I hope this is acceptable: inviting feedback on my essay

[erichzann]

Hello - this is my first topic on DU, please be gentle. I've lurked around here for a long, long time. I didn't want to being posting during the election cycle for various reasons. I don't have many outlets for my writing these days, but I love to write. I thought that I would post an essay I wrote recently called "Moral Politics" for your thoughts and comments.

The essay is not technically religious in nature. But because of the current heated climate when it comes to issues of "values" or "morality" in politics, I thought that I would start first on this board (Plus, I don't know - posting it on GD or something seemed almost too pretentious.)

I no one is interested in this sort of thing, that won't hurt my feelings at all. If you are interested in reading it, it's 1500 words and begins below:

Moral Politics
By (me)

This morning while preparing for work I came upon an article entitled “That Other America.” In it the author discusses Democrats’ bewilderment at the loss of a constituency. This comes in light of a handful of new polls in which well over one-third of the electorate place “moral issues” as their number one concern above the economy, education, health care or the threat of terrorism.

There was a time when the Democratic Party was almost universally considered to be the party of the working poor, while the Republican Party remained the party of the wealthy and established. America’s poor working class could be counted on to vote Democratic, reflecting the economic and social policies that most benefited them. Today however we experience a reality that baffles most Democrats: America’s working poor are voting Republican at an unprecedented rate, against their economic interests, citing “moral issues” as their number one concern.

Democrats frequently reflect an attitude of disdain or smugness when it comes to the concern of working Americans over issues of values, effectively earning the title of “elitists” and “out of the mainstream” we so revile. As a party, we have been excruciatingly slow to talk seriously about the moral decline of our culture and what can be done to stop that decline. We’ve been slow to accept and talk about the need for a reawakened moral consciousness in the hearts of all Americans. Instead, we talk through the language of social program after social program as the cure for all ills.

Believe me, as a Democrat and a progressive I am in favor of a drastic restructuring of the budget towards greater social spending. But I am not in favor of pretending that a discussion of morality in American society should be off limits. I am not in favor of pretending like there are no moral issues in politics or society. I am not in favor of pretending that an “if it feels good do it” culture is a healthy culture, or that a personal attitude of “no one can tell me what is right and wrong” is a healthy attitude for society.

There are moral rights. There are moral wrongs. The rejection of inappropriate moral absolutism has created a ridiculous counter-claim of total (read: absolute) moral relativism that no one seriously believes. Just ask a moral relativist if he or she believes that there are any conditions in America by which rape would be appropriate and acceptable behavior. When we are pressed, we all know that some things are just wrong and some things are just right. And we should say so, even when neither the phrase “moral absolutism” nor “moral relativism” seem to be accurate indicators of actual reality.

Democrats need to appreciate how much the social climate has really changed. In 1950, the country had not yet been through brutal failed amoral wars, a decade of traumatic revolution and upheaval, political scandal and deceit, a drug and crime culture spiraling out of control, an increasingly commercialized lasciviousness and the depersonalization of the human being into an expendable, exploitable commodity.

Back then America had not yet lived through the decades of intense greed and imperialism which were to come. There were no epidemics of students taking shotguns and blowing away classmates. There were no Americans driving truck bombs into federal buildings. And there were no foreign terrorists crashing planes into towers. Then, the working class did vote in favor of the responsible worker friendly beliefs of the Democratic Party, because it was their top concern. A certain kind of moral fabric (however repressive it might have been) under girded society.

But in 2005 we live within a culture in critical decline. We have swung from one extreme poll to the other. As a culture, we have gone from the repressive moralism and restrictive society of our past all the way over to a completely amoral or even immoral reality. The chief concern on the minds of many Americans is not better health care programs, or better educational programs or better economic programs. The chief concern on the minds of many Americans is raising their children in a society and world as messed up as this one. It is fear of raising a family in an America bereft of any true moral compass – and the Democratic Party hasn’t even come close to clueing in on this reality.

The result has been that the Republican Party has been allowed to run the table when it comes to “morality.” Thanks to the stunning ineptitude of Democrats, neo-conservatives have been able to almost completely co-opt the language of “moral values” to serve their own interests. Now, if Democrats finally begin accepting the need to cultivate a fresh vision of a renewed and morally healthy society, our job is twice as hard. We now have to undo the indoctrination of the right about what “moral values” really mean.

Democrats could start first by just telling the truth. We could say, “I don’t know how to explain a complete system, and I think we have had a long history of trying to make things moral absolutes when they are not absolute. And I know that personal and social context does play a part in the way we should think about right and wrong action. But in the end I also know that there are some moral rights and wrongs and we should be honest about that, not shy away from the truth because it is complicated or difficult.”

Second, Democrats need to stop earning the stereotype of the anti-religion party through disdainful attitudes towards faith. A true morality in America is about justice, not religious creedism. As such, no one is asking secular Democrats to “feign faith.” All they need to do is have a healthy sense of respect for their fellow Americans who understand moral issues through a religious lens. They need to show the world how much common moral concern there is between concerned religious folk and concerned secular folk, and cultivate an attitude of welcoming inclusivity towards religious perspectives within the party and without.

Finally, Democrats need to point out the deceptiveness of neo-conservatives when it comes to moral issues. We need to point out that poverty is a moral issue. Health care, education, civil rights, economic and social justice, international human rights and a responsible foreign policy are moral issues. We need to loudly proclaim the message that gay-bashing in the name of morality or the persecution of women in the name of morality is unacceptable and directly contrary to the kind of morally rich America we all deserve. We need to drive home to message that concern about a moral society is concern about a just society, and that social rights and wrongs are bigger than anyone one religious institution or political party.

I believe moral issues should be a priority topic among all the people, and all the people’s representation. I feel that our society has suffered a swing towards the opposite extreme of amorality as a reaction to repressive moral-ism of the past. Both are wrong and create problems with stunning negative consequences on the health of our society. We need to discover the appropriate ways to resurrect meaningful talk about morality in America, and it should include concepts like social ethics and responsibility.

It is time for the Democratic Party to join the American public in rejecting the excesses of moral relativism just as we rejected the false security of moral absolutism in the previous century. Just because neither absolutism nor relativism have proven to be the answer does not mean we can ignore the questions. Nor can we trivialize or ignore the concerns of real people. Nor should we create polarizing attitudes such as “religious” vs. “secular.”

Our nation desperately needs a newly articulated sense of moral vision, out of which flows attitudes of justice and equality. And if the Democratic Party would wake up, and shake of some of its dead weight of elitism and disdain for simple folk with simple concerns – it could lead the way. We are already on the right side of economic issues, healthy care issues, civil rights issues, educations issues, etc. What we need now is to share the truth with the public: that right stances on these issues are inseparable from a true moral awakening within America.

[Az]

1. Problems

Let me say first excellent article. I agree that we need to build up the common sense of direction of morality in this society. But I do find some issues in it that I will note.

First off it is not the roll of government to be legislating morality in a society that is supposedly free. The limit of the law should be protecting individuals rights and assuring that they are not abused by one another. Beyond that moral descisions are for individuals to make based on their own beliefs.

As to a moral vision. Yes there needs to be a better sense of moral direction but what fixed form of morality are you proposing? The doctrine from the bible that condones beating children and holding slaves?

Moral relativism is much maligned by advocates of dogmatic morality. But they fail to realise that even they themself have embraced it. Systems that proceed based on the notion that morality is fixed to some external set of rules must keep pace with the advances society discovers or they get left in the dust. Thus things that were once considered moral become immoral in time and things that were once immoral become moral after being examined with a new sense of understanding.

Humans and society are dynamic. Their morality is dynamic as well.

[erichzann]

4. Response:

First off it is not the roll of government to be legislating morality in a society that is supposedly free. The limit of the law should be protecting individuals rights and assuring that they are not abused by one another. Beyond that moral decisions are for individuals to make based on their own beliefs.


I agree that legislating concrete morality, (i.e. federal law makes it illegal for you to swear because someone feels this is a moral wrong) is a kind of moral absolutism that we know is incorrect. On the other hand, simply because we know that many examples of dogmatic moral absolutism is wrong, does not mean that there are no moral issues. Hence, the reason why moral relativism is just as unrealistic and inaccurate as moral absolutism is.

What I believe - and I would say this is part of what makes me a liberal - is that true morality is not about "creed." I don't believe true morality is about saying, "x, y and z are always wrong regardless of context." What I believe instead is that the objective of promoting and maintaining healthy, responsible relationships between human beings within our society is the ultimate lens through which all action should be evaluated.

From that perspective, government action that promotes relational health and well being -- real health care, quality education for all, social and economic justice, fighting discrimination -- creates the right climate for moral (just) society. See, I don't believe it is the government's role to legislate the concrete specifics of a moral code - I don't even believe that's what "morality" is actually about. I do believe however that it is government's responsibility to cultivate a societal climate which encourages healthy and morally responsible attitudes, promotes responsible nurturing relationships, and contributes to a society which develops a relational lens as the lens by which to evaluate right and wrong action.

That is the responsibility of just government.

Moral absolutism is certainly discredited. But the answer is not an attitude that says there can be no talk about right and wrong in American society or politics.

As to a moral vision. Yes there needs to be a better sense of moral direction but what fixed form of morality are you proposing? The doctrine from the bible that condones beating children and holding slaves?

As I say in my article, there is nothing inherently religious about a moral discussion. So I'm to ignore the comment on the bible. What I would propose is a much more fluid system. See, I don't believe in universal unchanging moral absolutes when it comes to concrete particulars. But I also don't believe in "absolute" moral relativism that acts as though it is never possible to agree that certain actions or behavior are right or wrong.

Instead I am a contextual-absolutist. Meaning, I believe that it is sometimes possible to understand and agree on right and wrong behavior in certain contexts. What is required for that agreement is to agree on the proper normative "lens" by which to evaluate contextual situations.

I believe that that a relational lens is the appropriate lens through which to evaluate ethical responsibility. The lens for questioning right and wrong needs to be, "how will my choice or actions affect those around around me - will it harm them or help them? How will it affect my relationship to myself? Is it healthy or harmful? What is my relational responsibility to other people in this context and how must that influence the decisions that I make?

This then, is the normative lens I believe to be an appropriate foundation for moral consideration: insofar as I believe my choice in a given context will best amplify, nurture and sustain healthy, responsible, joyful relationships – I consider that decision to be morally/ethically justifiable.

Clearly, different people will have disagreements about how to best do such things. That's why we have discussions, debates and conversations. And government ought to hold this moral normative lens and from that basis work to create a healthy moral foundation for society upon which the concrete particulars of specific contexts can be build. This is a perspective of "agreement in essentials, freedom in nonessentials." Or put another way, it is a philosophy of "agreement in foundation, freedom in particulars."

That is what I believe. I believe that government should "legislate" the foundation and lay the groundwork for moral society. It should through its actions and relationship to the people promote an environment which encourages individuals to make relationally responsible moral decisions in the concrete particulars of their lives. And that "legislation" would take the form of - real health care for those who so desperately need it, a serious commitment to quality education for all, a revolutionary commitment to economic and social justice, and end to the policies of international tyranny and imperialism and a commitment to cultivating a society of relational health.

Note that I'm not suggesting we pass laws saying "you can't go to a strip club because that's a moral wrong." That's the kind of thing I don't agree with. But I do believe that government could do a great deal to create a relationally healthy and responsible society which would go great lengths toward encouraging a more morally accountable and just society.


Moral relativism is much maligned by advocates of dogmatic morality. But they fail to realize that even they themselves have embraced it. Systems that proceed based on the notion that morality is fixed to some external set of rules must keep pace with the advances society discovers or they get left in the dust. Thus things that were once considered moral become immoral in time and things that were once immoral become moral after being examined with a new sense of understanding.


Neither moral absolutism nor moral relativism are philosophically defensible systems. Both are polls on opposite extremes, when reality is a "golden mean" in the middle. There are some truths and some falsehoods in moral relativism, and there are some truths and some falsehoods in moral absolutism as well. Like Hegel's concept of thesis and antithesis - we are living in a day and age where we are about to experience a synthesis between the thesis of moral absolutism and the antithesis of moral relativism. Exciting times. :)

[Az]

6. I am wondering about your take on moral relativism

Your description of it seems to suggest that it is a wide open uncritical approach to morality. I don't think this is an accurate view of it.

Moral relativism is based on the accumulation of understanding. The more we understand about our nature and a given situation the more informed our moral descision can be concerning it.

As our society has advanced we discover more and more about ourselves. This accumulation of knowledge enters into society and becomes part of the tapestry upon which we form our moral descisions. Because we accumulate such information our sense of morality builds up along lines that we can be more certain about and remains flexible in areas that are less clear.

Thus we can have issues of morality that seem quite fixed and unchanging. But this is only because the accumulation of social understanding of the issue consistantly returns a reasoned conclusion on the matter time after time.

There are very good reasoned arguments for why killing people is immoral. They find ties to many different cultural ties found in our society. The sense of it is so clear that it certainly seems fixed. Thus it is a readily accepted moral position.

[erichzann]

7. I am not.

..wondering about my take on moral relativism, that is.

Moral relativism does not have one non-negotiable definition. At its best and at its most philosophical, it can definitely be described as you have. And idealologically speaking, there are many many things I very much agree with from that perspective. This reflects many of the important and correct counter balancing critiques that moral relativism has rightfully made against moral absolutism, and this is a good thing.

However, from that beginning, moral relativism has come to include a wide array of thinking and attitudes. Yes, I'm aware that many times "moral relativism" is used by absolutists as a pejorative and disparaging term. But I personally believe that there is some truth to the claim that as our society has rejected moral absolutism it has also failed to live up to the ideals of moral relativism as you describe it. And I think we have to confess that many times the idea of moral relativism is used as an excuse to justify any behavior, even the most unjustifiable.

What I believe is that moral absolutism fails when it tries to make absolute claims on the practical applied plane. And I believe that moral relativism becomes criticism-worthy when it tries to make relative claims on the normative plane. What I believe is that there are some - or at least one - concrete absolute on the normative plane that is not relative to "culture" but an intrinsic component of human being universally. This reality serves as the normative lens by which we make decisions on the contextual applied plane of daily living. The context of cultural evolution comes into play at the applied level. How we best honor normative principles will change and evolve as our understanding and cultural context evolves. But there is never a time where this normative principle changes, because it is intrinsic to what it means to be human.

Again, this goes back to my "agreement in essentials, freedom in nonessentials" belief. A relational lens is a normative absolute, because human being are in their very essence relational creatures. At the same time, how we best work to promote healthy, nurturing responsible relationships will most certainly be relative to our context and culture -- "right" behavior (i.e. behavior in harmony with normative principles of human being) will be relative to changing situations and contexts. Contexts change, the normative lens does not.

This is why I make critical comments about moral relativism. It's not because I don't agree with your analysis. And its not because I'm a moral absolutist - I have more disagreements with absolutism. I am, as I have said, a contextual absolutist - meaning that I believe than normative principles give us a foundation from which to make contextual moral choices. So, I believe that the foundation for moral decision making is not exclusively cultural. Culture is the context, and context does influence our moral decision making. But I believe that there are also some - or at least one - normative moral principles that transcend cultural context because they are intrinsic to human nature.

(edit -- took out my signature graphic becuase it was annoying me, too cluttered)

[Az]

8. I think each of our concerns may coalesce on the failing of Post Modernism

Post Modernism is of course the social structure that arises out of moral relativism. It is the premise that no one position is right and that all must work together to form a consensus.

Its a fine ideal but it has failed in a number of ways. It presumes that the various participants will actively communicate and grow in conjuction with each other. Consensus can only form if the various sides are willing to sit down and talk things through. But our society has long since given up on that and the result is most groups have retreated to their own little niches and demanded that their way take precidence.

Dialog is dead in our society. And this creates a problem for moral relativism. MR can only work evenly across a society when dialog is active and participants are willing.

Another aspect that has failed in our society is that it is hoped that by having an active dialog the various sides will modify their positions and in so doing grow together until there may be a melding of ways. But many have remained recalcitrant and resist such blending. Instead choosing to remain fixed in their place. Thus over time such a Post Modern society becomes stagnant.

A stagnant PM society will give rise to feelings of corruption and loss of moral compass to many if not most factions in a society. As each of the fixed groups see the input of other cultures as corruption they already see society as fallen. Progressive groups who place some faith in PM see the system as corrupted because it no longer can achieve the advances the progressives hope for. The increase in moral sensibility based on increased understanding of positions and human nature have effectively hit a snag and cannot be pulled off the reef they have struck.

[erichzann]

9. Well said - particularly the statement about the death of dialog.

I hope there can be change in the future.

I don't have enough posts to PM, but I want to say - you are one of the reasons I started posting in the first place. I'm happy that you took the time to give feedback on my thread.

[GOPFighter]

2. I sense that the moral awakening you seek...

..is a return to your morals. The moral decline you see is a decline in the values you're comfortable with - which is probably the same values I'm comfortable with.

When my kids were young I sweated blood when I heard programs like Howard Stern. Damn, I didn't want my pure sweet little innocent angels to be exposed to that filth. But they no doubt were exposed to it, and guess what? They grew up to be good, compassionate, law abiding, moral adults.

You say you want Democrats to reject moral relativism. Just what is moral relativism? What should we replace it with? Can you give us some examples of the moral relativism you want us to drop?

It's true, Republicans get a lot of mileage out of being the party of moral values, but quite frankly a lot of their values make me sick. They want to impose their moral code on everyone, and that's not what this country is all about.

The people in this country have got to grow up and not feel threatened by people who's values are different. We've got to have enough confidence in ourselves and our kids to realize that exposure to different values and different cultures does not result in a corruption of morals.

I hope I haven't rambled, but I hope you can go back and examine some of your criticisms of Democrats. Because we don't get up on a soapbox and condemn modern culture, it doesn't mean we're with moral values. It just means we believe people themselves are responsible for determining what is right for them - within the bounds of the law and respecting the rights of their fellow citizens.

[Az]

3. I posted a thread to GD addressing something akin to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3551186

[GOPFighter]

10. The trouble with posting at work during lunch

If I had seen your reply before hitting 'post message' I would have deleted mine since you captured my thoughts very well. I'll bookmark this and read it over the weekend - of course by then this will be buried in the archives.

:headbang:

[erichzann]

5. See m yresponse to AZ above. I think it works for both.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. The key thing in your essay, I believe,

has to do with perceptions. The Repukes have the perception of being "moral", but this very perception can, and is, being used against them--look at DeLay and the trouble he's having even among Republicans in his own district, (one of whom called him a "hog" for his greediness). What you call "distortions" of the neocons can also be accurately called "hypocrisy".

Howard Dean is doing a good job redefining perceptions as well-refocusing the pro-and anti-choice battle into really whether a person has a right to control their body without government interference.

Don't know that much about moral relativism-only that the only person I can really control is myself. Who am I to say if something is good/bad for another?

Thanks for a thoughtful essay. Please post more often!