Sunday, August 14, 2005
Liberals, Morals, Conscience, and Ethics
Under the heading "Resuming a conversation about liberal moral values," Philocretes re-opens a discussion begun a year ago. (That discussion was headed, more narrowly, "Do Unitarian Universalists have morals?")
I've been thinking about this discussion since I first read it a couple of days ago.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a Unitarian Universalist, and certainly can't speak for everyone in the liberal/progressive universe.)
In college, I took exactly one philosophy course -- a survey, Philosophy 101 sort of thing. I remember very little about the course and no longer have any textbooks or other materials which might refresh my memory further. One thing which did stand out, though, and which I've kept in my mind ever since, was a discussion about ethics, conscience, and morality. Here are the classical distinctions among those terms which the professor laid out for us:
The chief dividing factor is morality (as defined above): conservatives (especially the more prominent fundamentalists of all faiths) elevate it to primacy, while liberals discount its importance. Conservatives say, in essence, that you must have a proper relationship with your god, and the other two values follow automatically from that. Liberals say, in essence, that you needn't have a relationship to a god at all in order to be a good person. (These are extreme positions, of course; most conservatives or liberals will fall short of the extremes.)
There's also a public-vs.-private dimension which is different among the three values. Conscience is entirely inward-looking; ethics, entirely outward-looking. Morality, on the other hand, is messy: true morality can be known only to individuals looking to themselves, through silent prayer and meditation, but -- because of the term's conflation with religiosity -- we now consider morality to have a public face as well. "Is he a church-going man?" we ask, and if so his morality goes up (in our eyes) a notch or two.
(These issues are mirrored in the conventional dualistic political realm, when judging someone's political values. A guy who fails to salute the flag when called upon to do so cannot (so the extreme right assures us) be a real patriot. A politician who fails to embrace unilateral disarmament cannot (so the extreme left assures us) be considered truly "humane." Tortured indecision is derided by both ends of the spectrum. Us, them. Good people, bad people.)
I guess my reason for pride in the politically liberal tradition is that it does not require morality of its citizens as defined here -- any particular relationship to a god. Nor has it (or any other political institution, to my knowledge) demanded that people have a good conscience, since that's inherently unknowable and hence not subject to societal or cultural judgment. The only thing the liberal tradition requires is that people deal with one another ethically. That is, citizens (and institutions, all the way up the scale to the entire nation) are to behave as if guided by conscience and/or morality. They are not to steal, because anyone with a fully functional conscience naturally would not steal. They are not to murder one another, because no one with a fully functional conscience -- buttressed by every religious tradition -- would murder another. People can get angry, they can get sullen and resentful and envious, but they can't justify acting out on those impulses on religious or any other grounds. They must simply behave ethically: civilly.
What happens, though, is that liberals allow themselves to get caught up in debates that have nothing to do with good-vs.-bad ethics (which are, as I say, the foundation of liberalism). Abortion, for example, is not inherently good or bad, but -- like other human activities -- can be conducted ethically or not. To get sucked into a debate about morality ("Does God sanction abortion?"), taking a stand on it one way or another, is to get sucked into a change of subject. A society grounded in common sense and decency is an ethical society. A society grounded in God is a moral society (again, with "moral" as tightly defined here). Because my relationship to you and to everyone else is the only relationship which can be addressed politically, legally, and yes Constitutionally, then I choose ethics -- and not morality -- as the only basis for my politics.
So yeah, I'm a political liberal. And when it comes to ethics, you (whatever your relationship to God might be, including none at all) are, too. Don't let yourself be led by a change of subject, at the hands of someone in a position to gain from the change of subject, into believing otherwise.
I've been thinking about this discussion since I first read it a couple of days ago.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a Unitarian Universalist, and certainly can't speak for everyone in the liberal/progressive universe.)
In college, I took exactly one philosophy course -- a survey, Philosophy 101 sort of thing. I remember very little about the course and no longer have any textbooks or other materials which might refresh my memory further. One thing which did stand out, though, and which I've kept in my mind ever since, was a discussion about ethics, conscience, and morality. Here are the classical distinctions among those terms which the professor laid out for us:
- Our ethics are reflected in our relationships with other people.
- Conscience is one's relationship to oneself.
- Our morality expresses our relationship to God.
The chief dividing factor is morality (as defined above): conservatives (especially the more prominent fundamentalists of all faiths) elevate it to primacy, while liberals discount its importance. Conservatives say, in essence, that you must have a proper relationship with your god, and the other two values follow automatically from that. Liberals say, in essence, that you needn't have a relationship to a god at all in order to be a good person. (These are extreme positions, of course; most conservatives or liberals will fall short of the extremes.)
There's also a public-vs.-private dimension which is different among the three values. Conscience is entirely inward-looking; ethics, entirely outward-looking. Morality, on the other hand, is messy: true morality can be known only to individuals looking to themselves, through silent prayer and meditation, but -- because of the term's conflation with religiosity -- we now consider morality to have a public face as well. "Is he a church-going man?" we ask, and if so his morality goes up (in our eyes) a notch or two.
(These issues are mirrored in the conventional dualistic political realm, when judging someone's political values. A guy who fails to salute the flag when called upon to do so cannot (so the extreme right assures us) be a real patriot. A politician who fails to embrace unilateral disarmament cannot (so the extreme left assures us) be considered truly "humane." Tortured indecision is derided by both ends of the spectrum. Us, them. Good people, bad people.)
I guess my reason for pride in the politically liberal tradition is that it does not require morality of its citizens as defined here -- any particular relationship to a god. Nor has it (or any other political institution, to my knowledge) demanded that people have a good conscience, since that's inherently unknowable and hence not subject to societal or cultural judgment. The only thing the liberal tradition requires is that people deal with one another ethically. That is, citizens (and institutions, all the way up the scale to the entire nation) are to behave as if guided by conscience and/or morality. They are not to steal, because anyone with a fully functional conscience naturally would not steal. They are not to murder one another, because no one with a fully functional conscience -- buttressed by every religious tradition -- would murder another. People can get angry, they can get sullen and resentful and envious, but they can't justify acting out on those impulses on religious or any other grounds. They must simply behave ethically: civilly.
What happens, though, is that liberals allow themselves to get caught up in debates that have nothing to do with good-vs.-bad ethics (which are, as I say, the foundation of liberalism). Abortion, for example, is not inherently good or bad, but -- like other human activities -- can be conducted ethically or not. To get sucked into a debate about morality ("Does God sanction abortion?"), taking a stand on it one way or another, is to get sucked into a change of subject. A society grounded in common sense and decency is an ethical society. A society grounded in God is a moral society (again, with "moral" as tightly defined here). Because my relationship to you and to everyone else is the only relationship which can be addressed politically, legally, and yes Constitutionally, then I choose ethics -- and not morality -- as the only basis for my politics.
So yeah, I'm a political liberal. And when it comes to ethics, you (whatever your relationship to God might be, including none at all) are, too. Don't let yourself be led by a change of subject, at the hands of someone in a position to gain from the change of subject, into believing otherwise.
