If everyone else was just like me, there would be no illegal gun violence.
I’m injecting that statement into the current National Discussion about gun violence because I think it’s an unspoken challenge hindering a solution to events that sicken, frighten, and sadden decent human beings. The first half of the sentence can set up a number of conclusions but this particular conclusion is a fallacy. It’s a fallacy because nobody is perfectly protected from the unintended behavioral consequences of a brain tumor, mental health crisis or delusion.
It seems to me that we need to talk about the fine line between an individual’s sovereignty (legal gun use) and the duties that come with civilization (protecting others from harm).
When I hear President Obama deliver the phrase “we are our brothers’ keeper,” as he is known to do, I imagine that he means to draw attention to the challenge of uniting the better features of individuality with those benefits found in a civil society in order to achieve, pardon the cliché, a more perfect union. This is a lofty goal, but who disagrees that it’s not worth attempting?
Remember healthcare reform? Don’t we remember healthcare reform being argued for in some measure because of a moral deficiency present in American society? Shouldn’t bloodshed by bullets also be seen as a moral deficiency in the U.S.? It must if this National Talk is going to be meaningful. The presidency is our government’s mechanism for economic, military, and yes, even moral leadership. Well, it’s time for moral leadership about a moral problem (individual rights and reasonable societal expectations). History gives us hope on this front as our moral sensibilities have evolved to vanquish any number of what are now seen as terrible evils: human slavery, cruelty to non-human animals, subjugation of women and blasphemy crimes, to name just a few. Is illegal gun violence really just too big to stop? I keep hearing the number 300 million guns in the media. Is gun violence bigger than the aforementioned evils? When has apathy ever merited a handshake?
Merely saying, “we need to do something,” as the Obama Administration has repeatedly said, is not enough. It’s trite, simplistic, and I daresay even silly. The fact is we do ourselves a favor by having goals set and pathways formed.The main goal from politicians and lobbyists, however, is simply thinking of ways to stop difficult to predict rampage killings. It’s a mistake to think this way.
I am persuaded by psychologist Steven Pinker’s argument that bending our nation’s collective will to stop future rampage killings is “a massive waste of resources.” If reduction in illegal gun violence is the goal, there are simply better areas to focus on: urban violence in Chicago for instance, where scores of people are steadily being murdered, is a solvable challenge. Consider that New York City’s homicide rate has been impressively reduced over the decades. There is no reason to believe that the methods used in New York can’t be focused on Chicago. Is focusing on rampage killing “prevention” looting resources? Pinker’s point about wasting resources mustn’t be relegated to only the famous newspapers in the country; it needs to be read in gazettes, weekly’s, heard in podcasts and spotlighted by the White House. It’s a stunning piece of clarity from an expert that can’t be overlooked. So why must we endure the Vice President using his power of visibility to talk about Wal-Mart’s so-called involvement in this national talk? It doesn’t appear that our nation’s brightest thinkers are being put front and center.
The Obama Administration should change direction and put morality smack dab in the middle of the table. This is a moral problem. Let’s start talking about striving for a more perfect union by sorting out the moral needs of the individual with the moral needs of a civilized society and thereby, perhaps, change the farcical sentence opening this opinion from “just like me” into, “just like us.” If history is any guide, moral goodness follows when we do just that.
• Dziuba is a 25 year Alaskan resident, Juneauite, and supporter of many national secular organizations including the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Comments (51)
Add commentHow do you legislate morality?
From whence doth morality spring? In the past century morality has been systematically legislated out of the nation's mindset. Kids and teachers can't pray in school. Parents and teachers can't discipline kids. "Freedom of speech has become the mantra for proponents of violent movies, video games and television. Audio propagated violence is allowed to be pumped into the contiousness of our youth through 'gangsta rap' and the like. I find it laughably sad to hear atheists cry "Morality!" while letting their denial of any thing or person bigger than themselves disqualify them from bringing any workable solutions to the table. It's taken 100 years for secular humanism to suck the morality out of our country. Do you think that can be replaced by a single bill in congress? Our nation's morality is a product of the Madeline Murray O'Hares of this country. The athiests, agnostics and humanists have had their way in selling their agenda as rights to form "a more perfect union". So, how's that working out?
Illegal gun violence.
Either that term was used more than once to mean that Mike truly believes there is a legally moral use of gun violence, or, the term is glaringly redundant.
Skirkz - I find it laughable
....that you equate the Christian religion with morality.
Clearly, if history and current events and legislation is any indicator (which it is) religion is NOT the bastion of morality.
It is perfectly possible, and often more likely, to be a moral person without being a religious one.
Unfortunately-morality is
Unfortunately-morality is very far down the liberal agenda!
Starting ten fires in ten minutes
Agreed swimmergirl.
The "gish gallup" (coined by National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott regarding the debate tactic of creationist Duane Gish) is when an opponent smothers the challenger with a load of half truths, lies and straw-man arguments such that the other person can't possibly answer every falsehood in real time. And while this isn't a timed debate, I don't plan on wasting my Sunday putting out fires started in bad faith.
I didn't choose the title for this opinion but I want to thank who ever did at the Empire as because I think it's excellent.
I'm off for a dog walk but l do look forward to reviewing the comments later and responding where I can.
Mike
swimmergirl
Who said Christian? All I can say is, the proof is in the pudding. If faith in a greater entity than man is absent, then who will give a p~~~ about morality? So far, kicking God (or whom ever or what ever) out of the equation has failed miserably. The alternative has no rallying point.
Morals come from human beings
Skirkz,
If you are unable to be moral without a belief in some sort of supernatural Big Brother, then please, keep believing.
But I'd like to ask you to consider if you really mean this. Are you saying that the only thing that keeps you from murdering, raping, and pillaging like a Viking is the fear of eternal punishment after your death? Or conversely, are you saying you are good only because of your hope for eternal rewards? This is where your logic leads and it's quite a familiar fallacy.
It's a fallacy because nonbelievers are well under-represented in our jails (yes, even adjusted per capita). So that argument is flat. Furthermore, there are prosperous democracies with higher levels of secularism than the US having lower levels of violent crime, lower rates of teenage pregnancy and other moral metrics that religious nations can't hold a candle to.
At any rate, people of faith are not displaying morality if that's their position, they are simply displaying greed. So, as I said, do keep believing, for the sake of our community.
Mike
The title is appropriately correct.
As are many comments in this unarguable theme. You are right, Mike. And so is the Empire's title choice. But, what do you suggest as the cure for moral cancer? You may as well say that we have to outlaw cancer. Or we have to outlaw AIDS. You want to outlaw "illegal gun violence" (your words, not Juneau Empire's) I hope walking your dog gives you enough time to put out the first ten minutes worth of fires. If you manage to do that, then you can try working on just the last 50 years worth of fires. Fires that your kind have started. That's a lot of dog walking. How many dog years will undo 50 years of hardened heart activism and legislation? If you go by my last dog's lifespan, you're going to need three more dogs! Hope you buy the Costco box of Baggies!
You're exactly right, skirkz.
You're exactly right, skirkz.
It's entertaining to hear the left and yes, atheists like Mike, try to define morality.
Morality is something that is lived everyday, all day, in all aspects of ones life. Some people call it 'conviction'.
Hearing Obama get up and lecture us on "morality" is political posturing to further his agenda. His actions do not convey morality.
I'll bring up the "A" word - abortion. Where's one shred of morality in that act? Murder comes in all forms and when one starts picking and choosing the "right" kind of murder, they've lost the argument and credibility.
Statistically, gun violence (and what is "illegal" gun violence?) is down. The progressives have jumped on the gun ban wagon because that's what they always do - wait for a perceived crisis and whip the population into a frenzy. In my opinion, this may be the one agenda where they've pushed too hard and the American people are going to push back with all their might.
And Mike, when you use Obama and "individuality" in the same sentence it's laughable. Let me fix up Obama's famous "we are our brothers' keeper" quote for you - "I am your keeper".
Mental health seems to be the pertinent issue in every single one of these mass killings. Politics and agendas have intervened and now with increased regulations (HIPAA), political posturing (ACLU) and congressional acts (Patients' Bill of Rights) the system is failing to identify these people and remove them from the civilized society.
Destroying the 2nd Amendment is not the answer.
My friend, Mike
You may not know this, but I have utmost respect for you and your views, even when you are going-straight-to-hell heretic. You are genuine.
Do you honestly think that morality is the answer? I think mankind is amoral. I think people achieve a moral foundation thru Christ, common decency, or not wanting to succumb to a blade or hot lead poisoning. Any of these three work in my opinion, if it means I meet a guy like you on the street, and we nod hello and then part ways to have a good day.
Hmmmm...
Does it make more sense to have a lecture about morality from someone who is able to love another human being and is honest and brave enough to abandon refuge in the Divine when they can find no evidence if it, or should a lecture on morality come from someone who has a self-definition rooted in the ability to torture, maim, and kill other living beings for fun?
Dust
Expecting universal love from selfish mankind without inspiration is a pipe dream. Dream on!
@dust (also a blog buddy of sorts)
I hope you are not talking about me. I never did any such things for fun. And I am often up at night hoping that when the Man comes around He will understand, as the all-knowing I believe He is, that I am sorry for any stuff I did or did not do.
I'm enjoying this one :)
I'm enjoying this one :) people talking about being moral and where they get it from, yet look at these posters comments all you see is...what's your book say about judgment? That's right, it's not your place, at all in anyway or fashion to judge anyone.
Degrees and politics
Mike, I think your comparison between gun violence and slavery is challenged. Slavery, as practiced in America in the 1800's was pretty black and white. But the gun conundrum has more shades of grey.
Obviously murdering someone with a gun is a moral failing. But is using a gun in self-defense the same? How about just owning a gun, or carrying a gun? Using one for sport or hunting? Is owning an AR-15 a moral flaw, even if all you do is pet it and stroke it while watching FoxNews in your living room? Who defines morality in this case?
As offensive and degrading as the dialogue has been on this issue to date, there's still a political imperative that needs to be acknowledged. Ending slavery required a civil war. Achieving a watered-down healthcare program required George W Bush, and all of the damage he brought on, to give us a democratic congressional majority.
Defining the moral boundaries of gun ownership and usage will require more than the president to step up. There needs to be an acknowledgement from the republicans that we have a problem. We'll only find the moral imperative for action when a majority of our leaders agree that there's a moral failing.
Either the republicans need to change, or the voters need to replace them. It's really pretty simple.
No disagreement on that, Lat.
" We'll only find the moral imperative for action when a majority of our leaders agree that there's a moral failing." The fallacy in your point is saddling republicans as "the ones" that need to change. I'm sure Carter/Clinton Southern Baptist Democrats would be thrilled at you lumping them in with morally superior atheists. (How do you stand on making Palestine the 51st state?)
morality
is not coming from this gun running white house
Hey dust, what are you
Hey dust, what are you talking about?
Are you referring to gays and atheists as the all-knowing moralists?
Was this your mature and succinct jab at Christians - "has a self-definition rooted in the ability to torture, maim, and kill other living beings for fun"?
Please...you can do better than that!
Tin cans and a piece of string
Perhaps there should have been graphics associated with this opinion of mine. Namely a soup can at the beginning with a long string through the body of the article tied to another can at the end.
What else can explain some of the comments I'm reading except the game of telephone? That's the one where kids are lined up and Teacher whispers "marsupial" to the first child who repeats the word to the next person and so on. Invariably, the last kid blurts out something like "Ma hates fruitcakes".
A few clarifications:
1. I used the phrase illegal gun violence to differentiate between lawful use of violence (in the case of the police, or self defense for instance) and the illegal use of gun violence (rampage killings, etc.).
2. States with the highest degrees of faith (the Bible belt) also have high rates of abortion and teenage pregnancy. So thank you for bringing up abortion.
3. I did not compare gun violence to slavery. They are two different things. I said society's moral sensibilities evolved to vanquish certain evils. I asked the question if gun violence is too big to eradicate considering humans have overcome various evils in the past.
4. I hold that empathy and critical thinking are the keys to exemplary morality. I think any political equation to reduce violence must, at the minimum, take into account these two factors. Moreover, we must teach (or in many cases, stop training it out of them) our youngest citizens these virtues. Public schools, it seems to me, need to start incorporating critical thinking courses into earlier grades, even kindergarten. This is precisely where the White House and the Department of Education can make a difference.
Mike
EDIT: Calypso, regarding your link disputing empathy, please note that I did not say only empathy. Empathy and critical thinking is what I posted. To that end, your link is based on a straw-man. I will read it though.
I left out...
...of my previous comment the one other observation I had - that what you're seeking is a tall order. You can replace 'gun violence' with any number of other social ills that could also be corrected by a moral reformation.
Maybe this gun violence is merely a symptom?
@lat - I know you're placing
@lat - I know you're placing blame on the right for the symptoms that lead to gun violence or other social ills but I would say you're exactly right in your analysis - except I would say that the social engineering agendas of the left for a generation or more are to blame.
- fatherless homes
- lack of personal responsibility - someone else is always to blame for ones failings, we're told
- selfishness - it's all about me!
- working mothers because staying home and raising children just isn't noble enough
- promiscuity and drug use among the young - if it feels good, do it!
- Hollywood guiding our culture
- and yes, lack of faith...
Where do you place the blame?
My comment
was aimed directly at Rough Cut's post immediately previous. RC likes to make provocative comments and troll for indignant outrage without any real emotional investment in what he says; no problem there. But the only real emotional responses I have seen from him were regarding the idea of making wolf hunting illegal, limitations on firearms, and limitations on trapping. When someone brought up the idea of making the hunting and trapping of wolves illegal (quite a while back) he went ballistic and insisted he'd do it even it if were illegal; thus my comment.
Regarding Calypso's "big, long study" - I doubt she read it. It's not a "study", it's a philosphical treatise; no experiments were conducted. The main points include the short-comings of both empathy and social conditioning taken alone. It seems quite well-written and as far as I can see, totally supports Mike's assertion that both empathy and critical thinking are required for a society and its members to behave ethically.
Morality
I have a question for swimmergirl? Where does your morality come from? I think Mike wrote a well thought out article but I totally disagree with his assertion that morality comes from humans. Man is not by nature moral - he is sinful. I also caution you, Mike, to not confuse Christianity with religion. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man while religion is man's attempt to reach God which has led to some totally wacky doctrine over the centuries. Christian religion over the centuries has indeed committed some acts that are totally against God's Word due to false doctrine but religion has, for the most part I believe, done far,far more good than bad. I believe morality comes from God.
Jeremiah 31:33-34
I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.
Finally, some thoughts from our first President.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington outlined the proper foundations for our Republic: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
People of faith are welcome to discuss morality
But before I discuss with a believer, these are the ground rules I use for both parties.
Mike~
Most excellent! I had no idea the JE code would allow inclusion of graphics.
"I also caution you, Mike, to not confuse Christianity with religion."
Now what is the ethical (and polite) response to such an assertion?? Clearly, we cannot accept the statement from one religion that their framework is actually truth and divine revelation while all others are human constructs unless they provide evidence of such, because all faiths make such claims (generally speaking). Perhaps the proper response is to allow those faiths to argue among themselves who has absolute truth, and then have a discussion with the winner on ethics.
Moral bloodletting during a Harvest Moon
Fromdustreturned, yes...I think that's a smart way to proceed. Once people start quote-mining rather than listening and formulating their own responses, I tend to move on these days.
You know as well as I do, that we can also lift any number of quotes from the Founding Fathers that would upset people of faith. As a general rule, I usually don't look to our distant ancestors for guidance about 21st century morality anymore than I would look for good surgical advice from a 14th century leech manual.
Cheers,
Mike
HB
Can you provide evidence of a religious framework that does not claim to be true?
I can't think of any religion that states: "Come believe like we do! We're wrong!"
That was my point.
A devout Muslim will say the same thing as Charley - "Islam is not religion; Islam is the Truth and a daily submission to the Will of the Living God through the revelation of His Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him".
Mike~
Regarding a discussion of ethics or morals with someone who holds a particular religious point of view, I think the best that can be achieved is just an exchange of viewpoints, assuming both parties are listening to understand and not listening to reply. A religious person will (hopefully) have their understanding of moral ground rooted in their religious framework, and that can't be argued without shifting completely into a criticism/defense of the truth of the religion itself.
It becomes (only slightly) less muddy when discussing an ethical framework for legal and judicial mandates - the greatest good for all under those mandates regardless of religion or creed, meaning that any given religion should not be used as the source for those laws.
Then I'd say you have a poor reading comprehension
Original statement:
Clearly, we cannot accept the statement from one religion that their framework is actually truth and divine revelation while all others are human constructs unless they provide evidence of such, because all faiths make such claims (generally speaking).
The phrase "such claims" is a replicator used in place of repeating the previous class of claims, i.e. "truth and divine revelation". The sentence could have been written more clumsily as "...their framework is actually truth and divine revelation while all others are human constructs unless they provide evidence of such, because all faiths make the statement that their framework is actually truth and divine revelation".
You somehow got the impression I was stating that all religions have the same specificity of construct, most likely because you did not bother to read carefully.
Likewise, your assertion that Mike equated Christianity with a 14th century leech doctor. While it might indeed be true that he does make that equivalency, the context for his leech statement was in reference to the writings of the Founding Fathers; that paragraph contains no reference to Christianity at all.
It's getting better all the time
The Beatles weren't giving opinions about morals with that song (in fact, it has some brutal lines: "I used to be cruel to my woman I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved) but it's a relevant song title in context of evolving human morality over the last few thousand years (more particularly in the last few hundred).
Civilizations, particularly democracies, are adopting far better moral standards than our ancestors did. We now say it is immoral to:
1. Kill a child for talking back to a parent
2. Enslave fellow human beings
3. Kill anyone for worshiping a false god
4. Force women to marry their rapists
5. Kill homosexuals
And so I am cautiously optimistic about the human species. We have come a long way from our understandable though superstitious beginnings when we were afraid of the dark.
Morality changes. This really can't be denied without willfully deceiving oneself. It always has and I strongly suspect there will be unknown moral challenges to solve in the far future if one day, say, artificial intelligence develops consciousness or even if human-like cognition is discovered in other species.
If our distant descendants use the same tools of empathy and critical reasoning that were used to abolish the immorality of the five points listed above, I think the future too, will be getting better all the time or as another line in the song reads, "man I was mean, but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can..."
Mike