|
|
You Bad, Me Good
(Many of the problems in the world stem from this way of thinking.)
"You Bad, Me Good" is a subheading in Os Guinness book Unspeakable: Facing up to evil in an age of genocide and terror. Guinness writes,
Dualism is the view that breaks the world into two camps: discerning evil in others and denying it in ourselves. Numerous errors stream out in its wake. We deceive ourselves by dividing the world falsely into "us" and "them," "good" and "bad," "black" and "white," "progressive" and "reactionary," by declaring that "we" are obviously good and free and progressive and "they" are obviously bad. At the end of the line, we project onto others the evils we do not admit in ourselves and so lose touch with reality (2005, p. 162).
This does not mean that there are not real problems in the world or that all morals are equal. (Hitler's morals are not equal to Mother Teresa's.) Nor does it mean that we should not try and make the world a better place.
Needless to say, we need not respond to the dangers of dualism by swinging to the opposite extreme and espousing moral equivalence, as if all cats are gray. There are monsters and there are monstrous evils, and both are to be fought. But we are all liable to become hypocrites, whether standing for virtue or standing against vice, when we engage in dualism. In the stinging rebuke of Jesus to the virtuous appearing Pharisees of his day, we become concerned about the splinter in our neighbour's eye but ignore the beam in our own. Or in Nietzsche’s warning, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster" (p. 163-64).
"Justice and freedom may be fought for and won in the name of utopianism, but without realism they never last and are certain to degenerate into either chaos or tyranny" (p.165).
But this creates a problem, who's to say what kind of world we should have?
One person’s reform may well be another person’s reactionary position, and we are left with the question: who says?” ( p. 193)....
Does this mean that we are left to interminable culture-warring between the disciples of some monistic universalism on one side ("Our way is the only way") and the disciples of multicultural relativism on the other side ("Whatever")? The alternative to this dismal prospect would be to encourage a third position: examined pluralism. Each individual and community is free to assert its principles and argue its position, based on freedom of conscience, but always remembering two requirements (p.193).
And here lies the solution to the dilemma.
"First, a right for one is a right for another, so any right we demand for ourselves should be a right we also defend for all others—even those with whom we differ most strongly. This would mean we conduct public debate with a disciplined appreciation of the rights, responsibilities, and respect of others in the debate.
Second, we are not subject to radical relativism so long as each claimant is prepared to assert and argue for the "good" by which he or she judges what is good or bad, just or unjust, progressive or reactionary. Such "goods" can no longer merely be asserted. They are no longer self-evident, except to those who believe them. They must be justified with arguments that are publicly accessible and persuasive to others if they are to compel assent in a pluralistic society" (Guinness, p. 193).
The solution is not to try and stop certain views being discussed or debated. Coercion and the threat of the law is not the answer*.
"A right for one is a right for another"
What does this mean in practical terms?
If you claim the right to criticize other people's beliefs about morality then you must give them the same right to openly criticize your beliefs about morality (e.g. whether they argue for or against homosexuality, abortion or any other issue).
Do you criticize other people's beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God? Let them have the same freedom to be critical of your beliefs.
Do you criticize the sacred writings of others? If so, then let them criticize the book or books you hold sacred without fear of violence.
If you think it is ok for others to adopt your beliefs then you must allow those of your own faith or ideology to freely adopt the beliefs of others.
There are two kinds of people in this world:
There are those who wrongly believe that they are good and others are bad, and therefore justify all kinds of behaviour in the name of their "good cause." These people deny or down play crimes which have been committed in the name of their belief or ideology and so deceive themselves and others. They claim to believe in free speech but use the law to try and silence those they disagree with. They resort to force rather than truth. For them, the end justifies the means.
But fortunately there are others who,
grant the same rights and freedoms of speech to others that they wish to have; they are not blinded by self righteousness. They acknowledge crimes which have been committed in the name of their belief or ideology (making reform possible). These people have enough humility to know they are not perfect; that they, like everyone else are sinners. They believe they should treat sinners kindly because they know that if sinners are to be treated badly then they should be treated badly. They treat those with different beliefs kindly even when they think their behaviour is immoral and their beliefs are dangerous. They believe all views have a right to be heard in public debate "with a disciplined appreciation of the rights, responsibilities and respect of others in the debate." They do not attempt to silence those they disagree with because they value freedom of speech; they believe truth will win the day if all views are heard. For them, the means justifies the end, in other words, do what is right and don't worry about the outcome.
What kind of person are you?
"If reform is to be convincing and truly humanizing, reformers must reform themselves, and only then set about the task of reforming what is wrong" (Guinness, 2005, p. 194, Unspeakable: Facing up to evil in an age of genocide and terror).
* It should be noted that there are certain things which should not be said in public and the state has a responsibility to try and stop those things being said. For example, if someone said, "lets kill the *#*# who are pigs and monkeys" then that is inciting violence, it is specifically trying to encouraging people to take the law into their own hands. But if that same person said, "I think that the beliefs of such and such a group are dangerous but we as individuals should treat them kindly and try and win them over" then that is a completely different issue. If someone argues that the behaviour of a particular group is immoral but they should be treated kindly then that encompasses "a disciplined appreciation of the rights, responsibilities, and respect of others in the debate."
If you think it is wrong to call certain behaviours immoral or certain beliefs dangerous then you have no grounds for condemning the beliefs or behaviour of anyone, including neo-Nazis, paedophiles and those who commit necrophilia.
There are those who believe it is wrong to make moral judgements. They believe moral neutrality is a virtue. But is it?
Was Martin Luther King morally neutral?
Was Jesus morally neutral?
Was any reformer morally neutral? If not why do people think moral neutrality is a good thing? Probably because they want to get along with others; they think that if they just shut up everything will be peaceful and everything will be ok. But is that the way to make the world a better place? What should they do when they hear people say things they know are wrong? Should they just ignore it? Isn't ignoring it a form of complicity?
The world is too dangerous to live in--not because of people who do evil, but because of people who sit and let it happen. --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
If you try to be morally neutral you will become a coward.
In Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was nobody left to speak up. --Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
Believing anyone is morally neutrality is foolish when you stop to think about it (see The Myth of Moral Neutrality).
Was Martin Luther King wrong for saying the things he said about the laws in his country? Was Jesus wrong for saying the things he said about the religious leaders? Martin Luther King and Jesus both engaged in making moral judgements. They condemned people's behaviour while treating them with respect. (Jesus showed respect for the religious leaders by telling the people to do what they told them to. see *)
Sadly, many who claim to be morally neutral feel so strongly about it that they are willing to condemn anyone who makes a moral judgement. (By the way condemnation is moral judgement.) Some are willing to even use the law to try and silence others. This is not wise. Talk with them, discuss the issues. Perhaps you will help them to see the light. (Perhaps they will help you to see the light.) Don't belittle them by calling them names or try to silence them by using the law. (By the way, "bigot" and "intolerant" are names, you wouldn't like it if people called you that. If you do engage in such name calling you will not succeed in winning people over, all you will do is anger them and make them more set in their ways.)
If you engage in trying to use the law to silence those who speak out on moral issues you might just succeed in intimidating many to be silent when they should speak up. Is that what you really want?
The world is too dangerous to live in--not because of people who do evil, but because of people who sit and let it happen. --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Are there liberal forms of utopianism as well as totalitarian ones? More than a century ago the great historian Jacob Burckhardt warned of the danger that evil had become possible "mainly because there are good splendid liberal people who do not quite know the boundaries of right and wrong, and it is there that the duties of resistance and defence begin" (Guinness, Unspeakable, p.164).
©2006 - 2007 All Rights Reserved.
