Sunday, March 27, 2011

Black and White

I could probably write a list of the reasons why it's awesome to be me, at the top of which would be my massive, throbbing sense of humility, followed immediately thereafter by my knack for comedic hyperbole. Slightly farther down on the list (but pretty kickass nonetheless) would be my ability to see just about every conflict, argument, or basic decision in life from multiple viewpoints. Nine times out of ten, I can weigh the pros and cons of any given situation in a rational, emotionally detached manner--and while my emotions and personal beliefs often end up having a significant influence on my decisions, I can at least respect the idea that there might be some rational basis for other courses of action.

This respect is at the heart of all civilized discourse. [Editor's note: if you're looking to find rational conversation, AVOID THE INTERNET AT ALL COSTS.] Just because you disagree with a guy doesn't mean that A) his concerns are automatically invalid, B) he has nothing to offer in an intelligent discussion, C) he's Hitler, or D) all of the above. No one is going to be one hundred percent correct all the time, in large part because this is the real world and there are usually multiple solutions to any given problem. Theoretically speaking, a given problem might have one optimal solution, but the probability that someone would be capable of finding that solution is pretty much nil--especially considering that people will often disagree on what constitutes an optimal result.

Long story short: when it comes to complex social matters such as politics, religion, and morality, no one is ever going to be completely right. Everyone has their own idea of what "the good" is, and there comes a time where you have to be honest with yourself and realize that you're not perfect, and unless you're the second coming of Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ, neither is your particular definition of morality.

While the term "subjective morality" is something of a dirty word (especially among Catholics), the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees on what behaviors are inherently sinful--unless it's abortion, in which case a good Catholic will ignore all other matters at hand because that's the one issue we're allowed to consider in the voting booth. I mean, forget health care, social justice, the death penalty, and things like that: it's our moral responsibility to vote for the candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, even if he may or may not also advocate the state-sponsored euthanization of all homosexuals.

Because that's how morality works, right?

Honestly, there are few things in life that frustrate me more than people who see the world in black and white. We live in a world of vibrant color--not to mention of highlights and shadows--and the boundaries between right and wrong are often blurry, and can be seen differently by different people. And hell, there's a pretty big gap between theory and practice, as Catherine the Great was quick to point out.

Is there one right answer, one definitive solution to what exactly is right or wrong in any given situation? That's a good damn question. It's possible, but the one thing I'm sure of is that no one on earth has all the answers, and anyone who tells you otherwise can fuck right off. We are all human; we are all fallible. And yes, that includes you, Benny. (Is that the second time I've used that image? I need to find a new one.)

And yes, I know that many people would say that the Bible is the single, definitive answer to all questions of right and wrong, to which I say "BULLSHIT." The Bible is a book which (divinely inspired or not) was written by men, and any charlatan can twist the words of scripture to suit his own purposes, including the fucking devil. Biblical literalism can be used to justify any number of awful things, including slavery, murder, and genocide.

Of course, the Bible isn't evil--far from it. It's an object. A tool. In the right hands, a Bible can soothe the souls of afflicted sinners and bring them closer to God; in the wrong hands, it can do as much damage as a plague or a tactical nuke.

What's more, this doesn't just apply to Christianity--the Bible is a good example because most people I know have at least a passing familiarity with it, but the same risks apply to any belief system or ideology, religious or secular. The problem isn't the core principles (most of the time); it's extremism. It's the inability to compromise, or to even consider the idea that you might not have all the answers.

Aaaaand this is where we come to the dangers of seeing the world in terms of black and white. While one can make the argument that pure good and pure evil do exist, it's best to think of them along the same lines as mathematical limits: infinitely approachable, but ultimately unattainable. It's a much healthier alternative to considering your cause to be the pinnacle of truth and justice, as we will see in a moment.

Submitted for your approval: former Republican presidential candidate (and 2012 hopeful) Mike Huckabee wishes that every American could be forced at gunpoint to listen to the writings of historical revisionist David Barton--"And I think our country would be better for it," he says. Barton's version of history and the methods he uses to spread his message are highly questionable (to be generous), but that's not the point. It would be equally disturbing if Hillary Clinton suggested that all Americans be forced at gunpoint to listen to a reading of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

The problem here is that you have a man who is so utterly convinced of the moral superiority of his own position that he is willing to use the threat of violence on an entire country in order to make them think the same way he does.

That is, for lack of a better term, sickening. I don't care if he backpedals and says that it was just a joke; shit like that is not fucking okay.

The problem with reducing the complexities of the world to a simple battle of good versus evil is that everyone has to fall on one side or the other. If it's "us versus them," then anyone who isn't actively fighting for our cause is the enemy. In a black and white world, the forces of light and goodness can do no wrong, collateral damage be damned. This is the type of thinking that we see in suicide bombers, and it's incredibly fucking dangerous.

I don't care who you are, what you believe, or whether you agree with me on every political and religious issue. All I need from you is respect, and the understanding that you might not have all the answers. God knows I don't.

You have a brain; use it.

1 comment:

  1. You hit the nail on the head on this one! I would point out that simply acknowledging no one has all the answers is not the same as subjectivism, as it is still asserting there to be an ideal out there somewhere for us to strive for. Subjective morality says more or less that ritualistic rape and human sacrifice followed by cannibalism is due to the cultural mores of a particular society and thus is perfectly acceptable for them to do so. Suggesting that just might be an immoral practice amounts to an act of intolerance.

    Catholicism (contrary to popular belief) never tells anyone what he or she should do in a given situation. Instead the Church gives tools to inform our consciences with. She teaches that morality comes from the circumstances, the intent, and the act itself. If the act is intrinsically evil, then even the intent and circumstances can't alter that. That's the hypothetical at least. But can anyone actually know all the details of every circumstance? Not to mention the *culpability* can be reduced for even intrinsically immoral acts (e.g. being coerced or involuntarily uninformed). So as you say, it's dangerous to assert absolute moral superiority in any discussion unless it's a hypothetical situation where you control all the variables.

    As for new Pope pics, try this one on for size: http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060916190357/uncyclopedia/images/7/70/Unnews_pope_lightning.JPG

    ReplyDelete