Tag: morality

State

Public Office and Private Morality

Post author By David
Post date March 12, 2010
11 Comments on Public Office and Private Morality

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

photo credit: aurélien.

Just to be clear from the beginning, this topic is inspired by the Kevin Garn story and while I will refer to that story specifically everything I say is meant to apply to any matters of the private morality of a public official.

First, I would like to say that Rep. Garn seems to be dealing with this in the best way he knows how. Second, I agree with this comment on Holly’s site saying that we should:

hold our elected officials to the highest moral and ethical standards

Having said those things, I don’t believe that Rep. Garn’s problem is any of my business because he is not my representative. If he were my representative that would be another story.

Tags Elevated, ethics, Kevin Garn, media, morality, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah

culture

Journalistic Detachment

Breaking the News opens by sharing an incident from a television panel discussion from 1987. The moderator asked a wounded vet if he would have been willing to torture a prisoner in order to rescue soldiers under his command who had been captured. His answer was that although he would have to live with the consequences of his decision he would be willing to torture his captive to save his men. (Notice that this was him personally inflicting the torture, not simply ordering or signing off on the use of torture.) Other ex-military members of the panel wrestled with related questions and came to various conclusions but in every case their answers addressed the future consequences to themselves and others regarding their choices.

The moderator then asked one of two prominent journalists what he would do if he had been invited by an enemy military unit to visit the site of an atrocity committed by the military forces of his country’s allies and on their way to the site they discovered a unit of allied forces and set an ambush to kill them. His thoughtful answer was that he would probably do what he could to save the allied troops. As he gave his answer the other prominent journalist on the panel criticized him for getting involved in the story rather than just covering the news as it unfolded. Almost more sad than the fact that the two journalists saw things differently was the fact that the first journalist revised his answer to say that his human instinct to aid his allies in a moment of danger was wrong and showed personal weakness. He said, “I chickened out. . . I wish I had made another decision, I would like to have made his decision.” When the second journalist was pressed to address the impact of the position he had taken he responded by saying, “Don’t ask me! I don’t know.”

I value the role that journalists have to postpone judgement as they examine the issues they are reporting on until they are able to process all the available facts, but it is disturbing that this journalistic detachment should extend so far as to demand that the journalist stand as an idle witness to upcoming events when there is an obvious moral choice before them. Later in the book we are told of a journalist who refuses to vote in elections because it would make him biased.

This idea of a journalist acting outside the bounds of humanity in the name of “objectivity” seems to distort what journalism is. I think that attitude helps to perpetuate the myth among reporters that they can be truly without bias. Because of that belief it is all the more difficult for them to recognize their own biases. It seems to me that the logical extension of believing that you have no bias is to believe that anyone who sees an issue differently is wrong and less enlightened than you are. That seems to be a dangerous position for someone who is trying to uncover the truth of a situation or issue.

Tags media, morality, responsibility, war

National State

Proposition 8

I have stayed silent on proposition 8 thus far although I don’t imagine that many people would guess wrong if they were to predict my position. I have heard plenty of opposition to the proposition so I know the major reasons for those who oppose it. The most famous reasons for those who support Proposition 8 seem to be the "Six Consequences." I have not read those six consequences, but again, the opposition has been vocal enough that I have a pretty good idea of what those are. Today when I read the statement by Constitutional Law professors from California I decided that it was time to set the record straight about this whole issue. Like so many issues, the rancor and the passion on both sides has served to obscure the real issue and color the arguments into inaccuracy. For my purposes I will stick to the 3 points emphasized in this statement .

The first point is correct only to the first sentence – Proposition 8 would change existing California law. The trick is that there is nothing inherently bad about changing our existing written laws, especially when those laws are unreasonable in any way (self-contradictory, vague, or outside the jurisdiction of law are examples of why a law may be considered unreasonable). Those arguing in favor of Proposition 8 are arguing that the definition of marriage falls outside the jurisdiction of human law. To them it is not a matter of discrimination, it is a belief that the following statement is fundamentally false on simple semantic grounds:

Proposition 8 would forbid government officials from according gay men and lesbians a fundamental right they now enjoy and that all other adults in California will continue to enjoy: the right to marry a person of their choice.

The real argument behind Proposition 8 is that no person has the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice but that, in fact, every person finds that their choice is limited by the very definition of what constitutes marriage. At the core, what proponents of proposition 8 are claiming is that marriage is not a man-made construct and cannot be made to conform to the changing whims of society. When society forbade interracial marriage half a century ago it did not mean that interracial couples could not meet the criterion of marriage, only that society was too myopic to tolerate such a marriage.

The real argument of Proposition 8 supporters rests on two premises: 1) that what constitutes marriage is defined by God and not by society, and 2) that God’s definition of marriage requires (among any other criterion) that the parties to marriage may not share a common gender. Anyone who accepts those two premises (as I do) must support this proposition or be in open rebellion against God. (Those who reject these two premises cannot be judged by their fellow men to be in such rebellion on this issue.)

There are two very unfortunate truths regarding the arguments being made by most proponents of Proposition 8. First, they give little if any emphasis to their real argument (as stated above) preferring instead to try to make their case in terms of human law (which argument is naturally riddled with bias and inaccuracy as I will show below). Second, they fail to articulate that – contrary to what opponents claim in order to accuse them of bigotry and discrimination – while they believe that marriage by its nature cannot be entered into in a homosexual fashion they do not argue that gays and lesbians do not have the same fundamental rights as all other people, namely the rights to devote their lives to the person of their choice, to share their earthly possessions with the person of their choice, to offer care and support for the person of their choice in times of emotional, financial, physical, or mental distress (or comfort). In other words, gays have every right to cohabitate, enjoy hospital visitation and inheritance rights, and everything else commonly associated with marriage, but we assert that it is a matter of fact, and not a matter of discrimination that such sharing does not meet the qualifications for the term "marriage."

What is being decided by the voters of California is whether they will make California law conform with the definition of marriage espoused by the proponents which states that a marriage cannot be made without the participation of both a man and a woman or if they will insist in California law that marriage is a human social construct that may be altered according to the prevailing views of society.

The second point is correct on the surface and clearly exposes a flaw in the argument by Prop. 8 proponents. The tax exempt status of churches who refuse to perform marriages for same sex couples will receive the same protection regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8. Historically the tax exempt status of churches has been regularly challenged and rarely overturned. Going forward, it will be regularly challenged and occasionally overturned. The statement by the law professors ignores the truth behind such challenges which is that taking a position against legalized same sex marriage is as good an excuse as any for a group to get angry at a church and challenge their tax exempt status.

The third point is like the second in that it is technically correct and exposes a flaw in the arguments of proponents. Proposition 8 is neither necessary nor sufficient to "prevent public schools from teaching issues relating to marriage by same-sex couples to children whose parents oppose that instruction." Here the statement by the law professors ignores the facts that regardless of what is written in the books of law, very few parents have the time or the expertise to exercise their "absolute right to review all materials provided as part of a school’s comprehensive sexual health education program and to have their children excused from participation," and that legal recognition of same sex marriage by the state gives tacit permission for those who would wish to push such an agenda to test the limits of what parents will permit.

Yes, I just offered correction on the statement of 54 constitutional law professors – including Lawrence Lessig (who I esteem very highly) – and yet the only point that anyone can disagree about is the one that this issue is meant to resolve. In other words, the voters of California will go to the polls to decide between me and those who disagree with me as far as California law is concerned. On the other points everyone should stop their posturing and pointing out of technicalities. The real issue is the question of semantics.

Tags California, gay marriage, government, marriage, morality, Prop 8, religion

culture

Case for Absitnence

I was surprised as I read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Caitlin Flanagan. I doubt it was her intent, but I found a very strong argument in favor of abstinence as the preferred attitude toward extra-marital sex. She argues that there is a double standard related to the burdens of teenage pregnancy that falls more heavily on girls than on boys.

. . . the last scene [of “Juno”] brought tears to my eyes. To see a young daughter, faced with the terrible fact of a pregnancy, unscathed by it and completely her old self again was magical.

And that’s why “Juno” is a fairy tale. As any woman who has ever chosen (or been forced) [to give a child up for adoption] can tell you, surrendering a baby whom you will never know comes with a steep and lifelong cost. Nor is an abortion psychologically or physically simple. It is an invasive and frightening procedure, and for some adolescent girls it constitutes part of their first gynecological exam. I know grown women who’ve wept bitterly after abortions, no matter how sound their decisions were. How much harder are these procedures for girls, whose moral and emotional universe is just taking shape?

Of course those who disapprove of abstinence education also want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. On that everyone is agreed. The problem that they ignore is the fundamental fact that the natural result of sexual activity is pregnancy. We can lower the chances, but we can’t eliminate them. Regardless of what they may wish, there are side effects to abortion as well.

It would be helpful for the pro-life groups to admit that their preference for adoption over abortion is not without side-effects either. The reality is that regardless of the course taken afterwards, the universal result of unwanted pregnancies is emotional pain and suffering for the mother if not for anyone else.

Ms. Flanagan wonders if there is a way to level the difference in the burdens between teenage fathers who can escape the consequences in many cases and teenage mothers who can’t. Even her own words seem to promise that the answer is no.

Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected — in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences. The feminist historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg has written that “however prudish and ‘uptight’ the Victorians were, our ancestors had a deep commitment to girls.”

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

The trauma that will always accompany unwanted pregnancy has become more common as we first accept that “boys will be boys” and then we glorify that attitude, excusing (and demeaning) young men as being unable to control themselves. We have followed that moral irresponsibility by trying to teach our girls to be boys in adopting a callous attitude about sex. Sexual activity was never meant to be taken lightly which is why it was meant to be reserved for a marriage relationship. Any other relationship and it does not matter what precautions you take, you are flirting with the consequences of pregnancy and STDs.

This is why we must teach young women to guard themselves and we must teach young men to guard the young women they care about. This teaching is not meant to be done publicly. It should be undertaken within the setting of family. No other setting can ever be fully satisfactory for the intimacy of discussion that is warranted on this subject.

Tags morality, New York Times, religion