So I make my return to normal blogging with this post, but it's not super well thought out (surprise right?)
Lately I've been examining a lot of issues from a lot of perspectives but yesterday my buddy/boss Jason said something that has kind of stuck with me.
I really don't recall the words but essentially his point was that:
A, some things are in fact, impossible, and not just as it relates to physics. For example, he pointed out that realistically, assuming that gay marriage is wrong, it is impossible to convince the whole world (or even a substantial majority) of this.
And B, that in the absence of such goals being possible, the next best solution is to create rules. His example, make it illegal, to keep people in line.
While I don't disagree that in the interim between society's agreements on matters, there should be rules and laws and such, I've been beginning to think that we're putting our effort in the wrong place.
Here is how I view the way our country/society does things now:
Bob invents/discovers a drug that makes people in unhappy marriages happy, regardless of any circumstantial changes.
About half the people herald this as great, while about half find it reprehensible.
Lawmakers take a look at their constituents, weigh the options against their future political life, take a stand and become an advocate one way or the other. Because of the populations feelings on this, it breaks down by about half one way and half the other.
Religious leaders (I'm really talking about the usual Christian subjects here) take a quick glance at their established orthodoxy, put the round pegs in the round holes etc. and decide if it's evil or good (nothing seems to be indifferent).
Just like that, we've got a national debate that includes all the goodies. Laws will eventually be passed to the least objectionable solution and so on.
-----
But it doesn't have to work this way, I don't think. Maybe it does.
I believe it's possible -- note unlikely and astronomically difficult -- to avoid this mess.
The question is, is it possible to breed the idea of knee jerk judgements out of us? Instead of hearing the basics and putting something into a category, can we judge it's merits fairly and in due time?
Long story short, I guess what I am saying is that I'd like to see a fundamental change in human behavior on a lot of fronts. One's religion can still be the basis of their belief, but they need to dig a little deeper than "soundbite Jesus" to get to the root of something. One can be a liberal, but just because something might be good for a pro-conservative group doesn't mean it's bad etc.
----
Let's go back to that magic little marriage pill. Is supporting it's legalization likely to be liberals or conservatives?
Both side are afflicted by unhappy marriages I'm sure.
Both want to be happy.
But would liberals be mad that it allows women in abusive relationships to stay in them without punishing the men? Or would they be mad that a gay man could be made to believe he was happy married to a woman?
Would the religious right be upset that it has the ability to make husbands happy even if their wife is leading a side life as a lesbian?
The questions are hypothetical as the pill is but you know as well as I do that somehow the issue will end up splitting along those lines.
---
This blog is disjointed as hell...sorry, I'm out of practice.
---
As a society we've decided that everything fits into a box, which is not untrue on some levels. But there are more than two boxes.
Our effort shouldn't be put to making laws and rules to restrict and control BEFORE we've examined an issue thoroughly. By doing this, we make the rules quick, it gets entrenched on one side or the other, and little more real thought goes into it.
INSTEAD, we should examine the issues thoroughly, then pass a law if one is needed.
Moreover, there is some old Indian (I think) proverb/story about a nation that abolished laws. I don't really remember the story, but I think there is a truth in the idea that laws are needed because we don't want to try very hard to know what is right.
People shouldn't need a law to know not to steal, or to take it farther, they shouldn't need a law that tells them who can and cannot marry.
Somewhere out there the truth of the matter exists, and we should search for that, not just the least objectionable law.
Even in the lives of people like me, who believe the truth of say the Catholic Church, there is not a catechisical argument for or against our hypothetical pill. It requires digging deeper than what we think we know.
Is it possible or worth it to try and change human behavior this way? I dunno. But it was a thought.
Good to see you return to the arena.
ReplyDeleteYour blog is very disjointed, so is my response.
1) I read a blog recently where someone made the point that despite our puritanical roots, our constant political desk pounding, and our collectiving tsk-tsking of celebrities, we Americans really aren't that interested in morals. The reason why is that morality requires a lot of examination, a lot of internal questioning, and most of us don't really like to do that. We argue about morality as a way of avoiding thinking about morality. We split it up into sides, and associate it with a political ideas so that we never have to sit alone and try to untangle the knot of a difficult moral question.
2) As far as moral questions go, your marriage pill is a doozy. That's an example of of a moral question that well never be fully understood, because there are just too many implications, which in turn cause more implications. A pill that powerful, and questions that complex are simply too big to fit into "good" and "bad".
3) So how do we legislate something, the moral implications of which we can't fully understand? Or should we try at all? Libertarians would say that we shouldn't, since morality and law do not mix. I'm sympathetic to that, but don't buy it fully. Public morality might be different than private morality, but it still exists. I don't really have an answer for this. Good question, but I'm not ready to answer.
4) You overriding idea seems to be that we should relentlessly pursue the whole truth, rather than just going for the least objectionable law. This is in fitting with your pattern of placing "absolute" and "objective" truth in the highest position of priority. Human understanding is always finite and imperfect, so are our laws. The least objectionable is always our guiding principle in politics and law. Churchill said that democracy wasn't the best system, but it is, so far, the least worst option.
If you separate law and morality, all you really need is a system of laws that keep society from imploding, and leave the rest (including questions of right and wrong) to individual choice. But if you try to mix absolute ideas about right and wrong into it, our political system begins to look more and more like an unsustainable, greasy turd.