Often enough, it seems that, to some degree or another, we must be tolerant of evil (whatever you take this to mean). Not that we intentionally seek evil, but we certainly acknowledge its presence and, perhaps more often than we’d like to think, shrug it off as the unavoidable consequence of being human. For example, we talk about “the lesser of two evils,” of “necessary evils,” and so on, thereby pardoning the imperfect conditions with which we are content to live.
Granted, it is a fact of life that evil does and will continue to exist. Given that this is the case, what is our ethical responsibility in accommodating these evils? Do we merely “hate the sin and love the sinner,” leaving them to their own destruction? Or do we strive to better facilitate the practices we are not in agreement with—but which inevitably exist—in an attempt to ameliorate the negative repercussions of these actions?
Much political debate has been sparked by those who choose the latter route. Given that teenagers will undoubtedly have sex, let’s provide them condoms. Given that homosexuality will undoubtedly continue to exist, let us not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual unions. Given that women will undoubtedly have abortions, let us make it legal and thereby ensure the procedure is a safe one. Given that prostitution undoubtedly will not go away, let us make it legal, imposing strict governmental regulations and guidelines that will prevent the spread of disease and violence that often permeates such vocations. Similar examples exist regarding marijuana usage and so on.
So is this the answer? Is this justified? This is not meant to fuel discussion on any of the issues I have used as an example, but on the overarching theme of this post: how far should we go in accommodating the practices we would otherwise discourage, provided it will alleviate some of their negative consequences? Please note, I am not making an ethical claim about any of these issues. It is well-known that these issues are often viewed within an ethical framework. Please keep discussions on the topic at hand. Thank you.
-----
Added June 6, 2005:
I have been told by at least one person that the overall point of this post was not entirely clear. Therefore, I am adding this appendage in an effort to clarify. To begin with, I wish to reiterate that, while I cite many issues that are commonly viewed as issues of morality, I am not making a case for or against any of them. Granted, this post mentions both “evil” and homosexuality, just as it mentions both “sin” and abortion. I am not, however, trying to parallel these terms. However, it is a well-known fact that many people do link these terms, and that is central to the theme of my post.
And what is the theme again? It is this: supposing that you consider an action to be wrong—whether it is one that I have listed or not—how far should you go in accommodating it, provided this accommodation will reduce the negative impacts of the action?
Naturally, you can utilize any example you wish if it helps you make your point. Just as the point you are making may vary (e.g. you may argue that we should always accommodate something we don’t like if it lessens the harm done, or you may argue that we should never, to any degree, accommodate something we feel morally opposed to), so may the examples. You may use something I have brought up, or you may use something else. Plenty of examples exist. Gun control, euthanasia, gambling, etc. But it needn’t be something of vast political concern. How much leeway should you give your child to do something you feel opposed to, given that he/she may engage in worse activities otherwise? Should you demand a certain code of conduct and consider it his/her choice to suffer the consequences of living otherwise? Or do you compromise—morally—in the hopes of improving the situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I actually was talking to people about this today. You cannot regulate morals-I think you have to let people do whatever they want. (As long as it does not violate any one else doing what ever they want.)If it offends you, extract yourself from the situation not the other way around.
Katherina does make me agree with her argument. We were discussing censorship and while I think there are things that we need to protect ourselves, our children and society in general from, I don't believe in censorship per se because I do believe in freedoms.
The question I would like my future husband (whoever he may be) to answer is given that we teach our children abstinence before marriage, what would you do if your 15 year old daughter came to you and said she needed to be put on birth control? I would like to know how my husband/ the father of my children would respond to this because I would like to know his character. However, it is also an interesting ethical question. I would want my daughter to know where I stand, what I believe and why I try to teach it to her. I would not want my purchase of birth control etc to be seen as acceptance of the act. However, I would definitely want to protect her from something worse (teen pregnancy, disease etc).
I suppose for me (and I really am trying to stay on topic) the question is viewed most poignantly in very personal ways. I have had many people in my life that I love who have done things against my moral beliefs. I can't stop loving the people and I believe to be truly Christian, you try to understand why they do what they do and/or it's none of my business. However, in the dating world, I often get very confused. Looking at someone as the love of my life, I could love through a lot of things. You accept people, we all have our faults etc. But, looking at him as someone with whom to share my life and existence and most importantly to be the father of my children, there are some things I should definitely not put up with. I don't want to have to shelter my children from their own father. It may be something I can live with or not think is a big deal, but what about my future children?
I think that as we give in to unacceptable behaviour/morality, we allow it to grow a little and become somewhat stronger. How far this can go will vary by topic. But as I look back over my long life, I'm just not really convinced that "letting things go" has ever yielded better. Sooner or later, there's a result of some kind. Someone has to make a change that may not be for the better, or we have to accept more and more of what we don't really like. Nothing remains motionless.. There is always an inclination one way or the other. Evil pulls and Good beckons. And although I have found it, let's not say impossible but perhaps more convenient, to look the other way or whatever, I'm not sure it was the right thing to do. There is always an affect. Yes, I would give my daughter birth control if she needed it, but I would make SURE she knows what I think about it. You can be backed into a corner and lose the battle. It happens all the time.
I would like to thank you for bringing up these topics of conversation. I refer back to them often, usually to see if there has been any additional blog responses. The result of this is that I have sorted out a few things in my own mind and more firmly established some of my own beliefs. This is a good thing and I thank you for being the impetus for this.
On this subject, I have come to more and more hate the sinner and be less and less forgiving of the sin, although the sins I have in mind at the moment are more grave than the usual everyday ones. Personal sin is something we all need to work on to improve ourselves and it really is a private thing. We strive to become better people. That, in my opinion, is not really sin, but a matter of self improvement. Usually it is kept very much to ourselves. When those thoughts become actions or involve someone who shouldn't be involved it becomes definitely sin and quite often crime against others. That is when you hate not only the sin but the sinner also.
I have had more than one obscene phone call during my working hours in the last couple of months. They are not forgivable, however mild they might be. And yes, I can shrug them off and go on with my day. But I have definitely become an advocate for capital punishment, which some may think is a very strong reaction, but I have found on one or more occasions that the intent of said caller/sinner is very hostile and even violent. The person on that phone truly wants to do harm to another human being This is when sin becomes crime.
We all sin and "fall short" in our quest for godhood. Those of us who can improve, will. I would hate to go back to Puritan witch hunts or the unrelenting punishments of times past. But it worries me that we might not be careful or watchful enough in our own days to remain strong in our heartfelt convictions
Wow mom, very well thought out and well said. I think I agree completely. I have been trying really hard in the last two weeks to be good and have positive and uplifting thoughts and attitude. And then I get smacked by some shmuck that thinks I'm too pious! Well, I won't see you in heaven! Off with their heads! oh, i'm kidding... just a bit!
Hate the sin, love the sinner… Until recently I couldn’t really see how it was possible to truly separate the sin from the sinner in my own mind. It’s a subject that I have thought about often
I agree with Khrys in that we can always choose to separate ourselves from the negative forces on this planet. It’s probably the easiest way to avoid sin. Surround yourself with people of the same ideals, morals and beliefs and you should be safe. However, since we all have our own set of filters that affect the way we see things, I don’t think it’s possible to find another person on this planet with an exact
set of moral ideas. Christ tells us that we should be forgiving of others. But how do you do that if the sin is revolting to you? He didn’t avoid the sinners. He loved them but He didn’t condone the sins. And he told them so.
I think I’m getting off of the subject. Should you condone one evil to reduce the damage of another? I don’t think so. I don’t think we should condone any evil. But I’ve done it. I think the problem is that we live in a world of logic and physical consequences. We see two choices before us and we try to figure out what to do based on what we know about the world. It’s difficult to apply those physical rules to a spiritual equation that we have such a limited understanding of.
Should you accept a killer’s actions? Can you feel forgiveness for that person? Can you feel empathy for his or her internal struggle? Or should they just burn in hell? I’m not saying you should hang out with them. But does someone like that deserve as much as a prayer said on his or her behalf?
I guess what I’m saying is that you should stand up for your moral beliefs, be an advocate! But refrain from passing judgement on those that choose another path.
On the parental aspect of the conversation…You can’t make your children lead the life you set out for them. Think of the Israelites. They were witnesses to all that stuff going on around them and even they couldn’t follow a simple set of instructions. I think it’s best to give them all of the information you can so they can make a good choice, and love them even if they make a bad one.
Evil and Love are two of the most over-used words in our vocabulary.
Very simply, you should not legislate morality.
I could be way off base here, and I am certainly not criticizing the original point made, but is this not more a question with a central theme that speaks more to the dilemma that "God" faces/d when dealing with humans? What I mean is this: up until a few decades ago, American society was rather absolute in it's thinking, give or take few issues. Certain things were accepted, others were not. Somewhere along the lines som free-thinking liberals happened along and did what they wanted, regardless of the criticism and shunning they received from said conservatives. This radical living evolved over a short period of time into what some now have coined as the "PostModern" age - free-thinking and relativism for all! Now God, supposing you believe in Him (Christian God, that is) would have faced these very issues in His own thinking process when humans first began to think on their own. Knowing full well that they would be able to choose whichever evil or good they wanted, He had to make a decision to be involved in a forceful way, or be involved in a guiding way. Either way, He in a sense "loses," because 1)not all will follow Him (guiding way), or 2)all will follow, but without true "love" (forceful). Can I say that God loses? Isn't there heresy within that comment? Nah... Anyway, I digress: The bottom line is that we have all been given a choice to choose whichever evil or good we want. The only reason these particular "evils" are being brought to light in this question is that they are evils of the zeitgeist. Every society has been faced with undermining social issues, from the Mesopotamians to the Australians - and people will choose no matter who they are or where they live. And yes, some will stand by and play the role of pacifist, and others will assume the cloak of non-conformity - and it still changes nothing. We are living in a relativistic world that absolutely believes in no absolutes! They simply fail to recognize that there are absolutes, whether that failure be purposeful or not. I feel that in order to successfully answer your question(s), there needs to be a "standard" set in place. If we are talking about a society/world where absolutes are followed and lived up to, than there is certainly a need to stand out against the evils that pervade it - and vehemently oppose them as potentially subjugating society. And if we are discussing a relativistic world that revolves around a "If it feels right, do it" philosophy, then, yes again! I suppose I feel that regardless of where society exists in their mindsets, absolutes need to be established and maintained, regardless of who they may or may not offend. Is that not what laws are? I don't like the fact that I am not legally allowed to drive more than 70mph on the highway, and if I do, I can be reprimanded. I would argue for higher speed limits, and those that make the laws would say that for the "good of the people," moderate speeds are best. Is that not the same concept that we should embody when it comes to larger issues such as prostitution, abortion, or homosexuality? For the sustained growth and well-being of a society, people need to stow their pride and not be so selfish as to think that what they want is more important than what their neighbor needs (just an example, not relating to abortion, etc. necessarily). It is a heart issue, and personally, I feel that all of what I have typed, and all of what you have asked is rendered moot because we live in a society where none of these issues are ever going to be resolved, albeit terribly ugly, due to the fact that for the most part, we are inwardly concerned about what's best for me.
Quick note: my apologies for rambling to a very short answer. I tend to jump head first into my thoughts and arrive irresponsibly at my conclusions...especially at work!
Post a Comment