Must We Rely on Dubious Public Figures to Teach Us About Family Values?
There certainly have been other times in history that were at least equally troublesome on the subject of human values as the present. This is admittedly not the "best of times" judging by the wide variety of literature about ethics coming from so many sources in society today.
We can't escape the media-flooding on the subject even if we wanted to do so. As a result, we are inundated almost daily with short and long innocuous discussions about right and wrong. As I see it, the subject of values is much too important to be trusted to the likes of people like the often over-stuffed politicians and theologians who grace our television screen.
It is especially annoying that these vote-hungry politicians or money-raising theologians on either side of the border--characters often holding questionable values themselves--try to tell me what values to stress as I live my life. And it makes matters even worse when you appreciate that they are only using the topic as a smokescreen to cover up their own failings and inadequacies, not to mention the gross deficiencies of the social development in North America.
Study about values certainly belongs in philosophy courses (even more that it's getting, I think), as well as in courses in sociology. I believe also that discussions about values belong in courses at all levels of our educational system--be they in the public or separate institutions. What is vital, of course, is that the students understand what position the instructor "is coming from," and also that all sides of a controversial issue are presented.
We can ask ourselves: How did we get into such a mess that politicians with dubious statesmanlike values themselves think they know something about the subject of values, morality, and ethics? A good question, but one can hardly blame the public generally for being confused when a problem of an ethical nature involving values arises in daily relationships as we approach the 21st century.
Without delving deeply into the history of ethics, let's try to put this topic in reasonable perspective. Professor S.H. Miller, in the Harvard Business Review, speaks to the prevailing confusion on the subject as he refers to "The Tangle of Ethics." "Instead of having an impossible ideal confronting a practical necessity," he states, "we have such a diverse inheritance of ethical ways that no matter which one we choose, the others are, at least to some degree betrayed."
By this Miller means that the complex of moral systems that we have inherited in this ever-increasing multicultural environment is very often contradictory. For better or worse, it includes the Hebraic culture, the Christian system, Medieval penance, Renaissance freedom, the Industrial Revolution's technical application of science to production and distribution, subsequent post-industrial, "Third Wave" society on this continent with its changing values and norms, and a continuing scientific approach employing empirical techniques.
My own reading and experience tell me that this "betrayal" to which Miller refers above, and the confused state with which I characterized the prevailing situation within society, has been steadily carried over into all aspects of life. As Frances Taliaferro has pointed out, "The tragedy of American (U.S.!) civilization is that it has swept away WASP morality and put nothing in its place" (I believe this applies to Canada too.)
If it has happened that the "honorable certainties" of our changing society have turned "quirky and countercultural" as Auchinloss would have us believe, and "conventional morality has not vanished but has gone underground," I think it's high time that we examine these "underground" values and restore them to some recognizable state of within present-day morality.
Certainly changes are occurring from a monistic morality (one fundamentally theistic) to a pluralistic one in the realm of human values. But these changes are not as crucial as some would have us believe. There is still common ground based on standards and principles. North American society is not disintegrating! The longstanding goods and evils have not been altered. They can't be, because they are based on unchangeable facts of human nature related to (1) physiological capacities and needs and (2) psychological capacities and similarities.
Thus, as philosopher John Kekes has explained, there are still many good things left in this pluralistic morality such as freedom, knowledge, happiness, justice, love, order, wisdom, etc. The point is that none is reducible to the other, and each individual should strive to achieve some acceptable combination of these in his or her life.
It is actually the evolving "forms" or "norms" of this pluralistic morality that are causing concern. The values of self-direction, intimacy, and decency, for example, are still present and will remain so. For example, no one disagrees about life being good; the disagreement is about whether abortion, suicide (aided or otherwise), euthanasia, and capital punishment are acceptable norms or justifiable violations of this still commonly acceptable good.
Further, the disagreement is not about whether sexual intimacy is good; the problem arises about whether heterosexual, bi-sexual, and/or homosexual promiscuity are acceptable forms of such behavior and, if so, under what conditions.
That such complex human problems at the individual, social, societal, and cultural levels are going to increase in the years ahead appears to be self evident. Even though the weapons stalemate between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. has been resolved by the break-up of the latter empire, we are still confronted with a multitude of smaller "hot and cold" wars all over the earth. The vital importance of devising helpful non-military determinants for conflict resolution is looming ever larger (e.g., the Israelis and the Palestinians).
To complicate matters further, as Robert Heilbroner maintained in his farsighted predictions made in the 1960s, citizens of the United States have had a blind philosophy of optimism about history's malleability and compatibility in keeping with their ideals. This optimism has been prolonged by such politicians as presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and George “the W”.
The military might has been there, but there is very little recognition of the vast ecological crisis developing (despite the efforts of former U.S. vice-president Al Gore). Further, economic collectivism is becoming increasingly necessary with an accompanying drift away from a more primitive, pure form of economic capitalism.
Add to this the steady increase in the size of the welfare state, the exploding world population, the spiralling cost of the military bureaucracy as we witness the increase to well over 200 countries in the world, not to mention the vast societal transformation occurring because of the impact of science and technology.
Is it any wonder why there is general confusion, and why the subject of personal and professional values, norms, and ethics is now arising daily in so many quarters? It is for these reasons that we should all begin to think much more carefully about just which values are important to us personally. It is possible, of course, that we have multiplied our conflicts beyond necessity by questioning tradition more than is warranted. We really do need an improved historical perspective.
This is where I believe also that the subject of applied ethics can and should be employed at all educational levels. Of course, we may never know precisely if courses in applied ethics will result in people behaving more ethically, but I believe strongly that such experiences represent an experiment well worth trying. It is undoubtedly in times like this that we should be "forcing" people to think carefully and rigorously about all kinds of values (be they family values, social values, economic values, artistic values, or whatever).
The challenge to us all is to learn how to balance universal "goods" (as opposed to "bads" or evils). In the process we must turn to our moral tradition. Here exists a bountiful historical repository of past experiments of both admirable and deplorable efforts at balancing human goods and bads. We need to employ wisdom as we compare to uncover whether past experiences can help to ameliorate our contemporary conflicts.
The only justification for departing from an old form or norm is whether the recommended new approach is more beneficial or less harmful than the old one. Does the change foster improvement in the conditions for personal and social self-direction, intimacy, and decency?
Finally, I return to the theme that politicians (as opposed to statespersons) represent to me highly suspect teachers of family values, or any other similar goods (as opposed to bads). If we are regularly concerned with decency, intimacy, and self-direction within our own families, and if we encourage the introduction of courses in applied ethics, we won't have to rely on politicians, athletes, comedians, and pious theologians to enlighten us about our family values and civic responsibilities. Amen .
This selection was taken from THROUGH THE EYES OF A CONCERNED LIBERAL by Earle F. Zeigler. For more information call up www.earlezeigler.com and click on the appropriate book cover,
Comments