Showing posts with label Virtue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virtue. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

THE COURAGE TO STAND AGAINST EVIL





How can we stand against evil? The rewards of feeling good about ourselves in are fleeting at best. Enlightened self-interest will fail us, so too a morality based on pragmatic considerations alone.

The day before he died (February 24, 1791) John Wesley wrote to William Wilberforce, who had been leading the crusade in the British Parliament against slavery:

·       Unless the divine power has raised you to be as Athanasius contra mundum [against the world], I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American Slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it."

William Wilberforce had been standing against the world. Os Guinness had written:

·       "Championing abolition was a dangerous business. The slave trade occupied a position in the British economy (as a percentage of gross national product) equivalent to that of the defense industry in the United States today. At one stage, Wilberforce was the most vilified man in England. He was even threatened and attacked physically…" (Entrepreneurs of Life, 83)

In a speech before the House of Commons in 1787, Wilberforce confessed:

·       "So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the Trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for Abolition. Let the consequences be what they would, I, from this time, determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition."

And Wilberforce, aided by his Christian colleagues, kept his vow, even to the day of his death, as Guinness wrote:

·       "On Friday, July 26, 1833, the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery passed… Wilberforce lapsed into a coma soon after hearing the news of his great success, and died three days later on Monday, July 29, 1833, aged 73." (89)

Wilberforce had travailed for almost 50 years. What gave him his fortitude? Certainly not moral relativism or simply what felt right to him! Instead, he was convinced that he was serving God.

How was Dietrich Bonhoeffer able to endure to his death in his fight against the National Socialists (Nazis)? He wrote:

·       "Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in the faith and in exclusive allegiance to God – the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?" (70)

They are the ones praying over the Word of God.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

WHY DO GOOD?





I asked an atheist, “Why do you practice virtue if you don’t believe that there is such a thing as an objective moral law?” He answered very candidly:

  • I live virtuously because of what it does for me. It provides psychological rest, enabling me to feel good about myself. It also improves my relationships.
Although this is true, I tend to think that his pursuit of virtue carries some deadly cargo. How? It seems like our pursuit of virtue is contaminated by our all-too-human desire for significance or righteousness. In “The Significant Life,” attorney George M. Weaver identifies the ubiquitous drive to establish our self-importance:

  • Individual humans are not concerned so much about the survival of the species as they are about their personal survival or significance. In order to push ourselves beyond our confining space-time limits, we as individuals try to set ourselves apart from the rest of humanity. It is unsettling to admit that one is average or ordinary – a routine person. (7)
Weaver documents this in many ways:

  • Salvador Dali once said, “The thought of not being recognized [is] unbearable”…Lady Gaga sings, “I live for the applause, applause, applause…the way that you cheer and scream for me.” She adds in another song, “yes we live for the Fame, Doin’ it for the Fame, Cuz we wanna live the life of the rich and famous.” (7)
Perhaps one reason we never achieve our longed-for significance is that it always comparative. We need to be more significant or to have more recognition than the next guy. Writer Gore Vidal had been very transparent about this:

  • “Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies.” (58)
Eventually, its seems that this drive to establish our significance/righteousness tears at friendship, dividing instead of bringing together. The jealousy displayed by comedian Al Jolson is also reflective of the human condition:

  • According to his biographer, “He once had a team of performing elephants fired because he thought the audience liked them too much.” (59)
Trying to achieve our worth, significance, or even virtuousness can become brutal and abusive. When life is about maintaining our “psychological rest” or our “good feelings” about ourselves, we can do some destructive things to ensure that these “good feelings” continue.

And it doesn’t seem to matter how successful, important, or honored we become, we always want more. The richest man in the world, John D. Rockefeller, was asked how much more money he would need to be happy. He answered, “Always a little bit more,” demonstrating that humanity is in pursuit of an unattainable goal.

In “Fame, The Psychology of Stardom,” psychologists Evans and Wilson argue:

  • What we try to create… is some illusion of permanence. The desire for permanence drives people to carve their name on trees and rocks, just like the handprints on Hollywood Boulevard. We need to have an impact on life – to leave something behind us when we go. (19)
It is not enough for us to simply enjoy what we have. Our quest for “psychological rest” demands us “to leave something behind us when we go.” We even have to convince ourselves that we are leaving more behind than others. Weaver cites President Lyndon B. Johnson as an example of this:

  • According to one commentator, “It is a curious footnote to history that long before he ran into trouble, Johnson had turned central Texas into a living monument to his heritage and his journey to the summit (the L.B.J birthplace, the L.B.J. boyhood home, the L.B.J. state park, the L.B.J. ranch and more).” (22)
The craving to be a somebody – to feel good about oneself - takes many forms besides the pursuit of virtue. It can embrace virtue or even vice. Weaver writes about other attempts to leave one’s mark on the world:

  • In 2005 Joseph Stone torched a Pittsfield, Massachusetts apartment building… After setting the blaze, Stone rescued several tenants from the fire and was hailed as a hero. Under police questioning, Stone admitted, however, that he set the fire and rescued the tenants because, as summarized at trial by an assistant district attorney, he “wanted to be noticed, he wanted to be heard, he wanted to be known.” (44)
Evidently, this drive for significance is so powerful that it can overrule the moral dictates of conscience. One mass-murderer gunman explained in his suicide note, “I’m going to be f_____ famous.” (45)

This perverted drive for significance can even override all other affections. On December 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman, a zealous fan of the Beatle, John Lennon, first obtained his idol’s autograph before gunning him down. He explained:

  • “I was an acute nobody. I had to usurp someone else’s importance, someone else’s success. I was  ‘Mr. Nobody’ until I killed the biggest Somebody on earth.” At his 2006 parole hearing, he stated: “The result would be that I would be famous, the result would be that my life would change and I would receive a tremendous amount of attention, which I did receive… I was looking for reasons to vent all that anger and confusion and low self-esteem.” (47) 
By attaching himself to fame of another, Chapman was able to elevate himself. Was it “low self-esteem” or merely Chapman’s way to achieve what everyone else is trying to achieve – importance and self-value? Weaver adds that:

  • More than two hundred people confessed in 1932 to the kidnapping and murder of the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. (50)
If we fail to be famous, at least we might have a crack at being infamous by attaching ourselves to fame. Could this pursuit for significance also explain why females throw themselves at the Rock Stars and the rich and famous? After all, we do not seek autographs bums but from the successful and the famous. Why? This elevate us, adding to our importance? (I like to boast that Charlie Manson had been my roommate for a few days!)  

And doesn’t our craving for recognition, even for immortality, also find its more common expression among people-pleasers? Isn’t this just another way - through the esteem of others - that we achieve significance? And then we become resentful and jealous when we fail to obtain this desired commodity.

I’m suggesting that all of these drives for worthiness, recognition, approval, significance, moral adequacy, success, and even for negative notoriety are connected. But what is the common glue or the underlying cause that gives rise to these various manifestations of the drive for adequacy? Underneath, we feel morally inadequate, unworthy, and insignificant and, therefore, try to compensate for this nagging awareness. We experience guilt and shame and try to cover these destabilizing feelings with the tokens of success and significance – applause and approval. We wear designer clothing to cover up our sense of inadequacy. And when we are bested in our quest, we feel diminished as did Gore Vidal by the success of his friends.

Do we feel morally threatened? Is our sense of adequacy and worthiness threatened when we fail to live up to our moral standards? Yes! This would suggest that we are not born with a blank moral slate but a parchment filled with moral laws. In “Mere Christianity,” C.S. Lewis observed that even the atheist cannot escape the moral law that has been written on his heart:

  • Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promises to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining, “It’s not fair.”
Even though the atheist does not acknowledge an objective moral law, he inescapably acts as if he does. One evidence of this is the defensive excuses we make when we are accused of doing wrong:

  • If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.
We also compensate for our sense of moral inadequacy by trying to live a virtuous life, even if we don’t believe in the independent existence of virtue. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with this. However, if we are pursuing virtue for the wrong reasons – primarily to prove that we are good and morally adequate people – it will backfire on us and everyone around us. It will also make us intolerably self-righteous if we deem ourselves successful at proving our adequacy.

Instead, virtue must be pursued for virtue sake and not because it elevates us for the moment. (Often, the drug that elevates will also bring us crashing down.)

But why were we created to be obsessively driven to achieve significance and moral adequacy? We weren’t! We were created in such perfection that the first human couple went naked without any shame. What happened? They rebelled against God and refused to confess their sin. And this became the ultimate moral and relational Big Bang. It blew us apart from our life-sustaining relationship with our Maker where achieving significance had never been an issue. We were, therefore, banished into the very state of autonomy that we had so longed for and have been suffering ever since, awaiting the return of our Creator-Savior-Healer.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

VIRTUE AND MORALITY MUST BE FOUNDED ON TRUTH



Virtue based upon false belief can only be temporary. In his Meditations, Roman emperor and stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, wrote:

·       "It is peculiar to man to love even those who do wrong. And this happens, if when they do wrong it occurs to you that they are fellow humans and that they do wrong through ignorance and unintentionally, and that soon both of you will die; and above all, that the wrongdoer has done you no harm, for he has not made your ruling faculty worse than it was before."

While it is true that people often harm out of “ignorance and unintentionally,” it is exaggerated and unsubstantiated to claim that they always act in this manner. If virtue depends upon our holding a benign impression of the motives of the wrongdoer, virtue will be short-lived.

Furthermore, if our virtuous behavior depends on an assessment “that the wrongdoer has done you no harm, for he has not made your ruling faculty worse than it was before," virtue lacks an adequate rationale. Why? Aurelius needlessly makes light of the effects of victimization, which can be traumatic, even life attenuating.

While I appreciate Aurelius’ desire to treat even the worst evildoer with kindness, his rationale, based on the minimization of evil, cannot support that weight of our losses, grieving, and gnawing desire for justice.

Let us not minimize loss and evil. Instead, let us see it for what it truly is, and yet forgive. But how? Only by knowing that an omnipotent God will dry our every tear in an eternity of love! Also, by knowing that, without His mercy, we could have performed even greater cruelties.

Friday, June 26, 2015

CHARACTER, TRUTH, AND SELF-ACTUALIZATION




What does “character” mean to us today? What personal traits and goals do we value? For the late psychologist Abraham Maslow, it was a matter of self-actualization - "fulfilling themselves and doing the best that they are capable of doing".

Another website listed 13 personal goals worth pursuing:


  1. Becoming the person you aspire to be.
  2. Fixing your priorities
  3. Specifying your values.
  4. Determining your lifestyle.
  5. Defining your ethics.
  6. Improving your knowledge, potential and awareness.
  7. Enhancing the quality of your life by being more spiritual and healthy.
  8. Developing strengths, learning techniques or methods to achieve wisdom.
  9. Fulfilling aspirations.
  10. Building human capital.
  11. Defining and executing personal development plans.
  12. Developing spirituality.
  13. Improving health.
Both sources have a lot in common – self-fulfillment. However, different eras esteemed different goals and traits. Historian Daniel Walker Howe highlights the differences:

  • In the development of Western political thought, the control of passion by reason has been an issue of critical importance. Stephen Holmes’s Passions and Constraint shows how the creation of free political institutions required that people control such strong passions as tribal hatred or the resentment of social slights by the exercise of sober rationality… “The principal aim of [early] liberals who wrote favorably of self-interest was to bridle destructive and self- destructive passions, to reduce the social prestige of mindless male violence, to induce people, so far as possible, to act rationally, instead of hot-bloodedly.” (Making the American Self)
While today, we esteem self-fulfillment, yesterday, self-control, a virtuous character, and rationality were praised. Jacksonian historian George Bancroft’s laudatory description of George Washington is very revealing of what had been esteemed:

  • His faculties were so well balanced and combined, that his constitution, free from excess, was tempered… [with] the power of self- control, and enabled him to excel in patience, even when he had most cause for disgust.
Why the sharp difference and what does it mean? Why has self-fulfillment replaced self-control along with the other Christian virtues? With the onslaught of secularism and its denial of an afterlife, there is nothing to live for but the “now.” Therefore, “character” – honesty, integrity, courage, and other-centered-ness – has become only a means to an end, a payoff in the now. Virtue has become a commodity to barter as the changing situation requires.

However, our Founding Fathers, even the least religious among them, could not conceive of this American experiment working without the Christian faith and its virtues as its foundation.

The Unitarian and our second President, John Adams, wrote:

  • “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
  • "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (October 11, 1798)
  • "I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." (December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson)
  • "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817)
Even our Deist President, Thomas Jefferson, wrote:

  • “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
  • “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital; Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.)
Were they right? Can our liberties remain secure as the Christian faith continues its exile into the margins of American life? How can they! When we deny objective moral truths and the afterlife (and the pursuit of gratification fills the gap) we will care less about abstract and distant principles such as liberty until its disappearance begins to impinge on our pursuit of immediate gratification.

Also, this pursuit will set us against each other in competition for scarce resources, whether they are advancements, recognition, influence, pay-increases, or even legislation that will favor our side. Consequently, we will resent those competitors and wish them ill.

Even now, we are inheriting the fruitage of our values and goals – polarization, division, distrust, economic decline, and bitterness. Instead, when our lives are other-centered and not self-centered, peace, trust, and cooperation reign. When we are seeking the benefit of our neighbor, how can they argue! This pertains even to our spouses, as Alexis de Tocqueville had observed almost 200 years ago:

  • There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe, almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and the evil of fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace… While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterward carries with him into public affairs. (Democracy in American, 199)
Nor should Western society argue against the benefits of the Christian faith, but they do! Indian scholar, Vishal Mangalwadi, attempts to understand this peculiar auto-immune response:

  • This good news [of the Christian faith] became the intellectual foundation of the modern West, the force that produced moral integrity, economic prosperity, and political freedom. If moral integrity is foundational to prosperity, why don’t secular experts talk about it? The reason is that the universities no longer know whether moral laws are true universal principles or mere social conventions made up to restrict our freedoms. And why don’t they know? Economists have lost the secret of the West’s success because philosophers have lost the very idea of truth. (Truth and Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations)
Truth has died. Only self-fulfillment remains. God help us!