When in Rome

Right or wrong?

It's a question that most of us ask ourselves from time to time. Most of us. Not all because some aren't concerned about the answer. But those who do ask are usually concerned. And they're involved in an activity which is new to them. They haven't formed an opinion and the boundaries and rules aren't clear. Often the goal is to do what's legal rather than what's right, and in such a situation you have to know the rules. If you're going to exploit the law, you have to know the law.

It's not a new problem, but the answer may be difficult. There's an old joke about a student preparing for a test and obtaining the questions asked on previous exams. Noting that the questions seem the same from year to year he inquires of student senior to him and is informed that though the questions are the same, the answers change. (And that's the case regarding right and wrong – from time to time and from place to place.)

One and one will always be two (in base 2 or above) but it's less clear that human sacrifice is legitimate. The latter issue is one that is based on societal beliefs, preferences, and judgments, and they're subject to change. Which raises a question I've mentioned on many occasions in the past: absolutes. I haven't changed my opinion, although many will consider it old-fashioned and insensitive to the current, understanding, persuasion. It's not multi-cultural. It doesn't recognize that different societies view things differently and to oppose what may be practices that may be the norm elsewhere betrays a lack of tolerance, or worse on my part. But I accept the idea that there are absolutes.

And the different societies which I mention aren't all separated simply by location, but by time as well. Does that change the principle? Was it ever, anywhere, justified to sacrifice babies to the “gods?” It was the practice in some ancient, and not so ancient, societies and cults to do so, but we would reject it immediately, irrespective of the fact that it might have been a “normal” practice somewhere at some time. There are absolutes, and, among those who care about right and wrong, I suspect there are strictures on their behavior which supersede the customs of the society in which they find themselves.

If, however, such absolutes exist, there has to be a source. For me that source is the Bible, although I know that some of the absolutes it contains are shared by societies that have never seen one. (I'll come back to that point presently.) It's a good guidebook, although the sages of Judaism have advised us to obey the laws of the state in which we live. There's an exception, however. If secular law conflicts with Torah (Biblical) law, we are to follow that in the Torah. (“Right” is defined by the Torah.) By doing so we deny the following of the aphorism about Rome and its practices. When they conflict with our laws we don't follow them, although we may comply with local customs otherwise. Indeed, when we're in a Jewish community with different customs we follow theirs rather than our own. It's our practice to try to follow the rules of the community in which we find ourselves.

That leaves one subject to be addressed: the fact that there are some absolutes which exist in societies unaware of each other. Somehow or other we all recognize certain limits to our choices. And some of them are shared, even though other practices may be at great variance. How have we achieved this common position when many of our other customs are so different from other societies?

Suggesting that some of these are obvious and serve to protect us as we protect others is begging the question. It may be true, but it doesn't explain anything. Why are certain things obvious? Why should everyone have, in regard to some aspects of our lives and beliefs, a common view of right and wrong? The only explanation that I can conceive of in this age of electronics is that we're all programmed in the same way – at least in regard to some moral as well as physical characteristics. It's in our DNA.

But sometimes cultural influences override DNA. When human sacrifice existed in some societies, they believed that what they were doing was right. At least those in charge thought that their practices were proper, even if there were some who disapproved. That doesn't mean that they were right any more than it means that we should give free rein to cultures among us that have traditions that deviate from the absolutes. Every society has rules, and the hierarchy of its restrictions includes, or at least should include, the absolutes.

But when there is disagreement about the absolutes, who decides what they are? G-d. The One who created us and assigned our DNA. There is a right and there is a wrong. Even if there are some who are unwilling to acknowledge them.

When in Rome, or anywhere else, do what the Romans do. Unless you know that they are doing wrong. Then do what your conscience – as controlled by your DNA – directs you to do. If the society in which you are chooses not to follow the absolutes, it is wrong. That's not a matter of different societal norms and sensitivity to the practices of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

In the words of the cliché, “do the right thing.”






March 28, 2017

All Men (And Women)

“[A]ll men are created equal ...” That's what it says. That's what the Declaration of Independence says. Very few people really believe it, but that's what it says. Nonetheless, many assume this means that all their ideas are equal – and equally valid – though apart from its expressions of equality, all the other writings of the Founding Fathers are out of date. Consistency is not one of their strong points.

The bases for their disenchantment with the founding documents (apart from those aspects that are politically correct) are that times change and also that traditions vary in different places and among different people.

Chalk it up to moral relativism.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

There was a time in our history and there were places in our own country when slavery was considered acceptable and, among some, virtuous. While a significant degree of prejudice remains, slavery is gone – at least in the United States and in most other countries. By such a definition as the one above, however, slavery was no less “privileged” then than freedom. In fact, it was probably more appropriate.

Similarly appropriate by such standards were child sacrifice among the Aztecs (and other civilizations), the burning of wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands, cannibalism, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, Nazi eugenics and experimentation on prisoners, and a host of similar horrors. I shouldn't have said “horrors” since this suggests a rejection of the traditions of others. It suggests an acceptance of the heresy of “absolutes.” (True as that may be, admitting it is viewed nowadays as jingoism and bias, so don't quote me.) But all these acts were in keeping with the societies in which they existed.

For the last half century, therefore, we have taught our children – and we have convinced ourselves – that there is no such thing as absolutism. Our mantra has been “Live and let live.” Viewing the practices of others in the light of our own morality is judgmental and unethical. Indeed, we have made a point of exposing our children to the practices of others and sometimes espousing them. Ethnocentrism merits condemnation. So we have sacrificed history in favor of equal representation. Or greater representation of the unfamiliar – even if by doing so we create a new mythology. It is the affirmative action of pedagogy. Our own culture and traditions are of less consequence. There is more “truth” to the views of those uninvolved in world history than there is in the relating of what actually happened.

We have been brainwashed into believing that what happened as a result of “colonialism” should be minimized and that the stories of the “oppressed” are more important for us to learn. Thus our children are educated to be embarrassed by our own story (when they are actually exposed to it), and both texts and tests emphasize the virtue of other cultures, while subtly condemning our own. And all of this is taught at a level that will be understandable to everyone. We do not seek the highest truth, but the lowest common denominator. We serve the pablum of “feel-good” exposition rather the pabulum of honest evaluation. And we are left with a generation (and probably more to follow) of our youth and academic communities tainted by the guilt of their forebears.

We have become a nation in which sense is of less consequence than “sensitivity,” and everyone gets a certificate of achievement. Everyone is equal. All ideas are valid. We are all winners. There are no losers.

Except for truth, our society, and our future. They are the big losers.

Next episode: “Condemned” – Those were the days, my friend.

When In Rome

                                                                                     
                                                                                                           

I have to tell you. I've been reading a lot recently. I've read about Lincoln and how he studied law in his log cabin. I saw the movie, too.ⁱ Reading by candle-light. Quaint. I couldn't figure out, though, why he didn't just turn on the lights? Later in his life he needed glasses, and maybe that could have been avoided. He wasn't too smart.

But that's an anachronism. Even though Humphry Davy made the first electric light in 1800 (a carbon arc light),ⁱⁱ it was strictly experimental and actual indoor electric lighting didn't appear until the end of the nineteenth century – long after Lincoln died.

We tend to project backwards what is familiar and important to us in the present, and give little consideration to the past itself. Another pictureⁱⁱⁱ presented some additional in Lincoln's life and it, itself, displayed a number of anachronisms^iv but, of course, many movies do so. It's hard to avoid the back projection. And it's easy to criticize it. At least that's the case when it comes to the errors of other people and those blunders that refer to physical objects.^v But there is no reason not to review their product and correct these errors, so it's a shame that movie personnel don't do that critically enough.

It's harder, though, to avoid the mistakes we, ourselves, make when we attribute our own standards to others. We've come to recognize this when we talk about “multiculturalism” and cultural diversity and relativity, and we've come to accept the idea that there may be different norms in different groups, societies, and at different times. We're taught, nowadays, that there is no single “right” and “wrong” that always applies.^vi For example, while the term “nigger” may be common and be viewed as perfectly acceptable among blacks, if a caucasian uses it there is no other way to interpret it except as racism.

As to other biases, we emphasize youth. Our focus in style, language, and behavior emphasize this. We idolize young singers, sports stars, and models. Other societies, however, may scoff at our choice and praise the wisdom of the elderly. Obviously they are ageist. Co-education is our standard, and those who permit single-sex schools are sexist.^vii But in many parts of the world, the education of women is considered to be wrong. The rules for those societies may differ from ours. While there are dissenters in those settings, however, there are also dissenters in our own country.

In ancient times it was often within a society's practices to perform human sacrifice. The Bible, with which most of us are familiar even if only superficially, includes rules of war which sanction the killing of women, children, and animals. While we modern people may view all of these actions as abhorrent, they were at one time considered to be “right” and natural. From our enlightened position, moreover, we attribute to religions that assign different rights and responsibilities to men and women, not only sexism but intolerance.^viii Adherents of religions who hold other than the current opinions, but maintain that they are following the word of G-d, are often viewed as intolerant fools whose views are unacceptable.

But though we are arrogant, convinced that our way is the only right way, it has become the rule not to criticize the practices of others – unless we disagree with them. And it is important to note that the “them” in the previous sentence may apply to the “practices” or to the “others.” Because of our modern sensibilities we often understand and accept the acts of others elsewhere^ix even if they don't measure up to our own and we're convinced they are silly and outdated. We are sensitive to their feelings and their needs, as long as it is fashionable to be so. And equally pompous and presumptuous, we interpret the past in the light of our own prejudices – even if they don't reflect the views of other times and cultures. Was George Washington a racist? Or Thomas Jefferson? Both owned slaves. Indeed, slavery also receives biblical approbation, and the Holy Book provides rules regarding the way it is to be conducted. Should we condemn these practices or do these situations reflect the norms for their times?^x

My intent is not to defend institutions with which I disagree. But though I may consider some of them “wrong” from my absolutist position, I am prepared to accept the idea that they may have been viewed as perfectly normal for their setting. Views change.^xi We cannot flout local customs when we are elsewhere. When in Rome, etc. And we cannot impose ex post facto rules on those who lived according to the standards and observances of their own societies.^xii (Nor should we.) Those who, in the past, opposed the participation of women in government are often caricatured now as sexists even though many were honestly concerned for the welfare of those women and wished only to protect them. We may now view this as patronizing and sexist, but for most of recorded history it was normal and “enlightened.”

But our tolerance for other views is selective. It does not justify all past and present practices. We can blame the Christian Church for his indoctrination, but Martin Luther was a vitriolic antisemite – and a vicious example of the contagion that has persisted for millennia, down to modern Islam, Europe, and the “liberal” Left. Slavery, which still exists, is also reprehensible. As is the modern war against religion waged by the media and those opposing any form of worship.^xiii And the refusal of some nations^xiv to permit religious practices other than those of its official religion.

The main problem is our preoccupation with our own views and with the modern concept of correctness. We're convinced that our perspectives represent the benchmarks for all times and places, but it is considered correct to tolerate and support those of groups now “in,”^xv while disparaging and dismissing the views of those whom we hate and who are out of vogue. There's no need to analyze the arguments of those groups. Whether the “in” group is wrong and the arguments of the “out” groups make more sense is beside the point. We support those whom we favor – right or wrong. And self-loathing disguised as a desire to better our country is an imposition of higher values here than we demand elsewhere^xvi and as the virtue of freeing a people from their government. Indeed, according to this thinking, we're always wrong and they're right.

And the same is true of the ideas that are in vogue now. They're true! And anything that deviates from our current biases is, by definition, wrong – even if it was correct at the time. We evaluate those in the past by current standards and judge them accordingly. Some day, though, we'll be held to standards inconceivable to us now, and we shall be found wanting.

So what's the solution? It's certainly not to abandon our own morality, but care is in order before we project it on others who may have lived in different times or who now live in different societies. And the answer also is not to give a pass to people we know to be violating basic behavioral norms and who should know that they are doing so because of some notion of political correctness. Politics shouldn't be used to vilify those we oppose and justify acts we know to be wrong but have been committed by those with whom we agree in regard to unrelated issues – to turn “good guys” into “bad” and vice versa.

In short, we should recognize that there are absolutes, and that everyone should observe them; but we should realize that the application of another area's “absolutes” depends on prior education and on the culture in which different people live. That doesn't make "wrong" right, but, rather, more understandable. After all, 1863 isn't 2013, and Lincoln, Nebraska isn't Port Lincoln, Australia.

Next episode:  "I Don't Know" – Knowledge and belief. 

i       Abe Lincoln In Illinois, 1940.

ii         http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/edison/lightbulb.shtml

iii     Lincoln, 2012.

iv      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/goofs?ref_=tttrv_sa_1

v      And the assumptions related to physical objects change regularly. My children assume I had a dinosaur for a pet and my grandchildren cannot imagine how their own folks could have spent part of their childhood without computers, iPods, and tablets. Going back a little – but only a little – I never lived before the time of electricity and telephones and indoor plumbing, while my great grandparents were raised before any of these were a practical part of life. And each generation cannot imagine how it's predecessors might have survived without them. It's easier to assume they always existed.

vi     Full disclosure: I happen to be one of those benighted individuals who believe that absolute standards exist – and I know what they are – but I recognize that I'm not in keeping with modern notions and political correctness, so I'll try, for the purposes of this essay, to limit my own views.

vii    Unless they're only for women. Women’s schools are necessary to protect women from domination by males at whatever level. Men's schools, however, are, by definition, sexist. They are separate but unequal.

viii   There is no recognition of the reality that, in the animal kingdom, it is usual for males and females to have different roles. If it happens among humans, even if members of both sexes approve of the arrangement, it is considered prejudicial.

ix     Americans tend to be intolerant of contrary views and practices by other Americans while they consider the mores of others to be perfectly understandable, and to be accepted without criticism.

x      Even Abraham Lincoln fought slavery only because by doing so he was defending the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states that were at war with the Union, and the proclamation, itself, was not written out of any deeply felt conviction that slavery was immoral. Were it not for the Civil War there is no evidence that President Lincoln would have acted to end slavery.

xi     That idea has more than one form. In the individual dogmas may change – for example, the liberal ideas of youth may (or may not) be converted to conservatism as time passes. Past views may change over the centuries as well. It is interesting to consider how our descendants will judge our own actions a few centuries hence. It's likely they will have different perspectives and biases and they'll be embarrassed by the way we acted. They'll see us as __ist – just as we view our predecessors.

xii    Even “right” and “wrong” may be different in different cultures. And those educated in one society may thus have different views from ones accepted in another. But as long as those views don't cause harm to others, they should be tolerated, no matter how misinformed they may be.

xiii   Indeed, war is not justifiable: whether the religious wars that have happened in the past or those far more lethal ones led by people like Hitler and Stalin whose only interest in religion was to exterminate believers. In this particular instance, the media tend to belittle religion, in large part due to a lack of interest in it, and antipathy towards it. See “Blind Spot” by Paul Marshall, Lela Gilbert, and Roberta Green Ahmanson (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2009.

xiv    Saudi Arabia, for example. Other nations, like Jordan, forbid the sale of land to the Jews. The Palestinians have driven large numbers of Christians from Bethlehem and elsewhere. They have already declared that when they have their own state, Jews ill not be permitted.

xv     And those who share our own prejudices.

xvi    It's interesting that however much our own citizens decry our system and praise other societies, America is the most popular destination of those fleeing their own countries. And those are sometimes the “in” countries whose policies so many support.