I
ntroduction
What is the moral high ground? The newly
announced policy of the United States is
to wield our great economic and military
power in the service of moral administration
of the world. It is reminiscent of the "Manifest
Destiny" policy of the nineteenth century
America, and is bolstered in its justification
by the dastardly attacks on our nation on
September 11, 2001. Our president claims
that: "We are the good guys," which
reflects the black and white demarcation
of good and bad that was the stock of so
many westerns we have seen since movies were
invented. The line has been drawn between
"good" and "evil," and
it is a line of our making -- not that of
the world -- and we are but less than five
percent of the world’s population. There
is a tallest tree in the forest; a deepest
point in the oceans; then should there not
be a most moral nation, representing a standard
of morality that is best for all? The reason
there cannot be such a best morality is the
same reason as there cannot be a most beautiful
painting, or piece of music or most perfect
building, because morality, unlike the measurable
heights of trees, is a human concept that
is rooted in a plethora of historic, cultural,
religious, philosophical and scientific facts
surrounding our human condition. Critics
of this position claim that it is relativism
-- that chimera of floating, changing and
diverse trends and morays among peoples,
that some see as contrary to what is clearly
a best moral direction for humanity. That
best direction is supposedly the result of
what has seemingly served this nation well
for over two hundred years, in terms of providing
freedom, equality, justice and opportunity
to all in a land wherein the substrate of
these institutionalized conditions is seen
to be Christian theology.
We, here in the United States, seem to have
a visceral acceptance that it was, and is,
our general faith in a Christian God, that
not only laid the foundation for our great
country, but remains the guiding force for
the continuation of that greatness, and by
extension to other nations, can likewise
provide for the potentials of other nations
to join us in our success. Not only is the
hubris of such a position glaring, the position
is based on a completely false premise --
that it was the Christian God who made our
nation great.
The cart is before the horse. Our nation
is economically and militarily great not
because of the guidance of the Christian
God, but the Christian God is preeminent
because of our material greatness. (i. e.
good things come from God, and bad things
from people!) We would never stoop so low
as to acclaim that it was greed, ambition
and the yearning for freedom from autocratic
regimes that produced our nation, or that
the intelligence of a few men, who looked
to the philosophers such as John Locke and
David Hume and other eighteenth century Europeans,
had the insight to frame a highly effective
constitution and rule of law. We seem to
trust that it was the Christian God who was
the guiding force for James Madison and Tomas
Jefferson, et al, when the evidence clearly
indicates that it was no such thing. Our
constitution is not fundamentally a religious
document -- it is a social management document.
Its precepts are born out of logically thinking
through what is most likely to aid the just
management of a society, especially one that
is founded, at least partially, on the need
to escape one kind of social order and make
another that does not suffer the same ills.
It may be a natural human inclination to
seek a transcendent foundation for order
and what seems right. Our constitution says:
"We hold these truths to be self evident,
that we were endowed by our creator......"
One can take "our creator" in many
very different ways, and I believe it quite
telling that the framers did not say: "endowed
by God," since they had the foresight
see that the nation was, and would become
more so, a pluralistic society of many different
religions and beliefs. The selection of "God"
as innocent as that might have seemed at
the time, would have put too specific a stamp
on what "creator" might mean. (The
word God does not appear in the constitution.)
But does the constitution and our over two
hundred years of development as a nation
that is founded on that document, exist as
the paragon for moral behavior for all the
world? I have claimed that the constitution
is a compilation of rules for a society by
the structuring of a governing organization.
It is first and foremost that structure and
grew out of the conditions and needs of the
times as seen by a handful of thoughtful
and, I believe, wise and prescient men. Are
we to claim that our rules, our structure
of government fits all societies and cultures
around the world? We claim that humans inalienably
have the right to "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness," and yet we
do not claim that "liberty" means
anarchy, or that "happiness" includes
the perverse joy felt by a vicious sadist,
nor do we claim to incorrectly deny humans
"life" when we impose the death
penalty or send men and women to die in wars.
Thus, it is clear that that phrase is indeed
relative -- relative to what we believe the
words to mean within the context of our own
society and our own time in history.
The president is very prone to a kind of
Cartesian view of morality -- a black and
white, good versus evil view that has no
shades of gray. He speaks as if "evil"
is a sort of tangible blanket of immorality
that can be seen clearly by the eyes of the
morally enlightened, and he is the one to
decide exactl decide exactl
Richard E. Sansom
|