Moral Health

While there is much debate over whether the existence of human beings is to be explained by God or evolution, I sometimes think to myself that the very existence of human beings and the manner in which they care for their young is proof par excellence that something like evolution just has to be the explanation for how it is that human beings came into existence.  With no other species on the face of the earth is it a matter of such radical happenstance that the offspring are well provided for than it is with human beings.

Barring some sort of major intervention lions and dogs will care for their cubs, as will other mammals.  Again, barring some sort of major intervention, the feathered creatures will typically care for their offspring.  Animals do sometimes abandon their offspring.  But obviously enough this is very rare.  It has to be in order to the species to continue.

So sometimes it seems to me that insofar as there is a rebuttal of the existence of God as sacred texts traditionally conceive of Him, well guess what: we human beings are it.

The argument here is a poignantly simple one: No child asks to be born in this world.  An incontrovertible principle about human beings if ever there was one.  This makes children morally innocent on every conceivable account.  Harming the innocent is abominable.  Yet, this is precisely what happens often enough with human children.  A species whose adult members regularly harm their innocent children had to have come about by accident; for no all knowing and all powerful and all-loving being would have brought into existence such a species.

This argument holds all the more so when one considers that in the typical case human beings knowingly harm their children.

I mean your typical lioness is not thinking to herself “If I do not attend to my cubs properly, there is no telling what will happen to them”.  Not only that, your typical lion is incapable of having the kind of foresight that makes her morally culpable of harming her children in those rare cases that this happens.

We human beings are a different story entirely.  It is not just that we harm the most innocent among us.  But we do so with a profound grasp of the reality of our behavior in this regard.  To be sure, we may deny these things.  But who is fooling whom?  There is seems to be no end to the ability of human beings to deceive themselves.

At any rate, the point is this: How is it even remotely possible that an all-knowing and all-loving and all-powerful God could have put on this earth a species that would wreck such havoc upon its own innocent offspring?

Consider a single man with not a single child in tow.  If he does stupid stuff with his life and my resources, there is a very straightforward sense in which it can be said that it is his foolishness and his foolishness is my business.  I am quite the libertarian when it comes to people doing stupid things with their own lives.

Innocent children, however, are another matter entirely.  I draw the line there.  But should I not also draw the line there for God, too?  Even the story of original sin leaves me unpersuaded.  For the problem that I have raised merely re-asserts itself one step removed.  The issue of creating human beings who could be so readily disposed to harm their innocent children, given the curse of sin, hardly exculpates God.  This is especially so when the sin could have manifested itself in a host of other deleterious ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with harming innocent children. For instance, self-destructive behavior could kick in when parents are in their 50s, long after the development of most children is intact.

For the record, I am not much bothered by things going wrong here and there.  But a cursory look at human history suggests that when it comes to children, the amount of harm that human beings have done to their children far exceeds the amount of harm that the adult members of a species have done to their children.  So we are not talking about occasional mishaps here and there, but what more or less amounts to a pattern among human beings.

My argument is a very specialized version of the argument from evil.  Given the assumption of free will, the evil that takes place in the world does not particularly strike me as a challenge to the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful and all-loving God who created human beings.  Certainly, it is not the same challenge.

However, there is something radically unnerving about a species that has what all but seems to be a penchant not just to harming others, but to harming its very own innocent young.

The world would already be radically different if human being had a hard-wired instinct to care for their innocent young, but were otherwise were as free as they are now.  Surely this was an option for God.  If so, then why did he not exercise it?  Suppose our drive to care for our children was as intense as our sex drive is.  I mention this because we do not normally suppose that having an intense sex drive is incompatible with having free will.

So to repeat: Given the damage that human beings wreck upon the lives of innocent children, it seems to me that we human beings are the biggest challenge to the soundness of the creationist’s view that human beings were created by God.  No other species on the face of the earth has more intelligence, on the one hand, and does more to its innocent children, on the other, than human beings.

I cannot fathom how an all-knowing and all-loving and all-powerful God can be indifferent to the creation of a species where the behavior on the part of the adult members of harming the most innocent of the members of that species is rather rampant.  The greatest problem of evil occurs in hundreds upon thousands, if not millions, of homes every single day, namely innocent children being damaged by their parents.

Creating a species whose adult members routinely wreck havoc upon one another: Bad.  Creating a species whose adult members routinely wreck havoc upon the most innocent of all, namely children: Unforgivable.  This is to put the flesh of quotidien reality upon the problem of evil.

Of course, we can always resort to God’s will.  But Freud himself put it rather masterfully when he noted that if we are prepared to be content with God’s inscrutable degrees, then we might as well spare ourselves the detour.

If had to pick one lesson that evil unequivocally teaches us, it would be the power and significance of staying the course.  There is perhaps nothing more persistent than evil, save that of more evil.  This I write as Iran expresses its determination to stay the course in developing nuclear weapons.  This I write knowing that Hazbollah thinks nothing of having Muslim women surround its military men so that any attacker can be accused of killing innocent women.  It is not just that evil stays the course, it does so most creatively.

In fact, every where one sees persistent instances of evil, one also sees considerable creativity.  Serial killers or rapists, for instance, are not dumb.  Quite the contrary, they are often able to outsmart the police for years on end.  Nor are child molesters.  With a studiousness that would put most of us to shame, these folks close in on their “prey”.

As Ehud Sprinzak observed in his seminal essay “Rational Fanatics,” suicide-terrorism works because the final result is a part of a very large and creative network.  There is no simple-mindlessness going on with suicide-terrorism.  It is not just an expression of anger or outrage.  It is not an uncontrollable outburst.  Far from it.  Suicide-terrorism is as calculating and as persistent as any form of human behavior has ever been.

It is in this regard, namely of creative determination, that I wonder whether Good is a match for evil.

It seems to me that so often those who seek to do Good want a very quick victory.  Or, in any case, they want to see immediate results.  Sometimes, it seems to me that take what I shall the boogie man approach to evil.  That is, we seem to think that all it takes is a good scare and evil is out the door.  Needless to say, nothing of the sort is true.

And as I reflect upon the way in which the world is evolving, it seems to me quite clear that evil has the advantage owing the unerring creative determination on the part of the agents of evil.  They seem never to tire and the occasional defeat seems only to strengthen their resolve to win.

Oh how different the world would be if Hezbollah was easily discouraged.

With Good, on the other hand, it too often seems to be the case that the slightest setback suffices to discourage and to occasions doubt about the worthiness of the cause.

It goes without saying, of course, that it can sometimes be foolish not to change course.  But if all it takes to arrive at that conclusion is a single setback here and there, then one has little chance of succeeding at anything.

What intrigues me, though, is that agents of evil never seem to have the thought, owing to set backs here and there, that their cause is unworthy; whereas this is often the case with the agents of Good.  Again, I am struck by the fact that agents of evil rarely if ever seem to lose their resolve; whereas agents of Good often retreat so quickly from their initial stance that one has to wonder how much resolve was there in first place.

More importantly, if there is one thing more than any other that evil is counting on it is that of wearing down the agents of Good.

I am reminded of the biblical passage in the book of Ecclesiastics which reads as follows: “The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong”.  Most poignantly, it seems to me that the agents of evil grasp the soundness of this passage better than the agents of Good.

Sometimes in life, the most important gift that we can bring to any struggle or battle is our unfailing determination.  In this regard, I am reminded of a wonderful student.  He has been utterly unflappable in his determination to excel.  And over the years, he (DTS) has stayed the course with an intellectual majesty that has truly earned my respect and admiration.  Words cannot do justice to how moved I was by the depth of his ideas as we spoke at Marshall Square Mall a week or so ago.  The excellence exhibited by this beloved student that afternoon came from one thing: his staying the course.

Nothing could be worse than for all of us to become so comfortable with our lives that we lose the will to struggle against evil.  And it is my considered view that this is precisely what Hezbollah and the like are counting upon.

But here is a truth that we must not forget, namely that the steadfast determination on the part of a people to perform small acts of goodness can be like a mighty river whose force very little can withstand.  The lives of the people of Le Chambon bear witness to this truth.  Without anything near the military might of Hitler’s army they stopped him in his tracks and thereby saved the lives of thousands of Jews.  What made the difference is not so much one dramatic act on the part of anyone, but everyone’s unfailing commitment to doing their small part, which gave rise to a tidal wave of moral excellence that even Hitler thought best to leave alone.

Again, DTS successfully climbed the mountain of excellence in my eyes not by doing a single dramatic thing, but by proceeding step-by-step with a certain sure footedness.  The agents of Good can surmount the agents of evil only if they (the agents of Good) proceed in a like manner.

To be sure, dramatic events of success are wonderful and readily savored.  There is no denying that.  But the will to stay the course in the absence such events is a most extraordinary virtue.  And the collective will so to behave is a veritable wall against which evil can rarely, if ever, prevail.

But once more and most sadly, it would seem to be the agents of evil that grasp this truth ever so profoundly rather than the agents of Good.  Oh how I would that it was otherwise.

There is something ever so sublime here.  For the greatest of moral gifts, namely unfailing determination, is one that comes not so much from God but from within us.  That, to be sure, is the point of the story of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel.  The story suggests that when a mere mortal is unfailing in his determination to receive a blessing from God, then even God himself is moved.

The real victory against terrorism lies not in our mighty weapons or battleships or the array of missiles that can rain upon this or that party, but an absolutely unflappable and unshakable resolve.  When agents of evil behold that, they will change their moral posture.  For the moment, agents of evil have no need to precisely because from the standpoint of unshakable resolve they very much have the upper-hand.

Thank You DTS for inspiring this entry

Over the years, I have become more than a little annoyed with the claim that something is an addiction.  Here is why.  How is it there are never any good addictions?  Gambling is said to be an addiction, playing computer games, watching pornography, having sex, and even road rage.  All of these so-called addictions either cause harm to other individuals or harm to oneself.  The thought, I suppose, is that no one would knowingly harm himself or a complete stranger unless he is either a madman or addicted to the behavior in question.

The problem with that line of argument is that indifference to one’s own well-being, which is surely harmful, has to be declared an addiction, which is just sheer lunacy.

But I asked a question at the outset, namely: How is that there are never any good addictions?  Well, when the paradigm examples of addiction were alcohol and drugs, it was rather clear why there were never any good addictions.  That is because, in laymen’s terms, these items are known to bring about a genuine chemical dependency.   This is precisely why extending the idea of addiction to pornography and computer games and road rage is problematic.  A chemical dependency is one thing; wanting something ever so badly is quite another.  (more…)

It does not take a genius to figure out that traveling by airplane has become pretty much a nightmare since the new rules of August 2006.  Why?  Because it takes no effort at all to end up with 3 little 3-ounce containers of something. This is true whether one is a woman or a man.  Shaving cream and toothpaste and deodorant are all very typical for a man; and one is already up to three and we haven’t even gotten to cologne or solution for contact lenses or any form of over-the-counter liquid medication with which a person has typically traveled.  Left out also are the various sprays and gels that women and men use for their hair.  Then there is the fact that women typically like to carry some form of lotion.

Before August 2006, the typical person traveling easily carried at least 4, probably 5, of the 8 items mentioned in the preceding paragraph—items that were seen as mere basics.

Then there were the little gifts of this and that, which we used to carry in our carry-on bags.  They are out—unless, of course, one buys them at the airport.  Gone are the simple days when could pick up a bottle of cologne or perfume at one’s favorite store in town for that special someone that one could take back in one’s carry-on luggage.  Likewise for the half-bottles of wine that were such a nice treat. (more…)

Doing God’s will is serious business.  That, of course, is an understatement.  On the one hand, I am impressed by those who are committed to doing just that.  On the other, I am distraught by some approaches to doing God’s will.  Some have what I shall call the hands-off approach to doing God’s will.  This line of argument goes like this: If God means for something to happen, then it will happen.  Accordingly, there is nothing that one should do.  There are Jews who reason in this way; there are Christians who reason in this way.  I am utterly puzzled in either case.

As I recall the story of Moses’s mother, she built a basket and then put him in the river.  She did not, in name of a God-will-take-care-of-everything attitude merely plop Moses in the river.  One might very well say that she exercised a measure of commonsense, which consists in doing what we ourselves can do.

The story would have been absolutely horrendous had Moses’s mother merely dropped him in the river.  Of course, had God commanded her so to behave, as with the case of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son, that would have been a different story.  But even there, Abraham had to do his part. (more…)

I am a most fervent supporter of free speech.  Indeed, it is because I so fervently support free speech that I am so vehemently opposed to political correctness.  This brings me quickly to Iran’s conference on the Holocaust.  The claim, of course, is that there was no Holocaust and this was all just a fabrication in order to aid Jews: a zionist conspiracy, as they say.

Well, I am quite consist in my thinking here.  I do not oppose this conference, which was attended by David Duke—the former member of the KKK, who praised the Iranian president, Mr. Mamoud Ahamadinejad, for promoting free speech.  For as some readers of this blog may know: speaking against the Holocaust is illegal in most of Western Europe.

Hard questioning can be most enriching and instructive—forcing us to re-examine view and argue anew for views that we cherish.  This is a good thing.  So in one sense challenge to the occurrence of the Holocaust is a good thing, when it done in an atmosphere of genuine debate where theses and counter-theses are honestly acknowledged and debated.

However, in anyone who thinks that this is what is happening at the Iran conference on the Holocaust is either on crack or in fact an antisemite.  A conference on examining the reality of the Holocaust would have to have both sides represented.

The absence of both sides there is indication enough of the true motives behind the conference.  Then there is the invocation of readily available thesis of a zionist conspiracy, which has nothing whatsoever to do with facts.  The zionist conspiracy is about blaming Jews for whatever ails one or using the idea of blaming Jews in order to gain leverage in one way or the other.

After all, what fact counts as evidence of a zionist conspiracy?  How about the mere existence of Jews at this point in time!  No one has produced a single document—nay, a single anything after all these—years in support of a zionist conspiracy.  And a zionist conspiracy to do what?  Rule the world?

Whatever ghost of evidence that might warrant the idea of a zionist conspiracy also warrants all sorts of conspiracies.  For instance, the French surely have a conspiracy that all the world speaks French.  Why else would France make French the language of France.  And it is the conspiracy of women to become impregnated by men in order to obtain money from men.  Proof: a pregnant woman can take a man to court for child support.  What power?

Then there is there is the conspiracy of flight attendants to control passengers.  Why else would they make such a fuss about buckling the seat belt?  I mean come on: Does anyone really believe that if a plane falls out of the sky, what will make the difference between life and death is whether one has one’s seat belt buckled or not?  I sure hope not.

I am beginning to like the flight attendant conspiracy, which certainly is no less plausible than the zionist conspiracy.

At any rate, what intrigues me about Iran’s conference on the Holocaust is silence of the rest of the world.

I can remember when words like “shit” and “damn” and “fuck” (and the like) were seen as fundamentally abrasive and were not to be used in polite company.  A person who slipped and uttered such a word was embarrassed and apologetic.  That was then.  This is now.  We have essentially become pretty unphased by the utterance of such words.  They are used to often and so regularly that they have become pretty much become a part of ordinary parlance.

That excursion down memory lane with respect to the use of profanity was not for naught.  It is meant to bring to our attention the phenomenon of moral numbness.  Here is another example.  I can remember when blacks rarely used the word “nigger”.  It was offensive.  But here we are today where that once offensive word is now regularly used in popular music—music listened to by large numbers of whites.  I mention this because there was a time when using the word “nigger” was bad enough.  But it was even worse to do so in the presence of whites.  And, of course, every white understood the word used in references to blacks could not help but be pejorative.  Two decades or so ago this would have been seen as utterly impossible.  Oh how we can change in spite of ourselves.

The relevance of this to Iran’s conference on the Holocaust is this.  While I would not dream of claiming that it should not have happened, it is manifestly clear to me that our silence is itself deafening.  And that is what I find most frightening.

As I have always said: It would not particularly surprise or pain me if a KKK person called me “nigger”.  But if all my friends who witnessed the moment were indifferent to that, I would be greatly pained.  When evil people do or say evil things, that is to be expected.  It is, alas, the behavior of so-called decent people that is of the utmost importance.

In a world of free speech, there is a moral responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of others.  A person may be entitled to say whatever she or he pleases.  From that entitlement, though, what simply does not follow is that others must sit by quietly.  Quite the contrary, others have an obligation to make those who speak accountable for what they say.

Free speech, then, is not thereby a license to be unaccountable for what one says.  It does not entail duty on the part of others to be silent.  Listeners are perfectly within their rights to hold a person who speaks accountable for her or his words.  And it sheer nonsense to suppose otherwise.  This is precisely why John Stuart Mill wrote so fervently in favor of free speech.  For it is in a world of accountability that he envisioned free speech to be one of humankind’s greatest assets.

On my view, the world is not holding Iran accountable.  And it is this fact that I hold most frightening.  And I find myself wondering whether or not we have set ourselves, however, unwittingly upon a path of habituation.  Just as words like “shit” are not a part of everyday parlance, barely causing an eyebrow to raise, has it become acceptable, as our silence would indicated, for states and heads of state to support conferences whose raison d’être is that disparaging remarks about Jews are made with reckless abandon.  And if we have “good” reasons not protest this conference in Iran, shall we also not protest the next one?  Or what about the one after that?

Or will it be too late because we ourselves will have already become habituated to disparaging words being uttered against Jews—the second time around.  Therein lies my problem with our silence.  And the way in which we talk about people plays a formidable role with respect to the way in which we envisage them.  This is precisely why Hitler employed such horrific language and imagery in referring to Jews.  It was a way of shaping the way in which the denizens of Nazi Germany conceived of Jews.  Again, this is why the single most significant linguistic move on the part of blacks was the employment of the word “black” rather than “Negro” or “colored” as form of self-reference; for this moved deprived the word its horrendous connotations with respect to blacks.

Mamoud Ahamadinejad knows all too well that there was a Holocaust.  Indeed, he is being brilliantly evil in employing the methods of Hitler to desensitize the world with respect to Jews.  Of course, no decent person wants this.  But desensitization does not attend to our wants.  Rather, it exploits our inaction.  If this is right, then it is not at all hyperbole to suggest that Ahamadinejad’s intentions are none other to complete the “work” that Hitler did not complete.  Sounds ludicrous, I know.  While we are laughing, though, may I point out that he has already been more successful in terms of taking a first step than anyone would have imagined possible just a decade or so ago.

Don’t you worry.  We are all decent folks.  Exactly what the folks of Nazi Germany said about themselves.  Then there is the frightening experiments by Stanly Milgram as reported in his marvelous book Obedience to Authority.  Moral decency is not a state of mind; it is an active mode of being.

There ought to be a simple moral principle that goes like this: If bending the rules would actually save lives and no other harm is done, then bend the rules.  There is something very odd about religious folks going on about the sanctity of life, and then being steadfast in one’s opposition to folks, especially young folks, be counseled to use condoms if they should nonetheless end up having sex.  For many religious folks, so counseling people is viewed as tantamount to giving folks a license to have sex outside of the bounds of marriage.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning has done more harm than good.  It is also woefully defective.  On the one hand, there is the issue of sex outside of the bond of marriage.  On the other, there is the issue of the appropriate way to have sex if, per chance, one should do so outside of the bond of marriage.

Now, many religious groups think that (a) Non-marital sex is wrong and (b) Gay sex is wrong.  Yet, they also think that if a person does (a), it does not thereby follow that it is all right for her or him to do (b).  If parents should say to their children, “We do not want you have sex outside of marriage, but if you are going to have sex please do not let it be gay sex”, no one in her or his right mind would take to this utterance to be tantamount to a permission to have sex just so long as it is not gay sex. (more…)