Moral Health

Aristotle famously remarked as follows: Hence also it is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for everyone but for him who knows; so, too, anyone can get angry- that is easy- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.

Transposing these remarks specifically to the virtue of honesty: anyone can tell the truth.  That is easy enough.  Fools can, and often do so without accountability.  Children, too, are notorious for telling infelicitous truths.  Telling the truth in the right way is, alas, a moral excellence.  My thinking about these matters is developed more fully in “Honesty as a Vice“.

~ ~ ~

It might seem that lying to a friend or a loved one profoundly violates the trust that she or he has that we will tell the individual the truth and nothing but the truth.  Alas, this cannot be quite right.  Things have to be vastly more complicated than that.  There is an independent precept—call it the precept of the moral uptake in truth telling—that governs when and how we should tell truths.  This might seem woefully ad hoc.  But it is not.  Rather, it follows from the simple fact that there is an excellence that governs truth telling.  There is the truth, on the one hand, and there is the excellence that comes with telling it, on the other.

Trust between friends and loved ones, for example, is inextricably tied to the application of this independent precept of moral uptake.  It is not at all uncommon for friends and loved ones to speak about observations (strengths or weaknesses) each had made about the other but about which nothing was said.  And to the question “Why didn’t you say something?” there are various quite acceptable responses: “Had I told you then, you would have been devastated?”, “I understood that you needed to make the discovery for yourself”, or “You were too angry to accept any observations about that—even from me”.   And so on.

When the relationship is as it should be and the precept has been properly applied, the other acknowledges the validity of the response, characteristically expressing gratitude for the exercise of restraint on our part.  Friendships and loves could not survive in the absence of the judicious application of this independent precept regarding the moral uptake in truth telling.  Moving beyond friends and loved ones, it is often the case that we do not say things, though we know that our silence might be seen as, at the very least, the absence of disapproval because we correctly grasp that we do more harm by saying something.

It is incontrovertible that truths should be uttered at the right time.  What seems quite doubtful, though, is the thesis that for every truth there will always be a right time to utter it.  What is more, even if that thesis should turn out to be true, what is surely false is that a person ipso facto creates the right time to tell a truth simply in virtue of asking someone a question which can be answered correctly only by uttering the truth in question, where it is not possible to declare the answer out of bounds or offer an evasive response.  What I have called the precept of the moral uptake in truth telling acknowledges this reality.

Consider the following three examples:

Example 1: Suppose that Miriam, a 9-year old child, asks her parents whether she was wanted from the very moment of conception.  As it happens, this was not at all the case.  The pregnancy was hardly intended; and to both the husband and the wife, abortion seemed to be the most reasonable option.  But unrest while traveling abroad delayed their return home for an entire month.  It was too late for an abortion.  Upon giving birth to Miriam, who is ever so much the darling of their lives, the parents wonder how they could have ever thought about having an abortion.  But indeed they had done so.  What should the parents’ answer be to their daughter’s question?  No one will ever know the truth unless either or both of them tell it.

Example 2: Samuli’s wife, MoChandra, is a brilliant scientist and a stunningly beautiful woman.  Samuli and Joachim are the best of friends, and Samuli asks Joachim the following question: Have you ever been aroused by or had a sexual thought about my wife?  The answer, alas, is that Joachim has indeed experienced a few spontaneous erections towards MoChandra.  But he has never in the least entertained those feelings, let alone acted upon them.  He has never in anyway acted inappropriately towards MoChandra.  He would simply never violate anyone’s marriage, let alone the marriage of a beloved friend.  Now, let us suppose that what motivated Samuli to ask this exceedingly awkward question is that another friend had proposition MoChandra.  And it is in the throes of that devastation, while talking to Joachim about the matter, that Samuli asked the question.  How should Joachim answer Samuli?  No, one will ever know the truth unless Joachim tells it.

Example 3: Sharon and Ike were married.  Ike was an abusive husband during their brief one-year marriage.  Indeed, he repeatedly battered and raped Sharon—tying her down for each sexual exploit.  She became pregnant on one of these occasions and Ike forced her to have the baby: Gabriel.  As the child is being born, Ike dies from a cancer that no one knew he had and which, apparently, contributed to some of his horrendous behavior.  Being extremely wealthy, he left Sharon a considerable sum of money.  Indeed, their home had every conceivable amenity.  At any rate, Gabriel grows up to be an intelligent and marvelously virtuous young man.  He brought great joy to Sharon’s life.  Noting that his mother devoted her life to working for the rape crisis center, he asked her when he was just 9 years old a most riveting question, “Momma, were you ever raped?”

I claim quite simply that it would be quite morally appropriate to lie in each of these cases, and so morally inappropriate not to do so, because the moral uptake of the truth in each instance would be horrendous.

In none of these examples is there a truth that anyone needs to know; and the lie masks no wrong that has been done or nor does it cause any harm to anyone.  Yet, there is an enormous harm that is done to an innocent person if the truth is told.  This is the issue of what I have called the moral uptake of truth.  Any discussion of truth that ignores the reality of a truth’s moral uptake is woefully lacking.  Of course, moral uptake of a truth can be absolutely innocuous.  The reality of the matter, though, is that this is often not the case and it behooves all of us to be mindful of that.  Indeed, not to be mindful of it constitutes a kind of crass indifference to the harm that truth can cause; and that, needless to say, is hardly virtuous.

I am struck by the fact that many who object strenuously to any form of lying seem to have no trouble with the idea of killing in the case of self-defense.  Surely, the thought cannot be that life has less value that truth.  The explanation, I think, is tied to the general clarity we have regarding when self-defense is justified.  Two comments are in order.

First, the issue of clarity can arise even in the case of self-defense, as the battered women syndrome issue makes abundantly clear.  Second, while it is true that options can overwhelm us, it is also the case that moral excellence at its best consists not in making the right choice when there is only one alternative to choose from in the first place.  Quite contrary, the wherewithal to choose well and correctly amidst an array of alternatives evinces, at once, depth of judgment and self-command.  Thus, the discretion that is a liability at one end is an opportunity for unqualified moral excellence at the other end.  Precisely what makes friendships and romantic loves at their best such extraordinary excellences is just that fact that each party choose well amid a vast multitude of options.

The remarks of the entry reflect the simple truth that honesty is a vice unless the truth is told when it should be told.  Accordingly, a lie told at the right time in the right way, with the right motives, can be vastly more virtuous than the truth.

Sometimes, the profound is inextricably tied to its simplicity.  So it is in the case of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s views regarding soldiers in the military and their wives.  At the outset, it has to be said that she is extremely proud of those women and men who are willing to risk their lives for the idea of democratic freedom.  What is more, she thinks that the war in Iraq is unquestionably related to defending these ideals.  Obviously, there are those who disagree with her.  Just as obvious, however, is that there are many who do.

Now, the fact that she is so unabashedly proud of those who risk their lives in the Iraq war should more than suffice to set the moral tone for all that she says regarding soldiers.  In general, if we know some quite significant things about a person, then it is possible to make sense of other things that the person says or does, even if one has to do a little filling in from time to time.  If, for example, one knows that Smith frequently travels to France and has a home there, then one can reasonably guess that Smith is going to France when he takes off for Europe again.

Is Dr. Laura extremely proud of military folks?  There is simply no way to listen to her radio program and think otherwise.  Not only that, she has lent her name to various programs that provide support to military families.  She holds what is surely the morally right view here, namely that whether on agrees with the war or not, those who have suffered great loss owing to their sacrifices should receive our support.  Only the morally callous could think otherwise.

This brings me to the controversy.  See the article in The Salt Lake Tribune entitled “”Dr. Laura to G. I. Wives: No Whining”.  What might she have possibly meant by “I don’t want any whining”?  Certainly, this is a “Duh” moment if ever there was one.  What she meant can be succinctly put as follows:

When people are risking their lives for the greater good of society, then they need the emotional support of their loved-ones—and not a bunch of whining from their loved ones.

How is it possible to miss the truth of this point?  I mean who would want to climb the Himalaya Mountains with someone constantly complaining about the cold and the wind?  Better that the person not go at all, since his presence would be bad for the morale of the group.

Applying this reasoning to military wives, Dr. Laura’s view is manifestly plain: Soldiers need strong and affectionate wives—not wives who are exhibiting fear and anxiety at every turn.  Certainly, she did not mean that one should not grieve the loss of a fallen hero—a slain soldier.  She could not possibly have meant that.  Her son, Deryk, is in the military.  Of this, she is most proud.  Still, there is no doubt at all that she would grieve his loss if, God forbid, he were slain in the line of duty.  A modicum of reflection, then, makes it unequivocally clear what Dr. Laura meant by her remarks to the wives of soldiers: “I don’t want any whining”.

On 24 April, Dr. Laura read an email about a plane landing in Big Bear, Montana carrying a slain soldier—Jared Landaker.  The captain asked everyone to remain seated while Landaker’s body was escorted to the gate.  The depth of emotion with which she read that email could not have been greater.  The point here, though, is that Dr. Laura was profoundly appreciative of Mrs. Landaker’s pain and loss.  What is more3, one of the deep, deep points of her reading the email is that all of the passengers on the plane, regardless of ethnicity, showed their respect.  In the words of the airport director:

I have finally seen the silent majority.  It is deep within us all.  Black, Brown, White, Yellow, Red, Purple, we are all children, parents, brothers, sisters, etc . . . we are an American family.

These words were read by Dr. Laura with unparalleled grace and majesty and poignancy.

You see, Dr. Laura holds a very simple view regarding this war, namely that if the terrorists win, then we all lose and it is about time that all of us, regardless of our ethnicity, grasp this truth.  Thus, she thinks that the stakes are exceedingly high.  Surely she is right.

I have been listening to the Dr. Laura Program since September 1996; and I have never heard anyone show more respect and appreciation for the military than Dr. Laura.

On her own blog, Dr. Laura writes the following in response to the controversy:

I am so deeply sad and disappointed that this out of context comment appears to have caused hurt and pain to military spouses—people that I’ve spent so much time helping.  I am frustrated that people who haven’t heard my program would be misled as to my attitude and intent.

With regard to this issue, Dr. Laura has shown herself to be a truly remarkable person.  Her critics here strike me as morally bankrupt.  Here is why I make this latter claim.

On the absurd assumption that what Dr. Laura meant by “No whining” really was incomprehensible, it would have taken no effort whatsoever to get clarity about her remarks, given the extraordinary means of communication that we have at our disposal.

In this regard, I hold a very basic moral principle, namely that when one can effortlessly obtain clarity with respect to a person’s remarks, then it is morally reprehensible not to do so and to go forward with a reprehensible interpretation of what the person said.  This is a principle of basic moral decency.  It does require that we make great sacrifices to help another or that we put ourselves at considerable risk.  The principle is none other than an interpretive implication of what is called the Golden Rule: Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

We all know that context is everything.  There is hardly a sentence that a person can utter that cannot be taken out of context and put forward as an utterly malicious remark.  I have on the stage at the end of a very moving lecture said to my 400-student class “I love you”.  I wasn’t hitting on anyone.  I wasn’t even trying to do.  Why, nothing could have been further from my mind.  But all it takes is a “sick” student to insist that my remarks were intended only for her or him.

When we are so eager to advance the malicious interpretation of a person’s remarks that we do not even make a meager effort to obtain clarity, then we reveal ourselves to be despicable human beings.

Dr. Laura has in fact said things that might be considered inappropriate, even with a charitable interpretation.  But “No whining” is not even close to be an example of this.  Quite the contrary, “No whining” is a call to moral excellence in a most majestic way.  First of all, it is a call to moral excellence on the part of those who have loved-ones in the military, wives especially.  Second, it is a call excellence on the part of every member of society to do her or his part to be supportive of those who are risking their lives for our safety—military folks, in particular.

“No whining” stands as none other than a powerful note issuing forth from Gabriel’s trumpet—a righteous clarion call to all of us to rise up and being strong in the face of evil, each according to his or her station in life and means.  May we have the courage, strength, and fortitude to answer the call.

If the Muslim approach to prayer is one that we in the West must learn to accommodate, which seems fair enough, then it is equally fair that Muslims must be mindful of the reality that in modern times Islam has forged quite an alliance between acts of prayer and acts of martyrdom with the intent of killing others.  Indeed, this form of martyrdom is called Jihad.  Non-Muslims cannot be blamed for thinking of Jihad when they see Muslims perform prayer under certain circumstances.  Why?  Precisely because Jihad is about being willing to kill oneself in order to kill others, where this is seen as an act of faithfulness to the will of Allah.  If there is anyone who should be mindful of this, surely the 6 Muslims removed from a plane in Minneapolis should be.  After all, Jihad is their tradition.  It is rather duplicitous of them not to be mindful of this.  We “infidels” in the West did not make it up.

It is not as if passengers were merely upset over the idea of flying with Muslims aboard.  Quite the contrary, the passengers were upset over behavior that called to mind the reality of an act of Jihad. (more…)

Nancy Cantor, the President and Chancellor of Syracuse University, has made diversity her mantra.  This, in and of itself, is not a shortcoming.  There are many things to be said in favor of diversity.  However, there is all the difference in the world between (i) the truth that there are many things to be said in favor of diversity and (ii) the truth that there is everything to be said in virtue of diversity.  At a university, it is only in conjunction with other goods, such as intellectual excellence, that diversity is a strength; and it is this truth that Chancellor Cantor seems roundly intent upon ignoring.

What happens with diversity depends upon a host of other things.  First among these are intellectual aspirations.  A sea of diverse people doing stupid things is not a novel form of intellectual excellence, or a brilliant display of creativity.  Quite the contrary, it is none other than a sea of diverse people doing stupid things.  No amount of hand-waving and political posturing will make it otherwise.

So to focus upon diversity to the exclusion of intellectual excellence is to do something quite inimical to the well-being of a university.  Indeed, it is to be politically expedient at the expense of intellectual excellence.  And who suffers in this case?  The answer, painfully, is everyone and, in particular, minorities—the very folks to whom Chancellor Cantor has sworn allegiance.

It is this truth, more than any other, that disturbs me so.  If there is anything that Nancy Cantor knows, it is that having rigorous intellectual training makes all the difference in the world in terms of the wherewithal of individuals, be they minorities or whites or whatever, to advance themselves.  So it is profoundly disconcerting that she has so roundly disregarded this truth.  (more…)

Once upon a time, cries of pain carried a enormous presumption of legitimacy.  That is, time was when a person claimed to be a victim of racism or oppression, then there was very, very good reason to believe that indeed a wrongdoing of the appropriate sort had in fact occurred.  What is more, one did not have to look too far to see it.  Alas, a sad thing happened along the way, namely that people saw the power of claiming to be a victim.  Seizing the moment, cries of victimization became a form of art.  In fact, they came to have as much legitimacy as being a victim of wrongdoing itself, making demands for evidence otiose.  Alas, one consequence of this is that thing got utterly silly.

Here is a lovely example.  Some people think that transgendered people are being treated unfairly because they are being forced to identify with either the male sex or the female sex in going into a public restroom.  For the following reason, this is just so much nonsense.  Whether a transgendered male, for instance, identifies with his penis or not, he has one.  Acting in accordance with the fact that one has a penis does not require that one identify with it at all.  I may not identify with many aspects of body, but they are mine nonetheless; and this I recognize.

Now, add to this that going to the bathroom is surely not intended to be a learning experience, whether the learning be about evolution or cooking or dry cleaning: then I am at a complete loss as to just how it turns out that having to choose between bathrooms for women and bathrooms for men is a form painful oppression.

And if this were not enough: In acting with other males, a trangendered male certainly has to be mindful of the fact that other males take him to be male.  I don’t want to be hugged by a transgendered male as if he were a woman.  I won’t allow that to happen.  Is this oppressive?  And if it is not, then it is even more mysterious just how having to choose between bathrooms for women and bathrooms for men is.

Surely I have belabored the obvious.  I have done so because it is at universities of all places that the absurd argument that I have just presented regarding pain of forcing trangendered people to choose between bathrooms for females and bathrooms for males is accorded so much weight. (more…)