The case for moral neutrality (“neutral values”): “We must not impose our values on others, to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant. So we must practice Medicine/Psychiatry/life from a non-judgmental, morally neutral stance. We must be allowed to mold our lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state, but as our conscience and judgment may dictate. We must live and let live, and strenuously resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us. We must demand liberation from such “mighty engines of repression”, especially from the traditional values that, without our consent, were laid on, and imposed on our culture!”
I cribbed most of the above from Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood, in a piece she called, "Self-Definition: Morality." She says “Like most parents, I think that a sense of moral responsibility is one of the greatest gifts I can give my child. But teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.
She continues “I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs. When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality: It's tyranny. It's unfair, and it's un-American.”
This sounds so sensible, so reasonable, and so tolerant, but there are a number of fundamental flaws in this position which I will refer to as the “neutral values” position. Firstly it is based on the assumption that there is such at thing as neutral ground, a place where moral judgment is neither possible nor necessary. In an article entitled “The Myth of Moral Neutrality” Gregory Koukl writes “One of the most entrenched assumptions of relativism (all truth is relative) is that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing or personal views are allowed. Each takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others” (words in brackets mine). My thesis is this: No such neutral ground exists, in particular the “neutral values” position is not neutral, it is impossible to live out in a practical and consistent way, and in the end nobody really wants this make believe place to exist, including the proponents of “neutral values”.
Past injustices and intolerance. I want to start by saying that no one (least of all me) is saying that injustice and intolerance have not been perpetrated in our society on all kinds of groups, nor that there have not been (and still are) unjust and prejudicial laws. It grieves me that many inappropriate things have been committed by those who name the name of Christ. But not everything that calls itself Christian is Christian (Christ like). And there are bigots everywhere, not just in the Church, and bigotry and self righteousness and prejudice are wrong no matter where they are found. Interestingly what I just wrote cannot be the position of those who hold “neutral values,” not if they are to be consistent, because to agree with me would be to take a non-neutral moral stance. The first commandment of the “neutral values” position has to be “Thou shalt not criticize!”
There is no such place as neutral ground “Neutral values” is not neutral! First of all then “values neutral” is not a neutral value. In fact it is very far from it. And if it is it not neutral, then it logically contradicts itself. A “values neutral” position if it were truly neutral, would not be able to classify anything as either good or bad. To do so would be to cease to be neutral. In particular, it would logically be unable to criticize traditional values, and it would not be able to condemn “selling, pushing, or otherwise forcing” pet values on others. To do so would be to imply that those things are bad, and you cannot say these things if you are neutral. Please note that I am not saying these things are good, I am saying that when proponents of the “values neutral” position say such things bad, they are being logically inconsistent, because this is a non- neutral moral position.
“Values neutral” says values are not important. But a more disturbing aspect of moral neutrality is that it clearly implies that values are not important. In order to make the point, let's look at an example. I may not be able to use this example ten years from now, but I am not worried I am sure there will be other examples available even more shocking (more shocking to us now!) than this one. Suppose I sincerely believe that gently (but persistently) persuading 8 year old boys to have sex with me is a good thing, that it frees them from the sexual repression imposed on them by a bigoted and self righteous culture. If you hold the values neutral approach then you (you the parent, or you society for that matter) have no basis to say that is it wrong, let alone forbid it, or punish me for doing it! If you tried, I could object that you were trying to force your pet values on me. And if you tried to tell me that I was wrong I could simply accuse you of judging me (see last month's post “I thought we weren't supposed to judge!”). Now this is not a hypothetical case. There are pedophiles out there who sincerely hold this view. Try Googling NAMBLA (North American man love boy association). So do you think values are important? If you do, then the question (which I will not attempt to answer in this post) becomes whose values?
Nobody really wants this make believe place to exist. There is irony in the fact that in the immediate postwar years there were, in the free World, a number of Communist political parties formed which were using the freedoms of democracy to try to bring in Communism which, had they been successful, would have abolish democracy! To me there is equal irony in the fact that the proponents of “neutral values” are using the long established traditional Judeo Christian values of fairness, equality, justice, sensitivity, respect and tolerance for others to overthrow Judeo Christian values. You see you cannot appeal to these values if you live in a situation where they are not taken as self evident truths. And there are many places where these values are neither held, nor taught, nor valued. The are taken as signs of weakness. And if we are nothing more than Darwinian primates, there is no earthly reason they should be taught or valued. What do “survival of the fittest” and “respect tolerance and fair play for those who are wrong” have in common?
Check this next statement out “It is only in a Judeo Christian culture where we would even dream of trying to push the fantasy of 'neutral values.'” "Murder may be wrong for you my friend, but it's right for me!" What I am saying is that given the right (or perhaps wrong) situation, even “neutral values” advocates would advocate the imposition of their values on society. For example if any proponent of “neutral values” had been living under Idi Amin in Uganda in the 70's they would have been strongly advocating, demanding and pushing for someone to reinstate their ongoing traditional values with respect to rape and murder and theft. Idi Amin told his troops “Go out and find your wages.” And they did, finding them, and doing a whole lot more, at the point of a gun. Of course rape and murder and theft are wrong, and any healthy society would impose laws forbidding this. Only when we are sure that such Bible based laws are in place, and that no-one would even think of revoking them, would we even dream of pushing the “Alice in Wonderland” view that all values are to be equally respected.
“Moral neutrality” is impossible to live out in a practical way. Several years ago I came across an article in an African Newspaper that told of students in Bangladesh going out on strike for the “age old right to cheat on exams.” Imagine going to a professor who taught moral neutrality and demanding the same rights? Good luck if you expect to get away with it! A dollar to a dime he (or she) will inconsistently impose his or her view on you, that cheating is wrong! Or suppose your Professor gives you an F because he does not like the colour of the binder in which you submitted your assignment! You would no doubt demand justice, but if you accept a values neutral position on what grounds would you demand justice? Suppose the Professor's view of justice is that the one in power prevails, and he is in power. Well it works for him! He might ask “What right does the rest of the World or anyone else have to impose a different view of justice on me?” I do not believe that he would be able to get away with it in our culture, but that is only because we retain the universal value of justice which was “imposed” on us by the Judo-Christian culture of our past. But the existence of any universal value at all, undermines the vary fabric of moral neutrality! It is, of course, necessary for a healthy society!
Conclusion: In conclusion then to assert that we should take a neutral stance with respect to moral issues is complete and utter nonsense. It is not only logically self contradicting (since it is itself a moral view and one that is very far from neural), it is totally impractical with respect to day to day living. I can guarantee that the moment someone stole from you, or raped or murdered someone you loved, your moral neutrality would go right out the window, and you would be demanding the non-neutral law to administer justice. Moreover not only would one be unable to, but no one in their right mind would even dream of trying to push this nonsense view on any other culture except where the traditional Judeo Christian values of justice, equality and fairness were well established, safely in place and beyond any possible challenge. So what I am saying it that in the end even the proponents of “neutral values” would want these non- neutral values as much a the rest of us!
No comments:
Post a Comment