Some thoughts on values

Lauren at Feministe asked last week the following question:

Define, as seen by the left:

1. Morals.
   
2. Culture of life.
   
3. Values.

A number of excellent responses in Feministe's comments section, and Lynn has a fine post of her own on the subject here.

On Morals, Lynn writes: Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and those in prison, and "as you have done it unto the least of these, you did it for me." Letting justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream. Acting justly and loving mercy and walking humbly with my God.

Progressive Christians really do love Amos and Micah.  I would add the following:

Morality involves a frequent willingness to critically examine one's own public and private behavior in the light of one's spiritual and political commitments.  While internal contradictions are part of the human condition, moral conviction is linked to the belief that one's actions and one's beliefs should be congruent.  It's not enough to do justice in the marketplace if one doesn't do it in the bedroom.   

We on the left are good at identifying morality with external issues like justice -- the right is correct in pointing out that one's private behavior also matters.  That doesn't mean we on the left should adopt the right's censorious attitude towards human sexuality!  Rather, we need to advocate for an explicit ethic of "erotic justice" to make the case that full inclusion for gays and lesbians is a moral and spiritual imperative.

Culture of Life: Lynn writes People's worth doesn't depend on their usefulness, or their independence, or their resemblance to us.   I like that.  I don't expect the Democratic Party to adopt a "consistent-life" ethic in the near future, though one can dream and pray.  But we on the left need to keep making the case that to be "pro-life" must mean more than valuing humans only at the earliest and most advanced stages of existence!  I'll gladly defend the embryos in the lab and the child in the womb -- but the children of Fallujah are surely every bit as valuable.   There is no biblical evidence that abortion is a greater offense to God than war, unless one takes immense liberties with portions of Isaiah and Psalm 139.   I'll quote at length from the consistent life website:

In the current debates over welfare and immigration (including education, day care, medical care, and Head Start), everyone's rights seem to be paramount except those of children. The public rhetoric would lead one to believe that only adults have rights and that children have rights only derivatively from the social, economic, racial, or national rights of the parents to whom they have been fortunate or "unfortunate" to be born. How does a caring society come to portioning out the most basic needs of children (education, medical care, nutrition, early childhood development) based on the economic, social, or racial indicators of their parents? The other nations of the developed world long ago took children out of the public debate and assured them of basic life necessities irrespective of the status of their parents. France is a stunningly successful example.

If the fascination with the abstract rights of individuals were consistently applied, innocent children would have the first pick of society's resources. Unfortunately, the status of children, whether born or unborn, in these debates only points up the selective inconsistency with which individual rights are insisted upon. Whose rights could be so paramount that the rights of growing children, innocent by all definitions, should be sacrificed to protect them?

Values: Though conservatives love to lampoon its excesses, the values of tolerance and inclusivity are vital to our contemporary lives and our global future.  Tolerance does not mean an acceptance of injustice, cruelty, or exploitation; it does mean a recognition that different individuals and different cultures have radically different -- and perhaps equally valid --approaches to the question of how to order one's private and public life.  We need to make clear that an appreciation for diversity in sexual and cultural matters is crucial for the survival of a civilized society.  We need to state emphatically that honoring minority opinion (in whatever form it takes) is an essential value.

I would add that I regard humility in spiritual, sexual, political, and cultural matters to be a very high value.  Whether in the public square or in our homes, I think nothing is more important than considering the possibility that we may be wrong about everything we hold dear.   Humility is not the absence  of moral conviction -- it is the recognition that too much certainty in the mind and the heart of fallible humans is invariably unwise and dangerous. When I find myself on the verge of launching into a self-righteous tirade, I try and remind myself of Oliver Cromwell's great line:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

Cromwell was directing that to others;  a healthy progressive faith ought always direct that inwardly.

Comments

[Xrlq]

There is no biblical evidence that abortion is a greater offense to God than war, unless one takes immense liberties with portions of Isaiah and Psalm 139.

Huh? One need take no liberties with the Bible to conclude that war is justified under certain circumstances, and a moral imperative in others. No analogous circumstances arise for abortion, at least of the elective variety.

Even if one were to extrapolate that "thou shalt not murder" really means "thou shalt not authorize the state to kill anybody under any circumstances," the body count alone should tell you which is worse.

[mythago]

No analogous circumstances arise for abortion

Interestingly, the people who gave you the original Bible find no absolute prohibition on abortion whatsoever, no belief that life begins at conception. (That came later, with Catholicism, and if I am not mistaken was codified in the 19th century.) Forcing a woman to have a miscarriage is an injury, not murder.

If you're looking to the Bible for God's loathing of abortion, you'll need to stick to the New Testament.

[Chip]

Mythago,

Please take another look at Psalm 139 (the whole thing, but particularly vv. 13-16) and the way that children are always viewed as a blessing from God throughout the Old Testament (as seen throughout those books). If every human being comes into existence only by the direct will of God, and if God is active in creating the body and soul of each human being, then abortion is contrary to God's desires for us.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[NancyP]

Funny, Chip, that psalm was used in a "transgender people of the Church" class last night.

[Xrlq]

Mythago: do you have any specific New Testament passage in mind? One could of course argue that abortion is A-O-K by the Bible; however, I don't think that's Hugo's position.

[Amanda]

She didn't say it was okay. She pointed out that there is nothing in the Old Testament to indicate that a pregnancy is the equivalent of a human being and in fact the lesser penalties for causing miscarriage than for murder in the Old Testament indicate that ancient Jews thought of it not as murder at all.

[NancyP]

FWIW, Orthodox Judaism recommends abortion as a moral duty - yes, duty - when the mother's life or health is in danger. In other words, she has a duty of care to herself, her born children, and the rest of her family.

This statement is straight from an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish gynecologic oncologist I used to know, who regularly encountered the issue when treating pregnant patients with uterine cancer. So, yes, there is diversity of religious opinion on this issue.

[Chip]

And, Nancy, I do believe that every human being only comes into the existence by the direct will of God. That's not to say that everything in our life is good or from God (we're all fallen), but all of us are directly created by and loved to an indescribable degree by God.

[Amanda]

All this brings up what to my mind is the critical issue--the idea that a "child" is a sperm and egg enjoined is basically a specific Christian belief--not endorsed by other religions or by science. To atheists like me, this is ridiculous. Laws barring abortion stemming from religious beliefs stem from a desire to push religion on me, which is distinctly unconstitutional. How do religious conservatives who claim to believe in rights justify this? And I don't mean bullshit arguments where you say that somehow the Founding Fathers endorsed your religion. I mean specifically how is it your religious beliefs that I don't share should be imposed on me.

[Xrlq]

Amanda, you're wrong on two levels. For one thing, most abortion opponents oppose it because they think it's murder, not because the Bible says it is immoral (in fact, the Bible says nothing on the topic), and not all abortion opponents are religious anyway. For another, even if the belief that abortion is murder derives from religion, that does not make laws prohibiting constitutionally objectionable. Today's court is split 6-3 on the question of whether or not abortion is a constitutional right, but none rely on theories remotely related to religious freedom.

[DJW]

Amanda, let me try to defend (devil's advocate, on substance I'm with you) the difference between an anti-abortion position from a religous perspective and other forms of pushing religion on others through law.

If, say, Christians tried to pass a law that required all citizens to pray every day, they'd be trying to force their religion on you. And, they'd be abandoning the pluralist "deal" of live and let live that we all have to make in a society of different religions and values.

Abortion is a little different. (Hugo, I apologize for any errors I make in channelling what I think is your position). For some Christians, it is a straight *fact* that human life begins at conception. This knowledge comes from a religious source, but that doesn't make it any less true (to them). If you believe this fact to be unimpeachably correct, than abortion becomes a horrible moral wrong, and you should try to stop it. Where the knowledge about the status of a fetus came from is immaterial, once you know it is true.

So to them, this is different than forcing you to believe religious belief X or engage in religious ritual Y. It's your soul, do as you wish. Abortion deals with another person, another soul, that should be as much a rights bearer as you or I. If someone believed that their religion compelled them to kill one twin in each double birth (this is not unheard of in some parts of the world), we'd try to stop them from doing so, and we wouldn't give any quarter to the notion that we're trying to enforce our twin-accepting world-view on them.

I do think it's hard to imagine the rights-based argument against abortion in the case of rape, based on Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous violinist.

[Jeff JP]

I do think it's hard to imagine the rights-based argument against abortion in the case of rape, based on Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous violinist.

Wow. I can't believe that someone is still trotting out that ridiculous "violinist" canard.

[sigh]

Jeff JP

[NancyP]

The demographics of opinion about the legal availability of abortion correlate with specific religious membership (or stated agnostic or atheist opinion) and practice within the specific denomination or faith. Note, I didn't say, incidence of abortion within a faith community (pretty uniform among all denominations and atheists), nor did I say opinions about morality or immorality of abortion in all or some cases (a harder question to survey by typical political scientist methods). Therefore, I simply don't buy that contention by anti-legalized-abortion that there is no religious doctrinal component to their opinion. Now, natural law doctrine was elaborated and made popular by Aquinas, and natural law is frequently cited against legalized abortion and against legalized homosexual acts. From a historical perspective, I view natural law as an outgrowth of religious doctrine and not as an independently derived entity.

[Amanda]

It's a straight fact to me that a zygote is not a child. It's a belief that it's a child, and there's no scientific evidence otherwise. A belief, no more no less. Beliefs are fine, and you're free to believe whatever you'd like about a abortion. I would never force one on someone who believes it's a child. I think that the same courtesy should go the other way, and my beliefs also deserve respect.

[Xrlq]

And it's a straight fact to them that it is. There is no "scientific" evidence to prove that your belief is more accurate than theirs, or vice-versa. It's a moral question, not a scientific one.

It doesn't take much in the way of "courtesy" not to force people to submit to any medical procedure, particularly one that you consider amoral. Expecting the same degree of tolerance from those who consider the same act to be murder is ludicrous. Do you tolerate acts that you consider to be murder?

[obeah]

It's a straight fact to me that a zygote is not a child.

And it's a straight fact to me (an atheist, btw) that a zygote is an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens. In other words, a human being.

It seems to me that the question is whether or not all human beings are afforded standing in the human community, or whether a certain age or level of neural development needs to be reached first. I'm in the former camp, and I assure you it is possible to get there without benefit of religion.

[Jeff JP]

And it's a straight fact to me (an atheist, btw) that a zygote is an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens. In other words, a human being.

It seems to me that the question is whether or not all human beings are afforded standing in the human community, or whether a certain age or level of neural development needs to be reached first. I'm in the former camp, and I assure you it is possible to get there without benefit of religion.

Libertarians for Life holds the same point of view.

http://www.l4l.org

Doris Gordon, their founder, is an atheist. For the record, I don't find terms such as "atheist" very helpful, though, because they can be inflammatory. That's not a complaint about your calling yourself an atheist or anyone else's doing it. It's just that the word "atheist" has many shades of meaning. Moreover, I know many people who call themselves atheists and are living more "godly" lives than some of the Christians. That's all.

Peace.

Jeff JP

[djw]

I'm with Xlrq that science provides us precious little insight into the appropriate starting point for human life. Scientific narratives could be constructed to define that point pre-fertilization and post-birth, in addition to everywhere in between.

I've got nothing to add, I'm just contemplating the strangeness of agreeing (entirely) with Xrlq :)

[obeah]

Jeff, with all due respect, I don't see a problem with calling myself what I am. If someone is unclear on which shade of meaning I intend when I use the term "atheist", they're free to ask.

"Christian" has many shades of meaning too, but I wouldn't tell a Christian that it wasn't helpful to call themselves one.

[Hugo]

I've known a few intellectually courageous atheists -- I'm related to a couple, actually. As opposed to agnostic, atheist conveys both a greater degree of certainty and intellectual honesty. A thoughtful atheist (the sort who reads Russell's "Why I am not a Christian") is a worthy adversary for a friendly and affectionate debate.

[djw]

Hugo, I hope your not suggesting that agnosticism is intellectually dishonest (certainly it can be, as can theisms and atheisms of all sorts). What's more honest than saying "I have no freakin' idea who, what, or whether God(s) is/are?"

[Hugo]

Oh, heavens no, DJW. I should be clearer: agnosticism that is rooted in a desire to avoid serious discussion is cowardly; agnosticism that is rooted in a candid uncertainty about God is to be commended.

[Xrlq]

Hugo, can you give an example of agnosticism that is rooted in a desire to avoid serious discussion? How is it different from either atheism or religion, both of which take shortcuts to "knowledge" on matters people really can't know?

[Lauren]

As the originator of the thread, I'm interesting in seeing what everyone has to say about those values that don't concern abortion. We can argue abortion into the ground and ignore the bigger picture, that we obscure our beliefs in the details while ignoring the very real reality that children outside of the womb, and the women that bore them, are killed in our names by a state that endorses a "culture of life."

[Amanda]

I consider it immoral to coerce a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. So no, it's not the moral equivalent to murder, it's the moral equivalent to rape.

Does that count? Or shall we continue to pretend that the pro-choice side is immoral and decadent?