Moral Reasoning

There is a debate on the internet about homosexuality and morality, with Rod Dreher, Andrew Sullivan and Damon Linker at the center of the storm. Nothing too surprising or unexpected. All I would add is that this is a sort of thing where reasoned arguments, that is, inferences from axioms, are probably overrated. The traditionalist and socially liberal voices in any sort of argument have to, by the nature of the beast, engage in structured debates which take as given axioms (e.g., the Bible, individual liberty) which result in a host of propositions. But this is ultimately just shadow-boxing, as an empirical matter social norms evolve over time through changes in the Zeitgeist which humans have a minimal comprehension of (probably because they are the Zeitgeist). Two generations ago traditionalists and social liberals would probably agree on their attitudes toward homosexuality, but not on the acceptability of women in the work place. Their premises, ostensibily derived from scripture and the Enlightenment, would be the same. But the terminal points which define the set of public policy and social positions which define the two camps would be very different. Also see Jim Manzi.

9 Responses to Moral Reasoning

Gotchaye says:

April 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm

I agree with what you’ve said, DH, but it seems to me that having a vague awareness of the Zeitgeist changes the way we ought to determine our duties. The point of Dreher’s post is that, because the disagreement here is rather fundamental, social conservatives are justified in sticking to their positions on these issues.

This is too simple. We (uncontroversially) have a duty to be careful about our moral reasoning and to consider how likely it is that we are mistaken. It’s worth looking at history and asking whether or not our thinking bears any resemblance to the thinking of people who we now firmly believe were wrong in their thinking. And it’s here that it becomes very, very difficult to continue to justifiably think that it’s okay for the state to discriminate against marginalized groups of people (who aren’t hurting anybody) because they have to be kept down in order to prevent the collapse of civilization as we know it, etc, etc. Is there actually a single historical example of this that we now overwhelmingly approve of? I can certainly think of a rather large number that we overwhelmingly disapprove of. It’s clear to us that everyone who thought like this until now was caught up in the Zeitgeist and made bad choices because of it. And, sure, we only disapprove of those things because of how we’ve been socialized, but that’s all we’ve got to go on (I’m not sure where else we go except to being completely unable to speak about right and wrong).

Of course the people advocating whatever kind of discrimination is popular in their time can always come up with reasons why “it’s different this time”, but so can the people advocating a centrally planned economy. When your track record is that bad, it’s sophistic and irresponsible to say that people should stop criticizing you because, after all, you’re just coming from different axioms.

Sometimes I think that the only real response people should bother making to posts like Dreher’s is to find-and-replace ‘gay’ with ‘interracial/interfaith’ and send it back. This ‘different axioms’ stuff is irritatingly postmodern – yes, you can make it so that no one can argue with your position, but only by guaranteeing that nothing can be criticized.
David Hume says:

April 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Gotchaye, i don’t want to get caught in the weeds re: homosexuality (this is as most people admit a horse that’s already left the barn), but i would suggest that historical change isn’t always monotonic. there are points where the ‘progressive’ viewpoint turned out to be a dead end and there had to be a wind-back. the most obvious case is in the one of race, where a subset of progressive socialists accepted that the white race would have to eventually eliminate the colored races for the sake of ‘progress’ (e.g., h. g. wells). in contrast, other progressives and traditionalists disagreed with this position (traditionalists here includes not only western christians, but also confucians in china). in other words, the traditionalist position does have utility insofar as not all social experiments come back with a positive result which rejects the null.
Gotchaye says:

April 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Certainly, progressives have been wrong. I’m not saying that social conservatives should shut up about everything, but this idea that we should treat individuals differently on the basis of characteristics they have that don’t have a direct effect on others seems to me to be ridiculous nowadays. If anything, it seems to me that your examples only serve to prove that point – whether the urge to discriminate came from progressives or traditionalists, we now agree that it was quite clearly wrong. I don’t actually regard positions like Dreher’s as particularly conservative. Nothing that relies so heavily on ‘end of history’ type arguments can really be that, I think.

But, to go back to the more general topic, I’ll certainly agree with you that rational debate isn’t going to get us anywhere fast. We’ll have gay marriage soon enough when the older cohorts die off and younger voters replace them. And before then we’re not going to change our minds. I’m sure you’re already aware, but there’s a lot of good work in psych demonstrating how we concoct these moral frameworks in order to justify impulsive and non-rational beliefs that we already have.
David Hume says:

April 1, 2009 at 5:16 pm

but there’s a lot of good work in psych demonstrating how we concoct these moral frameworks in order to justify impulsive and non-rational beliefs that we already have.

yes.
Richard says:

April 1, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Can the application of human reason give us guidance on the matter of homosexual activity? If yes, then there is a right answer to which all reasonable people are bound in principle. Among other things, laws and social attitudes, if rational, should reflect this truth of reason. If no, then there is simply the clash of rival preferences and there is, strictly speaking, no “moral” component to this debate at all; at least no more so than two people arguing over the best-tasting ice cream.

In this post, the author says all ethics are merely social convention (or at least that is the clear implication). And this in a blog titles “Reason and Reality”? Good grief.

The irony is that Reason will live on only within the confines of Christian faith and life. Secularism is unreason.
David Hume says:

April 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm

The irony is that Reason will live on only within the confines of Christian faith and life. Secularism is unreason.

🙂 truly vox dei!. in any case, there are more things in heaven and earth, richard, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Richard says:

April 1, 2009 at 5:23 pm

David Hume:

You are too smart to believe this nonsense. And you are young enough to be cured of its fatuousness. Naturalism is not even metaphysically coherent–there’s a reason professional philosophers have been ditching it for pragmatism, etc.

My recommendation: begin with Aquinas.
Ploni Almoni says:

April 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Agreed that interblog debate is pretty irrelevant to what actually happens in the real world. What matters is how people on television, on talk radio, in movies, in popular magazines, etc. talk and behave on this and related issues. Mass culture, which means mass media, is the arena in which the battle is fought. Anybody who wants to influence things has to fight for a chunk of the mass media. Blogs and reasoned arguments are fun for that small minority who like that stuff, but they have zero effect on society.
Caledonian says:

April 2, 2009 at 11:29 am

Professional philosophers couldn’t find the truth with a map and a flashlight.

Comments are closed.

Moral Reasoning

9 Responses to Moral Reasoning

Archives

Meta