The volatile debates between conservatives and the liberals on moral issues like abortion, homo-sexuality, contraceptives and euthanasia makes one wonder as to what motivates these two sparring factions at their core. By conservatives and liberals, I am not limiting it to the political parties that one comes across in Canada, Britain and other nations. It also includes the average citizenry: ‘you-and-I’. These debates have even led to violent reactions from those that felt most threatened. Abortionist Dr. George Tiller is among the recent victims shot dead in US by the abortion foes. The clash between conservative and liberal worldviews had existed since the dawn of human history (a` la clash between good and evil). Historical figures like Christ, Gandhi, and King (Jr) had their share of tribulations and also faced death for opposing the moral custodians of their times.
This article is an attempt to tease-out the core value that separates the liberal and conservative worldviews to enable us make right choices.
The arguments of Pro-life and Pro-choice proponents in the present American context had been quite succinctly summed up by the womenissues.about.com as “Ten Arguments for Abortion and against Abortion”. Please click on the link below should you wish to read them:
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm
What one could surmise from the above is that whilst the proponents of Pro-life declare abortion under any circumstance as wrong, the Pro-choice stance reflects sensitivity and cognizance of the unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies.
The thorny issue of abortion in the United States of America had also spilled over to the health-care reform debate, when the US Bishops strong-armed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to creating the Stupak amendment to health-care reform bill. This amendment prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.
Closely linked to the issue of abortion is the moral issue of contraceptives. While Conservatives have sought to push the idea of natural methods for family planning such as abstinence and awareness of periods of fertility, liberals view contraceptives as simply being realistic about sex. The statistic that nearly 70 percent of Catholics use a method of family planning banned by the Roman Catholic Church alludes to this fact. Further, contraceptives have been around for as long as humans have recorded history, and so the advances in contraceptive technology with the invention of the condom and oral contraceptives should be considered as just advances- nothing more, nothing less.
Those opposed to abortion are also logically opposed to Euthanasia on the sole ground that it is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. However, they show very scant regard for this principle when it comes to denying the Gays their basic human rights, especially that of fulfilling their very basic need (and not mere want) for adult love and companionship. The refusal of heterosexual majority to accept the homosexual minority as equals, have prompted young gays and lesbians to choose suicide over a second-class adult existence until a few years ago.
The opponents to same-sex marriage declare that the institution of marriage is meant for the sole purpose of procreation. They greatly fear that legalizing gay marriage would be a step towards promoting the degradation of human unions, and promiscuity among gay men and lesbian women. The proponents of gay marriage have in turn, categorically challenged this argument against gay marriage. They argue that sterile heterosexuals, those who have no wish to have children, post-menopausal women and all heterosexual couples who cannot prove their absolute fidelity should also be denied their right to marry.
The conservatives have been successful at insinuating the notion that homosexuality is a lifestyle chosen by those who are rebellious and abnormal in their thinking and beliefs. The fact of the matter is, Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder until the 1970s and discontinued by the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association. Studies on hormones, point to a likelihood of exposure to the fetus during second to fifth month after conception, to hormone levels characteristic to females causing the individual (male or female) to become attracted to males. As a result sexual orientation is almost impossible to modify, that it is not a free choice, but instead; they are actually born to be gay.
Having analyzed the arguments of the liberals and conservatives on some of the hot-button issues of today, it’s helpful to delve into the inherent attributes that make liberals different from the conservatives.
Recently I had come across a remarkable article by Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham (2006): “When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions That Liberals May Not Recognize.” Their approach is especially fascinating in its description of the moral differences between conservatives and liberals. According to Haidt, the moot question is not as to which group is more moral. Both groups strive to be moral, but the difference is in the way that they characterize morality. For conservatives, morality is a composite of five measures that are each taken seriously:
1. Harm/care: Human beings react to the suffering of other humans, whether child or adult, whether biologically related or not. Humans feel compassion when they see other humans suffer and they are disturbed by cruelty and harm.
2. Fairness/reciprocity: Humans, like many other primate species, readily form alliances. This tendency “has led to the evolution of a suite of emotions that motivate reciprocal altruism, including anger, guilt and gratitude.” As a result of these emotions, “all cultures have developed virtues related to fairness and justice.” Haidt points out, however, that the almost universal tendency of cultures to value reciprocity does not necessarily lead to a belief of individual rights, equal distribution of resources or equal status.
3. Ingroup/loyalty: Human animals have developed strong emotions “related to recognizing, trusting and cooperating with members of one’s co-residing ingroup, while being wary and distrustful of members of other groups.” As a result, many cultures have valued loyalty, patriotism and heroism. Cultures are thus commonly suspicious of diversity. Further, a member’s willingness to criticize his or her own ingroup is seen as betrayal or treason.
4. Authority/respect: In many primate species, most members react to the physical force and fear displayed by those in leadership positions. For humans, “the picture is more nuanced, relying largely on prestige and voluntary deference.” Many societies have thus come to value “virtues related to subordination: respect, duty and obedience.”
5. Purity/sanctity: In most human societies, disgust has become a social emotion as well as a physical reaction. In these cultures, “disgust goes beyond such contaminant-related issues and supports a set of virtues and vices linked to bodily activities in general and religious activities in particular”. Thus, those who are ruled by “carnal passions” are seen as corrupt or impure compared to those who are spiritual or sanctified.
According to Haidth, morality for the conservatives will necessarily include all of the above five measures. However, for liberals their moral domain consists primarily of the first two of these five measures; the other three would tend to fly under the liberal radar. Liberals base their moral systems primarily upon the first two of the five foundations (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity). To the extent that something does not fall within these two categories, it simply is not a moral issue in the eyes of liberals. Conservatives disagree intensely. For a conservative, it matters greatly (in a moral sense) whether an act or omission offends one’s conceptions of proper ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect or purity/sanctity. For liberals, these three measures, though they might be of Machiavellian interest, are simply not matters of morality.
All said, the contemporary ‘culture war’ between conservatives and the liberals may well be simplistically depicted as a continuum, that has liberals at its one end upholding humanism as their sole ideal, while their adversaries situated at the other end take the more righteous and moralistic stance.
Finally, the moment of introspection: Where does the mainstream Knanaya community wish to place itself in this contemporary moral-divide? Is the cue concealed in the response of our great teacher (historical Jesus) to the Pharisees, when they sought to force him into making a moral judgment on the prostitute they had caught red-handed??
No comments:
Post a Comment