Let me put it in clearer terms: Would you say that the moral system that allows slavery, etc. is not to be condemned to a greater degree than one which does not?
That (that all moral systems are equally worthy, or not worthy, of condemnation) is what Dr. Laura had spoken against in that statement.
------------------------------------------------------------Im trying to detect the subtle difference you apparently see in my argument, as you used a portion of my argument to support your own.
I said morality is fluid (or rather relative) Just as it was at one time morally acceptable to allow slavery, and now it’s not. In the future the same could be said of our current morality based upon subsequent changes. So any morality accepted by the general populace is only superior to a subsequent morality due to relativity. Not any inherant value.
I do not suggest in the least that one human being cannot make a judgement about another. One cannot live a “normal” life if one cannot make judgements of all kinds on a regular basis. In fact, I think people who cannot make a judgement for themselves often have some very complicated medical assesments and medications prescribed to them.
On the other hand. One can judge without being overly judgemental. One can be tollerant while non-condoning. One can show empathy and suggest solutions while avoiding condemnation.
As for her callers, I have more contempt for many of them than I do for the good doctor. They are the ones who contribute so heavily to her infamy. I cannot describe their type of behaviour in any other term but incredibly stupid and masochistic.
Has their authoritative opinion on what makes a good Jew changed beacause they are no longer an exclusively Jewish organization (though still predominantly so) or because they have expanded their cause to include non anti-semitic causes? Would they still be an authority on “Good Jew” evaluation if they remained an exclusively jewish group yet retaining their expanded focus on condeming “general bias”?
I must ask the question then, what is the difference between general tolerance and Jewish tolerance? How are they different? Surely, Jews as a group, are not as homogenous in thought as you ascribe them to be.
stuffinb makes a good point that I think a lot of people who fulminate against “moral relativism” tend to miss: namely, that moral relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive. The point is not that you mustn’t criticize anyone else’s moral system no matter how ethically repulsive you consider it to be: it’s that when you criticize a moral system, you are selecting a moral standpoint from which to do so, and that moral standpoint is itself relative. There’s no high ground of objectivity or neutrality from which we can review different moral premises and compare their merits. Evaluating moral systems doesn’t take place outside of a moral system.
That’s the epistemological premise that often gets misinterpreted to mean something like “all moral systems are equally worthy, or not worthy, of condemnation”. Saying that morality is relative says nothing at all about whether you may or should criticize any particular moral precept (I criticize other people’s morality all the time, particularly such precepts as “it’s okay to suggest killing people you disagree with on a radio broadcast”). But it does require you to admit that you’re using a particular moral viewpoint from which to do your criticizing, and that other people have different viewpoints that may or may not agree with yours.
Thank you for the good wishes cmkeller! When I first utter the words “You’re a dead man!” to my children, I’ll think fondly of you and I’ll say “cmkeller warned me about this.”
I guess we’re switching to a discussion of whether or not the word “deviant” implies an insult. I agree that a statement of fact could be “the majority of humans have heterosexual sex, our sexual organs are designed for sexual reproduction, homosexuality deviates from that norm.”
The difference in my mind is in what a person chooses to emphasize in their daily life or in their communications with others.
I could, for example, say “The majority of Americans are Christian, USA society has much of its foundation in Christianity, Jews are not Christians, Jews deviate (in a religious sense) from the norm.” This would be a perfectly accurate statement. But if I said that on the radio in a society in which anti-semitism is prevalent, one would wonder at my motives in broadcasting such information.
P.S. I am not trying to make this into a personal attack on any people of the jewish faith, I choose the example because anti-semitism is a known historical prejudice and so the example does not seem so outlandish. I apologize in advance if I have offended any of our jewish posters.
Also, cmkeller, I realize that we are putting you in the unfortunate position of having to defend another person’s moral stance and statements. Thank you for taking the time to present your point of view.
[Re: my assertion that most American Jews are affiliated with the Reform movement.]
Well, obviously not, as the Conservative movement is also a large group. I did a bit of research, and discovered that while I was in error by saying that most American Jews are Reform, it is true that the Reform movement is the largest in the U.S.
42% of American Jews are Reform
38% are Conservative
7% are Orthodox
1% are Reconstructionist
Ok, so I’ll quote the Talmud, instead of the Gospels (actually the Mishnah) Aboth 1:6 “When you judge any man weight the scales in his favor” & Aboth 2:5 “Do not judge your fellow until you are in his postition”. There are also some in Proverbs, if you would like.
A psychologist friend of mine mentioned that it is silly to give psycological help with a phone call.
Forgive me for sounding like a smart alec, but to quote Mr. Keller:
Hardly. What allows her to pass judgment is the fact that people call for her opinion (aka her judgment), thus implying that they wish to be judged according to her moral system.
Is she supposed to be judging people or helping them?
!!! Chaim, you’re Jewish and you didn’t notice that most of the things Jesus said had there origin in the…well I’ll be Christian and call it the Old Testament. Including love your enimies and turn the other cheek.
Here’s my take on it: Judaism is a religion. That which infringes on a Jew’s or Jewish institution’s right to practice the Jewish religion as he sees fit runs counter to Jewish tolerance.
General tolerance has come to include behaviors that, historically, have not been approved of by the Jewish religion. Not merely the obvious issue of homosexuality, but, for example, abortion (which, historically, has been forbidden by Judaism except where the mother’s life is in danger) has now become thought of by many as a sexism issue.
Let’s say, at some point in the future, a homosexual-rights group brings a discrimination suit against a religious Jewish organization arguing that its teachings discriminate against the gay congregants or students. Or let’s say an abortion-right group brings a lawsuit against a religious doctor who refuses to perform a not medically necessary abortion.
If the ADL gets involved, whose side would they take? Once upon a time, I would have said, “the Jewish person/organization who wishes to follow the Jewish religion.” Nowadays, I’m not certain.
stuffinb:
What about concurrent moral systems? Would you say the American system, in forbidding slavery, is better than the Sudanese, which doesn’t? Would you, during the 1930s and 1940s, have said that Nazi Germany’s moral system is no worse than America’s or Great Britain’s?
Arnold:
The Dr. Laura argument about homosexuality being deviant did not (in my understanding) refer to the fact that it differs from the majority, but rather, from the fact that it differed from the function it was designed (or, if you prefer the evolutionary model, developed) to serve. Somewhat like a golfer who prefers to use a putter for driving.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Ah, but these statements do not forbid judgment, they merely place conditions on it.
carnivorousplant:
She is (in my understanding) supposed to be helping people by solving their problems. Getting to the root of said problems sometimes involves judging.
betenoir:
The “Old” Testament does say such things as to help one’s enemy when he is in trouble, and not to take revenge or bear grudges. However, while it’s true that many of his statements had roots in classical Judaism, their meanings have become twisted when mistranslated or taken out of context.
And as for “Judge not lest ye be judged,” I recall hearing a Christian priest (sorry, don’t recall which denomination) saying that interpreting that as an injunction not to judge a sinner is itself an out-of-context mistake.
cmkeller: *The Dr. Laura argument about homosexuality being deviant did not (in my understanding) refer to the fact that it differs from the majority, but rather, from the fact that it differed from the function it was designed (or, if you prefer the evolutionary model, developed) to serve. *
Yes, and where Dr. Laura makes a logical error is in thinking that we have any conclusive evidence, outside of religious dogma, that human sexuality was designed or developed solely for reproduction. That is obviously its chief evolutionary purpose, but it doesn’t follow that it therefore can have no other purpose such as homosexual sex.
This has got to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard. You’ve got half a population with an organ that produces sperm. Other half lacks an organ that produces eggs. Put the two together, the species is propogated. Don’t put them together, and you’ve got extinction. Where’s the ambiguity in that?
Just because it can be used for a different function does not make that function a “purpose.” You can eat rocks, if you wanted to, but don’t try telling me your digestive system doesn’t have the purpose of ingesting nutrients that provide energy and/or building blocks to cells, and not non-nutritive material such as rocks (using this as an example, and laying aside, for this moment, the human body’s need for minerals of various sorts). Or, going back to the previous example I used, you can use a putter to drive a golf ball with, but that certainly isn’t the putter’s purpose.
What about concurrent moral systems? Would you say the American system, in forbidding slavery, is better than the Sudanese, which doesn’t? Would you, during the 1930s and 1940s, have said that Nazi Germany’s moral system is no worse than America’s or Great Britain’s?
Of course I would say Americas system is better, but even it’s not perfect. But again it comes from relative association. Or in other words, we can only assume a superior position because we have a basis for comparison. It doesn’t change my argument at all. Ultimately a society chooses it morality and it’s subject to change. You can compare different systems, but their value is subjective.
That is not proof that the sole purpose of human sexuality is reproduction, it is merely proof that human sexuality can lead to reproduction.
Many mammals are physically incapable of mating unless the female is in heat. We primates on the other hand can have sex whenever we like. Why? Well, one obvious answer would be because it serves a social rather than a strictly reproductive purpose.
Comparison to one another? Or comparison to a separate, fixed standard?
If we don’t have a number line with 0 in it, what is our basis for placing 1 to the right of 2 or to the left of it?
Only once we place 0 on that line do we know that 1 should be closer to it than 2.
By the same token, if we are to ever assert one moral system’s superiority or inferiority to another, there must be a fixed standard by which we are doing the judging. Otherwise, how do you know in which direction to judge?
Nonetheless, even if one admits that her statements are scientifically sound, the climate in which she raises them encourages anti-gay discrimination, which is a very real issue in today’s society. To go back to the example I cited above, a Christian who would publish an article listing the differences between Jews and Christians at a time where anti-semitism was established in the society in which he (the christian) lived, would be reinforcing prejudice.
Or to put it another way: there are many other things people do with their bodies that differ from the function for which it was designed. Does Dr. Laura oppose swimming since our bodies were made for climbing trees? One of current issues in USA society is whether or not gays should gain greater social acceptance and inclusion in society. She has a right to oppose the gay lifestyle, but I think that her opposal and the terms in which she chooses to publicize it reinforce anti-guy prejudice which has been known to lead to violence.
Remove the reproductive aspect, and the entire species disappears. Remove the “social” aspect, and it doesn’t. As I said earlier, the fact that it can serve a function doesn’t make that function its purpose. The fact that that function is indispensable makes that function a purpose.
Pure speculation. It’s equally possible that seasonally-reproducing mammals only reproduce in the season that will lead to the newborn’s being born in optimal newborn-raising conditions, whereas non-seasonally reproducing creatures do not have such an issue. Speculation proves and disproves nothing.
While I do see your point, I must also say that the societal attitude toward homosexuality is not nearly as hostile as you imply. Once upon a time it was, but today, while there are clearly anti-gay bigots around, homosexual rights have an extremely strong platform as well.
That’s a pretty interesting oversimplification of the “design of our bodies.” Are you trying to imply that our branch-grabbing hands were not also designed for conveying food to our mouths, etc? Obviously you’re not.
Fair enough. And I think that if folks like those on stopdrlaura.com expressed such opinions of her in terms such as you have, they might achieve some measure of moderation from her. The confrontational, agree-with-us-or-nothing tactics they have used have instead only invited defensiveness, entrenchment, and to some degree, bewilderment.
I am going to disagree to some extent with both stuffinb and cmkeller. One does not require a 0 to know that 2 is more than 1. Judgements can be made on a relative basis without requiring an absolute.
That said, I don’t think that relative=fluid (as stuffinb mentioned earlier). Just because a society’s idea of what behavior is moral changes over time does not mean that morality is relative. Although circumstance are different now, I can still say, IMHO, that slavery in 18th century American was wrong. That is not the same as saying that everyone who practiced slavery was evil or even a bad person.
It is possible for someone who commits a wrong, judged from a given perspective (mine for example), may have acted morally from another perspective (based on what that person knew at that time). As sort of a far fetched example, I would not kill another sentient being for food. If we suddenly found out chickens were sentient, I would stop eating chicken. That would not mean that I had been acting morally incorrectly for all those years of eating chicken. In morality, ignorance sometimes is an excuse (note emphasis on sometimes).
I guess what this all comes down to is that I think there is an absolute for evaluating morality, but I think that anyone who claims to know that absolute is mistaken. (But I’m not absolutely sure that I’m right.)