources, including living-space, i.e land.

So, what is morality but a taking care of one's own and defining how to best live in peace with other members of the group?

But what happens when someone, or a class of someones, within the group sees an opportunity to use the morality of the group to further an individual agenda? That's for Part Four....

Being Offended

What offends you? What is offensive in general? What should we do about offensive comments? Offensive people? What is the balance between free speech and calling out offensive speech? How do we define offensive speech? Do we even know ahead of time what we will find offensive?

I have found that there are extremes in the world of offensiveness. There are those who are offended at what seems like everything. These are the people around whom you cannot tell a joke or express a political opinion lest it offend them. And their offense does not take the form of mild disapproval, eye rolling or head shaking; no, their disapproval takes the form of a crusade! A quest to eliminate the offensive! The other extreme is those who believe that anyone who is offended at something that they say is making a big deal out of nothing, should just shut up, is trying to take away their freedom of speech or is a pansy who gets "butthurt" at hearing things that they don't like.

So what is the balance and where do you find it?

Well, for starters, not at either extreme. C'mon, you can't be offended at everything, or expect everyone to share your outrage, nor can you reasonably expect that every stupid thought that bubbles up out of your subconscious is fit to be uttered aloud. But, as I said, those are the extremes, and most people don't live at the extremities. Every culture has things that are widely considered acceptable or offensive and within cultures every individual has things that differ from the larger culture. Things that may be perfectly innocuous in one setting may be "fightin' words" in another.

In the United States, like it or not, we live in a multi-cultural society. We are a combination of, not only many immigrant cultures, but differing cultures in different regions of the country. Can the Deep South be considered identical to the Northeast? Are urban dwellers likely to act the same as people who live in rural settings? We are a nation of many religions. Even within the dominant faith, Christianity, there are definite differences between a Catholic, raised in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood, and a member of a fundamentalist or evangelical denomination. And then of course there is "race". Immigrants and descendants of immigrants from all over the world (including the far-from-monolithic group called "white"), Native groups, including the many North American nations and tribes, Alaska natives, Hawaiian islanders...and the list goes on. How can we keep track of all the things that could possibly be offensive to all of these groups, subgroups, overlapping groups and groups speaking for other groups?

The easy answer is that no one can.

The answer that requires a bit more thought, a bit more work and a bit more dialogue is mutual respect, paired with listening. 

A good way to start is by not assuming the worst about someone when you hear something that rubs you the wrong way. Ask for clarification, give the offender a chance to explain. It's possible that you just misunderstood what was being said. Explain why you find what the other person said to be offensive. It could be that they are being offensive and didn't realize that what they were saying could be seen as such. If you are being called out for saying something deemed offensive, don't get defensive. Find out why the other person is offended and take their views into consideration. Explain what you meant and, if you still feel that what you said was not inherently offensive, at least try to empathize with the other person's feelings. At least agree to refrain from making those kind of statements around your friend. And if you must, apologize. And by the way, "I'm sorry that you were offended", or "I'm sorry if I offended you" are not real apologies. "I'm sorry (or better yet I apologize) for making that statement" or "I apologize for offending you".

Sometimes we are offended, not at something that a personal friend or acquaintance says or does, but at a societal trend, or even at something that a celebrity or politician does or says. These kinds of things often get a lot of coverage in media, both mainstream and social. then you are dealing with masses of people who have no incentive to act civilly, since there is no personal interaction to soften the words. Anyone who has commented on a newspaper article or blog post has encountered the rabid incivility that characterizes these exchanges. You're going to get muddy if you enter into these mudpits!

This doesn't mean that one shouldn't ever get involved in these extra-personal discussions. If a politician, who was elected to represent all of a district's inhabitants, makes insulting remarks about a group that he represents, that's cause for concern. If governing bodies base policies on stereotypes, or favor one group over another, that's a reason to speak up.

Personally I find that many people that I know hold views that I find objectionable, even repugnant. Depending on the person, sometimes I engage them as I describe a few paragraphs up. Sometimes I ask a few pointed questions or ask for clarification, like "Are you saying that all black people are on welfare?" or "Exactly why do you believe that atheists have no morals?" Sometimes this gets the other person to reexamine their beliefs. Sometimes it just shuts them up.

I do not believe that it is always a bad thing to discuss religion or politics, two realms in which it is a virtual certainty that your beliefs and positions will be offensive to someone. But it is possible to keep it civil...if you want to. I find it offensive that some people with whom I interact on a regular basis think that I am consiged to Hell for my beliefs or lack of the same, but I would find it fun and interesting to have a civil conversation with them about the basis of their opinion.

Of course, there's always the option of being the offensiveness extremist. You can be "that guy" who is forever pointing out something is racist, or sexist, or misogynistic, or some other -ist. If that's you, you've condemned yourself to being ignored and mocked, because if everything is offensive to you, then pretty soon your outrage becomes just another part of the background noise. Or you can be the guy who truly doesn't care what anyone thinks or feels. Perhaps you will find plenty of fellow assholes to vaidate your worldview.

Myths and Misconceptions: Dust Down a Country Road

Yesterday I saw a post on Facebook that linked to a Catholic blog regarding misconceptions and common myths about Catholicism. One of the supposed misconceptions was that Catholics are not Christians. Before I go on, let me make clear that this isn't a pro- or anti-Catholic piece, but the blog put me in mind of what I have blogged recently about differing interpretations of different faith traditions from within those traditions.

I grew up in a Catholic family, but changed to a more fundamentalist brand of Christianity as a young adult and have since changed to a non-Christian brand of faith. I continue to be fascinated by religious belief and the "why" of faith. Where do these various beliefs come from?

It is not a misconception that some people do not view Catholics as Christians, it is an opinion. This opinion is based on an interpretation of what makes a Christian a Christian that excludes Catholic doctrine. There are many overlapping and interlocking definitions of what makes a Christian a Christian. Some of these definitions hinge on behavior, while other are based on belief. I have heard on several occasions people who have been raised in a Christian church talk about when they "became a Christian", referring to some decision or life changing event that set them apart even from their fellow church-goers. Of course there is no objective, unchanging set of qualifications defining who is a Christians and what denominations can be referred to as Christian. Some of you may have read this last sentence and said to yourself: "Of course there is - it's The Bible!" The problem with this assertion is that there are many, many interpretations of the bible by innumerable people and groups which cast doubt upon its reliability as an objective measurement of "Christian-ness", without even getting into the contradictions, additions and scribal errors that make up the many versions of the bible.

On the other hand, the blog gives the Catholic refutation, which in short is that the Catholics are the original followers of Jesus, while everybody else is an offshoot of some kind. This true as far as it goes. Various denominations and doctrinal families of Christianity can be traced back eventually to the Catholic Church, in fact, the ones that you are likely to have heard of can be traced quite easily to some split with either the Catholic Church or some other church that had split from the Catholic Church. However there is ample evidence that there was much disagreement about who Jesus was, what he accomplished and what he said during his lifetime. Competing groups had their own scriptures, congregations and hierarchies and fought for supremacy - to become the established church. All of them claimed to be the true successors to Jesus and his teachings. Eventually, for a variety of reasons, one group emerged as the true church and labelled its rivals as heretics. Even then, outposts of some the unofficial sects survived in areas not under the control of Rome.

As a side note, one thing that many Protestants criticize the Catholics for is the reliance on tradition and apostolic succession to frame what is true doctrine and what is not. In the early days of Christianity when the competing groups each sought ascendancy, here was no "Bible" that could be referred to to settle arguments. In fact, each group produced its own literature to bolster its own position. Most of these gospels or letters carried the name of an apostle or some other big name in the early church. Even the books that are now included in the bible have the names of authors affixed to them with little or no evidence to support that authorship. Modern scholarship suggests that several books of the New Testament were not written by the putative author. With so many epistles and gospels flying around with contradictory information, a way had to be found to determine which were authentic and which were not. Apostolic succession, whereby a leader could trace his lineage all the way back to the apostles and thence to Jesus. The reasoning being that an uninterupted chain of teachers were more likely to maintain the true, correct teachings of Jesus than writing that could have come from anywhere.

So, is it a myth that Catholics are not Christians? Well, from a Catholic point of view it is certainly incorrect, but from the point of view of some other Christians they're not. It's a difference of opinion, plain and simple. (Well, maybe not plain and simple - nothing ever is truly plain and simple; but it's the way I see it anyway!)