Moral Health

There is a line of argument inspired by John Stuart Mill according to which consenting adults should be free to do as they please, provided that no one is being harmed.  After all, so the argument goes, what a person does in the privacy of her or his own home is no one’s damn business.  While I certainly feel the intuitive pull of this line of thought, I am afraid that things are not quite as simple as Mill’s defenders make it ought to be.  In fact, one problem with Mill’s line of thought is precisely what inspired me to write my forthcoming book The Family and the Political Self, namely that in advancing this people generally ignores the reality that children are an extremely important part of society.  If society consisted only of fully matured adults, then all sorts of things that might be permissible that would be abhorrent in the face of the reality that children do exist.

It was not so long ago that people understood that it was not just parents and teacher who modeled behavior for children, but adults in general.  No doubt the very idea of respect for adults is rooted in the idea that adults generally model behavior for children.  Why, time was when it was even possible for a stranger to correct a child.  I shall always remember an event that took place in a shopping mall in the city of Haifa (Israel).  A bunch of kids started becoming rowdy, and an elderly lady (who was passing by) did not hesitate to approach them to ask them to quite down.  Oh, did I mention that I am talking about several black kids and an elderly white lady?  Can you imagine that happening in America?  But I digress.

Now, if we take seriously the fact that children exist in society, then there are some limits on what even consenting adults should do.  I shall advance what I take to be a decisive example involving marriage but without arguing against gay marriages. (more…)

There are few things more elusive in the world than equality.  It is of course true from a biological standpoint that human beings are the same across phenotypical differences.  That is, the very idea of race is a myth, as Ashley Montague argued masterfully long before it was fashionable to advances such a view.  But what intrigues me is that human beings seem to have an extremely hard time treating one another as moral and social equals.  A brief romp through the history of humankind shows nothing at all if it does not reveal case after case after case of entrenched practices of moral and social inequality both across groups that differ sharply with respect to phenotype and between individuals who by and large share the same phenotype.

If equality across the board comes natural to people, there is little evidence of this.  For when I think of things that come naturally to human beings, I think of things that people are disposed to do in the complete absence of incentives (either external punishment or rewards).  People are disposed to eat or to seek out loves or to obtain sexual relief.  Ne’er a law is needed to get people to do these things.  If these things constitute our model of a natural disposition, then equality is not that at all.  When it comes to acceptance across phenotypical differences, other species are much, much better at this.  Dogs, for instance, are utterly indifferent to one another’s physical appearances.  Thus, dogs with spots are not segregated against by dogs without spots nor do dogs with spots hold themselves to be superior to dogs without spots.  It won’t do to intone that spots have nothing to do with whether a creature is a dog or not; for that is precisely the point.  It is equally true that phenotypical differences among human beings do not mark a difference in levels of humanity.  All human beings are equally that.

Some people talk as if slavery with regard to blacks was an American invention or, if not that, an invention of whites.  But nothing of the sort is true.  Aristotle thought it natural that there should be slaves; and he was not at all thinking about blacks.  And while Muslim Arabs often give the impression that blacks and Arabs are brothers, the truth is that Muslim Arabs trafficked mightily in black slavery long before whites did.  The book Slavery in the Islamic Middle East *([1999] edited by Shaun Marmon) is an excellent collection of essays regarding slavery in the Islamic world.  The vast Sahara Desert stretches across the width of continent of Africa; and the differences between individuals above and below the Sahara Desert was not seen as trivial by those located in one place or the other.  Then there is the truth that blacks tribes often enslaved other blacks.  It may now be politically correct to hold that all blacks constitute a single people; however, a careful look at the very long history of blacks in Africa makes it clear that blacks had no difficulty distinguishing among themselves.  Blackness does not a people make, any more than whiteness does.

It is also true that capitalism cannot be blamed for inequality—even inequality in the form of slavery.  The Islamic Ottoman Empire was not a capitalistic one, though it trafficked mightily in slavery.  So the question that cries out for an answer is simply this: What is it about human beings that makes equality across all groups so profoundly elusive?

Paradoxically, diversity may be the problem.  Diversity, of course, is the idea that all groups are equally good.  So far; so good.  But what everyone ignores is the simple truth that there is a fundamental difference between

(a) All groups are equally good

and

(b ) Each person is accepted by all groups

The truth of (a) simply does not entail the truth of (b).  Not only that, if we push diversity too hard, then the very possibility of (b) becomes increasingly untenable.  That is, the harder the lines of diversity get drawn, then the more difficult it becomes to have acceptance across groups.

The explanation for this is that diversity bespeaks profoundly different values at the level of social interaction.  I may know all too well that you are a human being, but not want to have anything to do with you because I know that you and I do not share the same values.  In fact, I may hate you because of the values you hold.  So our belief in equal rights for human beings may not get us very far when it comes to genuine personal warmth between us.

Animals do not have this problem; for they do not possess values.  We do not talk about animals being culturally German or Canadian or English.  Only as a joke, would we talk about a cat, say, being culturally alienated because its family moved from Egypt to Germany, or the other way around.  But a human being can detest that move.  And those in her or his new country may unwittingly make it very clear that the individual is not one of them—that the person lacks the requisite sensibilities.  Yet ne’er a right is violated.  And this kind of social distance is the basis for enmity between individuals.  And in the face of enmity, equality recedes into the background.  I may not kill you but that you were killed does not bother me as much as it would if one of my own had been killed in the same manner by those people.

If these remarks point in the right direction, then diversity and equality are not the bedfellows that people often make them out to be.  Fanning the flames of diversity, far from extinguishing bigotry, may very well give bigotry its raison d’être.

The author of the Song of Songs wrote that “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave”.  In my youth I remember thinking that this was such a silly claim; for how can a mere sentiment be as bad as death itself.  If one is lucky, age occasions a measure of wisdom.  I now see the truth in the claim.

Jealousy is typically destructive and has no genuine basis.  Or, in any case, things are blown way out of proportion.  So while it may be true that I smiled at Rachelie, my jealous wife will turn that smile into a full-fledged sexual fling—something that never entered my mind.  The hallmark of jealousy is that it does not listen to reason, no matter how loud and clear the voice of reason is.  At least in death, reason has the last word.  Not so with jealousy.

Bitterness is rather like jealousy.  Typically, bitterness takes a wrong that has been done to one and turns the wrong done to one into an explanation for practically all failures that follow.  There is absolutely nothing to be said for being wronged.  Wrongs should never be trivialized.  However, there are very few wrongs from which a person cannot recover significantly if not completely; and a substantial recovery always diffuses the sting of bitterness. (more…)

On the basis of various lectures I have given over the years, I have had students reveal to me (often in person, but sometimes via an email message) that they have been sexually abused, that they have had an abortion, or that they have not yet become sexually active and resent being made to feel ashamed of this, or that they have learnt that the person whom they took to be their father was not, or that they are gay.  I have watched tears of pain and contrition roll uncontrollably down the face of a student—sometimes a male student; sometimes a female student.  A student-professor interaction can occasion a stunning moment of self-discovery on the part of either the student or the professor.

Nothing on the face of this earth could have prepared me for how extraordinarily rich a life being a professor can afford one.  The power of affirmation that lies in the hands of each professor is extraordinary: the more accomplished the professor, the greater the power of affirmation.  It is said that power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely.  So owing to the extraordinary power of affirmation that comes with the role, being a professor is also a marvelous opportunity to exercise the virtue of self-command.

Of course, most people who pursue the doctorate are interested in research; and these individuals often have the hope of making a major contribution in their field.  Thus, they often view teaching as a simply a means to that end.  There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to make a major contribution on one’s field, though the truth is that most of us will do no such thing.  Over lunch, a very well-known philosopher, one of John Rawls’s beloved students in fact, expressed great concern over whether or not John Rawls would be much remembered after his death.  I thought to myself: “If one could have this concern about John Rawls, widely acknowledged to be the leading political philosopher of the 20th Century, then when it comes to being remembered by posterity it surely does not look good for the rest of us!”  There is no reason not try, though.

This brings me back to teaching.  If the life of the academy is the pursuit of knowledge, then Plato was right to recognize that the pursuit of knowledge is necessarily personal (though, to be sure, we draw the lines of the personal quite differently nowadays).  Teaching is necessarily personal precisely because it is about affirmation.  Machines can confirm that an answer is correct; but they can never affirm the individual.  And knowing that one has the correct answer pales in comparison to having the affirmation and admiration of a professor.  This is why on-line education is no equal to the instruction of a professor.

As a professor, one must be able to encourage students without raising false hopes; one must be able to offer criticisms without destroying hope.  One must be able to gain the trust of students, and yet have the wherewithal not to abuse it.  One must welcome the loyalty of students, but be strong enough to encourage their independence.

To be a good professor is to have the ability to negotiate with grace and aplomb between sameness and difference.  On the one hand, everyone in the class is equally a student; on the other, each comes to the class with her or his own history, sense of self, and sensibilities.  One person rightly thinks that she is extremely talented, but has troubling allowing that others might be her equal.  Another student has trouble taking himself seriously.  One student requires a discourse in order to see a point; whereas for another a mere suggestion will do.

A good professor has to get these differences right most of the time.  This means that the professor has to operate with a considerable amount of self-knowledge.  Moreover, she or he must be very good at listening to her or his students, and rather adept at monitoring their non-verbal behavior.

For these reasons, and many more, my students have taught me more about myself than I would ever have imagined.  Insofar as I am clear about who I am, insofar as I am clear about my strengths and weaknesses of character, along with my ability to bring insight to bear upon an ever so unexpected moment, I owe so very much to my students.

Self-command and purity of heart are among the greatest gifts that human beings to their social interaction.  In this regard, the college classroom is nothing at all if it is not a mighty crucible for occasioning these gifts.

According to the latest statistics from the Center for Disease Control regarding AIDS, this disease is spreading at a rate that is nearly 3 times faster among blacks (58 per 100,000) than among Hispanics (20 per 100,000)—a rate that is nearly 6 times faster among blacks than among whites (6 per 100,000).  Now, surely the most interesting question on the face of this earth in regards to these statistics is: Why?  Why this disparity—not just between blacks and whites, but between blacks and Hispanics.  To be sure, the Hispanic rate vis à vis whites is disturbing.  But the black rate vis à vis both whites and Hispanics is utterly frightening.

Now, the explanation cannot possibly have anything to do with education.  10 years ago: Perhaps.  Now: Not plausible.  One would have to live on another planet in order not to know what AIDS is about.  And since the disease is both incurable and fatal, only a fool would be indifferent to it.  The rate at which AIDS is spreading among whites is sufficiently low that indifference to safe sex practices can only be one among several factors.  By contrast, the rate at which the disease is spreading among blacks is sufficiently high that it is difficult not to countenance considerable indifference to safe sex practices as a primary factor, with Hispanics failing somewhere in between.

But then the question becomes: How can it possibly be that blacks are that indifferent to the prevention of AIDS.  And this is where Bill Cosby remarks come into play.

Of course, he is an “old” man (b. 12 July 1937); and no doubt he pines for the days when values animated the black community, because the black church stood as anchor of moral virtue among blacks.  Those were the values that made the Civil Rights Movement possible.  They gave blacks the self-discipline to pull off the unthinkable, namely the boycott Alabama, stunning racist whites, who did not think that blacks had the moral fiber to pull of such a thing.

Now, Cosby chided blacks for abandoning values, with rap music serving as a major instigator in this regard.  He thinks that one consequence of this is that self-discipline is not what it needs to be among blacks people—especially among the poor black.  Regrettably, Cosby was called vehemently attacked by all sort of influential black people exhibiting the DBU-CWWBR syndrome.  Oh what does DBU-CWWBR stand for: “Don’t blame us; cause we want to blame racism”.

Cosby is no dummy.  So I don’t think that it ever occurred him to deny that racism still exists in America.  Rather, he was advocating the simple point that people should not expect others to do for them what they can do for themselves.  Insofar as the charge of racism has come to serve as an all too convenient excuse not to take self-discipline seriously, then the charge, whatever merits it might have, has become a deep part of the problem in terms of well-being in the black community.

So back to AIDS.  Next to AIDS simply disappearing, which is not happening any time soon, nothing would diffuse the rate at which AIDS is spreading among blacks like self-discipline among.  And one thing we know for sure is that the existence of white racism has nothing whatsoever to do with the absence of self-discipline among blacks.  For when racism was far more prevalent and far vicious, blacks exhibited for more self-discipline among themselves.  If tomorrow all white were to disappear, AIDS would still be a problem for blacks.

Now, while I attach no validity to them, I understand that there are conspiracies according to which AIDS was a disease invented to rid the earth of blacks.  But that is irrelevant from a most important standpoint.  AIDS can rid the world of blacks only insofar as blacks do not have the self-discipline to exercise the appropriate precautions.  Cosby understands self-discipline to be a moral power that one can rely upon to pass over troubled waters.  He also understands that self-discipline is not available upon demand.  Rather, it has to be cultivated.

It is unfortunate that those suffering from the DBU-CWWBR syndrome are already too morally ill to see the wisdom of Cosby’s words.

I shall argue that there is a page from the history of the black experience from which women—feminists, in particular—could learn a very important lesson.

When it comes to sex, women and men will never be completely equal.  Of course, in terms of sexual desire women can be as ravenous as men.  And it is, I suppose, a sign of progress that this is acknowledged by all.  The “Mother Mary” image of women seems to have receded into the annals of history never to return again.  Or so it is if what we see in popular culture is any indication of things.

For males growing up who have to contend with raging erections this transformation in women is wonderful.  Oh, to be sure, sex remains special, but not in the way that it once was.  Rather, it is that gateway to physical satisfaction for which they is no equal.  And guess what: Increasingly females have precisely the same view of sex.  And with the availability of both contraception and abortion, women can think about sex rather like men: Bring it on ! ! ! (more…)

I shall argue that there is a page from the history of the black experience from which women—feminists, in particular—could learn a very important lesson.

When it comes to sex, women and men will never be completely equal.  Of course, in terms of sexual desire women can be as ravenous as men.  And it is, I suppose, a sign of progress that this is acknowledged by all.  The “Mother Mary” image of women seems to have receded into the annals of history never to return again.  Or so it is if what we see in popular culture is any indication of things.

For males growing up who have to contend with raging erections this transformation in women is wonderful.  Oh, to be sure, sex remains special, but not in the way that it once was.  Rather, it is that gateway to physical satisfaction for which they is no equal.  And guess what: Increasingly females have precisely the same view of sex.  And with the availability of both contraception and abortion, women can think about sex rather like men: Bring it on ! ! ! (more…)

To err is human; To forgive is divine

There is a perfectly straightforward sense in which this saying is indisputably true.  Human beings make all sorts of mistakes.  We miscalculate; misread, and misunderstand.  We are often mistaken about having the things that we need such as our wallet or our keys or, for that matter, enough money in our pocket.  , Interestingly, these mistakes are in fact compatible with the best of intentions.  No matter how much we love someone, we can misunderstand the person.

A few years ago, a woman made the following remark to me: “You are so playful and silly-acting that it never occurred to me to think that you were capable of serious conversation, let alone someone who could be perceptive”.  I know that there is quite a gap between my happy-go-lucky public persona and my ability to be quite perceptive.  So the distorted view that the woman had of me is not something that I held against her.  Why?  Because the view that she had was reasonable enough given the very small amount of information about me that she possessed, although her assessment was based upon what she had seen over time.

So some mistakes are understandable, and this goes a long ways towards explaining why they are forgivable.

Unfortunately, the saying tat the beginning of this essay has been woefully abused.  It has become the explanation for why moral excellence should not always be expected of people.  We now invoke this saying to excuse infidelity or academic dishonesty or shoplifting.  We use it to excuse all sorts of excesses that are simply a matter of self-control: gambling and drinking come quickly to mind.

What is more, people invoke this saying as an explanation for why they are entitled to forgiveness, where this seems to mean that no penalty at all is in order.  Indeed, not forgiving is turned into an attribution of moral arrogance on the part of the person not forgiving because, after all, everyone makes mistakes.  Hence, not forgiving denies this reality.  One could turn this into a vicious circle by responding that “My mistake is the mistake of not forgiving you for your mistake”.  But I should prefer a different approach.

So I asked the women in my whether or not they would forgive me if I were to “hit on them” while they were visiting my office to discuss academic matters.  To a person, each of them made it absolutely clear they would not.  Naturally, I immediately reminded the women that I, too, am a human being and that human beings make mistakes.  Significantly, none of them were buying this line of reasoning.  Moreover, forgiving me was out of the question.  And I am quite confident that their parents would have precisely the same reaction.

How odd, though.  Whatever happened to the ever so present excuse that “human beings make mistakes”?  I mean surely the idea cannot be that we get to choose which mistakes a human being makes.  And I further understand that not all mistakes are equally severe.  Needless to say, the point is this.  There are standards of moral excellence below which we rightly expect people not to fall.  Academic dishonesty is one of them.  Infidelity and “hitting on a student” (male or female) are two others.  Murder, of course, is yet another.

These wrongs are not like the mistake of misunderstanding someone or being mistaken about how much money one has or whether one has one’s key.  For as I indicated earlier, these mistakes do not require the intention to err.  Further more, factors beyond our control can indeed contribute to our making the mistake.  A bit of noise can result in our missing a word.  Lighting can be the cause of mistaken one set of keys for another.  And so on.

Moral wrongs, by contrast, are not like that at all.  They are wrong across the board.  Sometimes, as with infidelity, a tad of foresight is required.  But I have never met anyone who was truly surprised that she or he ended up in someone’s bedroom.  One has to be naïve beyond measure not to grasp when certain isolated contexts are fraught with sexuality.

Forgiveness may be a virtue.  But on my view, it is also a gift.  The bar of moral excellence ought to be high.  And while one who falls below it may be forgiven, the individual is not entitled to forgiveness on the grounds that committing moral wrongs come with the human condition.  Indeed, this claim is ambiguous between:

(i) Human nature is such that all human people will commit moral wrongs—at least certain ones

and

(ii) Most people commit this or that moral wrong.

No one has ever shown that (i) is true, where this is about egregious wrongdoing that harms another.  As for (ii), it is clearly indefensible.  If tomorrow most people should engage in child sexual abuse, this fact would not thereby constitute either a reason or an excuse for others so to behave.  It would not even make one tempted so to be behave.

In lowering the bar of moral excellence, we are shortchanging ourselves; for we are thereby bringing about a less stable world for ourselves and our children.  The short-term gains will be more than offset by the long-term losses with regard to our psychic and moral health.  And that, alas, is unforgivable.