Tag: morality

Posted on

John Hick and Human Progress

By Jim Spiegel

An interesting philosophical question concerns whether human beings are making progress.  Great thinkers have fallen on either side of the issue, as you can see here.

Some who take the negative view on this issue use lack of human moral progress as an objection to theism.  After all, wouldn’t God want human beings to improve?  And, being omnipotent, wouldn’t he find a way to ensure that happened?  Thus, the notion that God exists seems to be undermined by the fact that human beings are not making any moral progress.

I happen to agree with the no-moral-progress thesis.  I believe that human beings in the early 21st century are no better, and no worse, than we were a century ago, just prior to the first of two hideous world wars.  And we are no better or worse than we were during the Renaissance, the Dark Ages, or the Iron Age.   From a moral standpoint, human nature has remained constant—since the Fall, anyway—notwithstanding salient eruptions of evil (e.g., the Mongol conquests, the Nazis, etc.) and bursts of goodness (e.g., the birth of the university, the abolition of Western slavery, etc.).

But granting the no-progress thesis regarding the human race generally, it doesn’t follow that there is no significant human moral progress at all.  Just because the human race doesn’t improve as a whole, this doesn’t mean there is no individual progress.  On the contrary, I think such progress is the norm throughout the world.  And it is here that we see the moral work of God on a global scale.

In his classic book Evil and the God of Love, philosopher of religion John Hick insightfully addressed this issue:

Because this is a pilgrimage with in the life of each individual, rather than a racial evolution, the progressive fulfillment of God’s purpose does not entail any corresponding progressive improvement in the moral state of the world. . . .  It is probable that human life was lived on much the same moral plane two thousand years ago or four thousand years ago as it is today.  But nevertheless during this period uncounted millions of souls have been through the experience of earthly life, and God’s purpose has gradually moved towards its fulfillment within each one of them, rather than within a human aggregate composed of different units in different generations. (Evil and the God of Love [Harper & Row, 1966], p. 292)

Hick was a religious pluralist and a universalist, but one need not affirm either pluralism or universalism to see the sense in his proposal here—that God works redemptively in the individual lives of people—perhaps the overarching majority of people worldwide—and this is consistent with the disappointing fact that the human race shows no signs of moral progress.  In fact, Hick even suggests that the lack of aggregate human improvement makes for a better environment for individual moral growth.  After all, as free agents, we all must choose to pursue the good and live faithfully before God, all the while resisting temptation, dealing with strife and disappointment, recuperating from failure, and persevering through suffering in order to do so.  In short, the struggle against evil is precisely how we grow in this world.  This is Hick’s so-called “soul-making” theodicy—an approach to the problem of evil that I find particularly compelling philosophically.  Moreover, it enjoys some biblical support as well, as is evident in such passages as James 1:2-4, Rom. 5:3-4, and 1 Pet. 1:6-7.  While I don’t regard this theodicy as a final and complete solution to the problem of evil, I do think it is an essential part of a Christian response to the problem.

There is also a moral-psychological (or, one might say, existential) benefit in this way of thinking about the human condition.  For if God is ever at work in people, accomplishing his work of redemption in the lives of individuals, then I need not despair over the “current state of the world” or lose hope when considering what appears to be a general moral decline of our society.  Nor should those of us who work to improve human institutions and social structures despair if we see no net improvements.  For God is still at work in the lives of those we meet.  He always has been and he always will be.

Posted on

Disguised Moral Terms for Relativists

By Jim Spiegel

We live in a peculiar age.  Moral relativism is probably the dominant ethical perspective in American culture, yet at the same time there is a strong tendency among Americans (1) to dogmatically oppose certain forms of behavior and speech and (2) to be highly judgmental, even to the point of absolute condemnation, regarding those who do not fall in line with the prevailing norms of our society.  Paula Deen’s recent fall from glory is highly illustrative of this, as her racist remarks from many years ago have been judged so egregious as to be unforgivable—by the brass at the Food Network, as well as many others who have affirmed their decision to can her.  (Interestingly, there has been a very different response to Alec Baldwin’s recent abusive, anti-gay tirade.  Double standard, perhaps?  By the way, this CBS report, like many others, failed to mention the most severe and disgusting anti-gay slur in Baldwin’s tirade.  Hmm.)

When such stories hit the news, it’s always amusing to hear how people attempt to mask the moral judgments they make.  Nowadays there is a common stock of terms and phrases which serve as stand-ins for moral judgments.  By using them, one has the freedom to vent one’s moral outrage without presenting oneself as a moral judge.  And, thus, one retains plausible deniability when it comes to the charge of being a moral absolutist, while enjoying the freedom of making dogmatic moral pronouncements.  Here are some of my favorites:

  • “That’s inappropriate” – I believe it was in the early 1990s when I first became aware of the popular usage of this phrase, mainly by people in the social sciences.  It’s a favorite relativist phrase these days because what counts as “in/appropriate” can be construed at any of a number of different levels, from a whole culture to a local community to an individual person.  Very handy.
  • “That’s offensive” – This one is interesting because it teeters on the brink of an absolute moral claim while retaining the element of subjectivity (i.e., it offends me or I find it offensive).  President Obama famously resorted to this phrase during a 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, when the latter had the temerity to suggest that Obama had somehow failed regarding the Benghazi attacks.  All Obama had to do was use this phrase, accompanied by a petulant stare, and that was enough to get Romney to back off.  Again, very handy.
  • “I’ve got a problem with that” – This is a favorite of ESPN sports commentator Dan Patrick, who uses the phrase regularly on his radio show.  I recall one instance where he was touting the “live and let live” line.  One of his fellow hosts then asked him whether he’d have that same attitude if his daughter decided to work in the porn industry.  Uh, not so much.  But rather than offend anyone by calling such a choice immoral, Patrick simply said, “I’d have a problem with that.”

The ubiquity of such phrases in a largely relativist culture reflects the fact that moral judgments are irrepressible.  This is a good thing insofar as it shows that we are inherently moral beings who can’t help but make moral judgments.  But it also reveals a certain unwitting duplicity on the part of relativists, which perhaps means most Americans these days.  And there is another reason to be concerned:  such apparently morally neutral terminology might, in the end, work too well.  By veiling moral judgment and dogmatism, it can be used to oppress those who don’t share the majority opinion on certain issues.  Indeed, we are already seeing this at work when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, as traditionalists are increasingly being presented as “offensive” for maintaining that marriage is properly defined as a union of one man and one woman.  The recent Supreme Court decision suggests that this oppression might be coming sooner rather than later.  I’ll address this in my next post.

Posted on

Culturally Liberal and Morally Conservative

By Jim Spiegel

The recent discussion of gay marriage (see my October 2 post and related comments) has reminded me once again how difficult it is to be both culturally liberal and morally conservative.  It seems that today most folks fall into one of these categories but not the other.  That is, people tend to be either culturally liberal or morally conservative.  By culturally liberal I mean someone who readily recognizes and aggressively pursues truth, goodness, and beauty in culture-from politics and higher learning to art forms such as film, literature, and popular music.  By contrast, a cultural conservative would be someone who does not share this inclination but rather is suspicious of culture and human creative expressions.  A parallel distinction can be made regarding a person’s moral sensibilities.  Moral liberals are those who readily embrace shifts in ethical standards, while moral conservatives are suspicious of such change.

Perhaps it is only natural that people tend to be liberal or conservative generally rather than according to context or subject matter.  That is, our tendency to be liberal or conservative is not isolated to particular areas or issues.  It’s no coincidence that the artistic centers of our culture, from Hollywood and Broadway to art institutes and MTV, are also the most morally liberal communities.  And it’s also not coincidental that the most morally conservative communities tend to have little interest in the arts.  Similarly, the press and media, as well as the most prestigious centers of learning tend to be liberal, while people from the most morally conservative faith traditions are those who are least likely to run in these cultural circles.

Now these are very general observations, I know.  But these tendencies should be obvious enough to all of us.  I consider it to be a tragic trend, as it is the timeless moral truths which made American culture possible in the first place and which will sustain it as long as it lasts.  While it is appropriate to question or reject artistic norms and institutional conventions, moral verities such as the sanctity of human life and sexuality cannot be rejected without devastating repercussions, both in individual lives and culture at large.

So the noble challenge, as I see it, is to vigorously explore the arts and other aspects of contemporary culture while maintaining one’s ethical moorings; to remain committed to abiding ethical principles without sacrificing the will to eagerly pursue truth, goodness, and beauty in human creations-in short, to be a cultural liberal and a moral conservative.  It’s a challenge because somehow, at least at this time in our history, it is unnatural.  And it’s a noble challenge because it is for our own good-both as individuals and as a society.