Posted by Parker English
on 7/6/2009, 9:18 pm, in reply to "Re: Scandals"
70.181.59.171
Hi, John. Continue to enjoy considering your ideas. Among those we share is that we’re lucky to be Americans. This, even tho we think the nation and its people would benefit from greater self-examination, us included.
We disagree about adultery as necessary for a Christian’s accepting divorce as justified. Gene Robinson, for example, is not only one of the most prominent Episcopal bishops in the United States but also a divorced father who was not adulterous while married. Possibly, this impacts the way we disagree concerning the relationship between punishment and the condemnation of a social behavior.
As you have suggested, our views here concern the absolutism/relativism distinction regarding values. Simon Blackburn illustrates this distinction with a somewhat jesting anecdote about a friend of his:
"He was present at a high-powered ethics institute, which had put on a forum in which representatives of the great religions held a panel. First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire, the path of enlightenment. The panelists all said 'Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great'. Then the Hindu talked of the cycles of suffering and birth and rebirth, the teachings of Krishna and the way to release, and they all said 'Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great'. And so on, until the Catholic priest talked of the message of Jesus Christ, the promise of salvation and the way to life eternal, and they all said 'Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great'. And he thumped the table and shouted: 'No! It's not a question of it if works for me! It's the true word of the living God, and if you don't believe it you're all damned to Hell!' And they all said: 'Wow, terrific, if that works for you that's great'."
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=12
Concerning nothing but private worship regarding transcendental truth, absolutists and relativists can be satisfied with thinking the others are wrong. Concerning social behavior, the case is different, as exemplified by abortion. Those who think it absolutely wrong typically want it socially prohibited via punishments; those who think it not absolutely wrong typically want it socially permitted. In other words, we cannot ignore the condemnation-punishment link when making judgments about many types of social behavior.
As I understand him, that’s why Carter linked condemnation-avoidance with pride-avoidance. Reducing the latter reduces one’s demanding punishment for the social behavior one condemns. One way to support this reduction is to appreciate that no way of understanding social behavior should be regarded as absolutely true.
This relativistic approach to understanding social values can be seen as supported by a relativistic approach to understanding Christian values, itself exemplified by the fact that a divorced father is a Christian leader. On the other hand, alternative types of Christians might view Episcopalians as simply and absolutely wrong in having such a person as leader.
Kwasi Wiredu argues such an absolutist approach to social values has had the unintended consequence of increasing political authoritarianism for his people, the Akan of Ghana. On the one hand, Wiredu observes that polygamy is “a more reasonable connubial institution than monogamy . . . [when] by some unanticipated combination of persisting causes women . . . outnumber men.” On the other hand, Wiredu also observes that many British missionaries during colonialism sought to ban Akan polygamy on the supposedly self-validating ground that any form of polygamy is absolutely prohibited by their Christian view of social well-being. Wiredu thinks the ban results “not by logical implication [regarding Biblical quotations] but by some kind of psychological tendency [involving] . . . a certain faulty conception of the objectivity of truth.” As a result of this faulty conception of truth’s objectivity, however, Akan leaders have gained increased political authoritarianism. They have done so by identifying their own views as objectively/absolutely true, and then using the missionaries’ example as evidence to convince their subjects of this assumption’s merit. I’ll provide references if you’re interested.
In short, viewing one’s own truth as absolute can be dangerous to other people. The truth of this danger is proved with examples, tho not absolutely. Carter’s proof is not only more succinct than mine but also, by virtue of its venue and his presidential candidacy, more visible.
Parker
Message Thread:
« Back to thread