Moral Disagreements: What good are they?
We face record high gasoline prices, rising health-care costs, uncertainty about the economy, and decisions about who will be the next president. And if that weren't enough, ongoing moral disagreements in the nation (and the Church) continue to provoke anger and division. I don't see any signs that resolutions to the most hotly debated issues are anywhere in sight. Each side (name the issue - abortion, the limits of coercion in obtaining vital information from prisoners, sexual ethics, the death penalty, etc.), believes that they are in the right.
Is there anything good at all that can be taken from these often rancorous disagreements? It's especially hard to watch various parts of our own beloved Episcopal Church become embroiled in protracted law suits. Where can the Church find a Gospel message to preach about the fact of on-going, long-lasting, moral disagreement?
Recently, while I was recovering from bronchitis, I spent some time reading books by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomist philosopher Alasdair MacIintyre. Even in English Aquinas' Summa Theologiae is a tough slog! But my reading has been profitable in surprising ways. In the section of the Summa on the Natural Law, Thomas defines the Natural Law as the way in which (God-given) reason allows all human beings access to knowledge about God and His creation - even without the benefit of the special revelation contained in the Bible. Some people have argued that what this means is that all we have to do is look to nature to find how God intends things to work. I have never found this a very compelling argument. I don't think Thomas had this in mind at all.
I do think Thomas teaches us that reason itself is reliable in the sense that proper reason is consistent and does not contradict itself. Which is to say that reason seeks the truth and is not satisfied with anything but the truth. The other book I've been reading is a series of essays called Ethics and Politics, by Alasdair MacIntyre (Cambridge, 2006). In an essay called ‘Aquinas and the extent of moral disagreement,’ MacIntyre argues that since Aquinas defines sins as "transgressions against reason", which are most often caused by confusing a particular less important desire for something that is truly the best for us, a remedy for sin is actually deliberation with others about what is right.
MacIntyre suggests that it is especially helpful to consult with those with whom we disagree the most. Obviously, these discussions are fraught with dangers because the emotions engendered by strong moral disagreement can devolve into even greater disagreement and animosity. As a guide for the participants in a discussion about who is in the right, MacIntyre proposes that each side must make a commitment to engage in deliberations according to rules that will promote the use of proper reason in directing the discussion toward finding out the truth of the matter.
These rules of engagement make practical sense:
1. Each person in the discussion needs to be free from the fear of the threat of harm in order to be able to tell others the unvarnished truth.
2. Everyone must make a common commitment to not to endanger each other's life, liberty, and property.
3. In addition, so as to demonstrate the desire to engage in rational deliberations in all aspects of life, everyone must make a commitment not to take innocent lives, inflict harm on the innocent, or show disrespect for the property of others.
4. Everyone in the debate needs to be assured they can expect that the others will tell the truth and keep promises.
5. The communal life of the participants must be secured from internal and external threats, and an authority to deal with these threats needs to be assigned.
It doesn't take much reflection to see that the very conditions under which rational deliberations over moral disagreements are to be conducted are exactly Aquinas' precepts of the Natural Law. These also happen to be the very precepts embodied in the moral code revealed in the Ten Commandments. The good news we can take from this is that no matter how distasteful the current climate is regarding various disagreements (sexuality, abortion, torture, etc.), at least within the Judeo-Christian tradition the debates are carried out presuming that each person in the arguments has the obligation to speak the truth, and be free from coercion or physical harm.
Not all traditions meet this standard of rationality. I was speaking on the phone recently with a family member, and in the course of our conversation he wondered why he has been unable to successfully debate the issue of the stoning of women for adultery with his Muslim friends. He has found that even moderate Muslims (who otherwise have assimilated Western attitudes concerning equality and justice) are afraid to broach this subject. We both agreed that the fear of harm to self and family members was likely the cause of this reluctance to either disavow the stoning of women or even discuss the issue.
It is true that Christians don't always live by the natural law concerning the conditions for rational dialogue. But we all know the standards, and are able to hold each other accountable to them. In the foreseeable future one of our greatest challenges will be to convince the most moderate and rational voices of Islam to recognize that reason demands that moral disagreements be resolved in discussions that allow people to freely seek the truth, without fear of reprisal. By comparison, the divisions caused by the current moral disagreements within the U.S. remain fairly civil and do not pose nearly the same level of threat to the future of the civilized world. We should take heart that, even when we disagree most, our traditional rules governing the method of our debates allow us to gather together, and discern together, God's will for us.
Moral disagreements are not fun, but they do provide an opportunity for each of us to give witness to the truth that God is Love.
Fr. Gorchov is the rector of St. Paul’s Church in Troy, NY.