How can good people come to different moral conclusions about politics

 Now that the election is over, hopefully, as I am prewriting this in October, let's talk about how good people can come to such radically different moral conclusions about politics.

This is based on an actual conversation I had with some people on social media. Their names have been deleted, but I thought it was important to discuss this, from an explicitly humanistic perspective.

Question 1: I cannot get into the minds of those who go along with hateful and hypocritical rhetoric and actions. If you are decent, caring, and honest, how can you accept what is contrary to your values?

My first answer: By not knowing and not believing when you are told that something immoral has happened. Also, being told the other side are the bad guys and that your side is the good guys, plays into our tribal biases and short circuits our moral reasoning.

It's having your morality, which we all pretty much share,  hijacked for nefarious purposes. We've had 30 plus years of this happening along with concerted efforts by foreign bad actors to exacerbate this dynamic. But the lying liars thing is just partisanship. It's substituting tribal thinking (our side good, their side bad) over actual moral thinking (these actions are good or bad regardless of who does it).  In other words, morality becomes, it's ok if my side does it - to beat the other side.

Question 2: What you state appears to be the situation. However, morality can be interpreted and practiced many ways. It's personal and based on perspective. What you and I accept as moral is not necessarily what another person goes along with. Biases are factors. Personally, my mind differentiates between what I know, based on experience and facts and data; plus compassion and empathy play a role which I cannot ignore. Sometimes it is difficult to accept truths and maybe that is the problem with people who look the other way and go along with hateful, spiteful rhetoric and acts.

My 2nd Answer:  Studies on global ethics show that there is actually a common global ethic. Compassion is good. Harm is bad. Everything flows from there. I once did a just war session at a conference. We all agreed what a just and unjust war was but when we tried to apply to particular conflicts we couldn't agree at all, because of what we knew or thought we knew. 

Add to that the fact we almost all take short cuts in our thinking. If we had to analyze everything it would be exhausting so we take short cuts and make assumptions. One of those short cuts is our tribe good, our enemies bad. We substitute if our tribe did it it must be good because we are good and everyone I know is good. Therefore they are not capable of doing bad - for actual analysis of any given situation. This happens all the time. The idea that humans are rational is incorrect. We are capable of rational thought,  but most of the time we don't use critical thinking. We use emotional thinking and rational short cuts. Further, we don't have time to learn everything. 

This is how people with a shared morality can come to hugely different conclusions of what is moral or immoral or amoral. And that's when we share the same facts! 

When we don't share facts or when people believe things that aren't true it would be nearly impossible to come to an agreement on what is moral.

What I learned about politics and good governance from reading 1 Samuel

As we are in full political swing right now - I thought I would share a post I wrote about what the bible can teach us about - politics. 

I have been - off and on - reading the Bible and posting my thoughts about it - at my Humanist Bible Study blog - http://humanistbible.blogspot.com/  I stopped after my father died - but am planning to get back into it when time allows.  I do have enough to publish a Humanist Bible Study of the Pentateuch though. 

This post is from 2014. And it's about - the book 1 Samuel. 

As I keep reading, I get more and more and more into the stories.  This one is one of my favorites so far. Partially because it's political.  I'm a Humanist - so the moral politics and what the moral lessons for politics intrigue me. Especially since the lessons weren't what I thought they would be given what political Christianity looks like and advocates for in the United States.

Anyway - here are the political lessons I took away from 1 Samuel:

• Fair and impartial judges are essential to peace among people. (1 Samuel 7)
• Monarchy’s are against the will of God. (1 Samuel 8)
• Don’t suppress dissent with violence (1 Samuel 11:13)
• If you want peace, don’t appoint a man of war to rule over you. (1 Samuel 14) 
• You get the government you deserve (1 Samuel 12:12)
• God does not support preemptive attacks. (1 Samuel 13) 
• Sometimes you win by not fighting. (1 Samuel 26)
• Violence begets violence (1 Samuel 30)
• Plotting to overthrow a government? Even if you have god on your side, you still need to be a bit sneaky. (1 Samuel 16)

The entire story is one of corruption vs. honesty in governance.  The people want a king. God warns them that kings are bad. They demand a king. God chooses one for them, this is Saul. Turns out - Saul doesn't obey God in quite the right anal retentive way God wants him to and so God starts to plot against Saul by choosing and mentoring David through lots of political maneuvering and fighting. Saul becomes increasingly corrupt in his quest to maintain power and it is this corruption that serves as the moral heart of the story.

What surprised me was that god is pro-judges and basically anti organized government. Not sure how you have judges without a way to pay them, but I guess since at the time the priestly class were the judges, they got paid as part of their priestly duties to the people. That's why they got to keep a portion of all the sacrifices.

Regardless, the preference is clearly for a type of theocratic based self rule.  I'd call it libertarian, except that it's clearly theocratic. Rule by priests/judges - when you need them.  But, there were lots of priests and judges and people were free to follow whichever one they thought most "godly" with individuals really only standing out as good from time to time.

This book also makes the case against nepotism and biological succession. Because whenever someone was godly/goodly - his sons were inevitably not.

The final thing that really shocked me about this story is the homosexual love story between Saul's son Jonathon and David - the king in training. Whatever political Christians try to say about what god thinks about gays - is wrong. They just haven't read this book. 

Now is the time

 I am handing over this blog post to my grandfather who used to be a columnist for The Deposit Courier. This was written in February 1938. Caution, I'm told by my father he didn't like anyone.

Keep in mind - my grandpa was a republican- complaining about the republican leadership. Also, my grandfather had been employed by the WPA to write children's stories and so benefited directly from New Deal programs. 

"NOW IS THE TIME" 

 A political party is, or should be, the result of a mass pressure for the purpose of achieving certain political, social or humanitarian objectives.

When a political party loses these objectives, and deteriorates into just a party of opposition it loses its hold on its followers. This, it seems to me, is what has happened to the Republican Party. From an instrument of planning for the good of the whole country it has become the expression of a few leaders who have failed to plumb the needs of the mass. It has played "politics" when it should have been thinking of how to achieve the best for the most people. In other words, it has lost the honest purpose for which it flourished and from which it grew.

The leaders of the party have fallen from the plane of men with great unselfish ideals proposed for the betterment of all the people, of either political faith, to those who see the party in the light of preferment to themselves. In that light it has become the party of selfish aims. To regain its past greatness, it must obtain a leader who will express the wants and desires of a majority of the people. A man honest in his convictions, honest in his presentation of his ideals and the presentation of honest ideals.

This leader will say "if we as a party fail to present to the voters a plan or a policy," and the plan or policy don't have to embrace all the problems that devil us, "then let us join with minority party or parties who have a plan or a policy that will find favor with the great masses because of its honest and practical truth."

From whence will come this leader? I don't know. But I do know from where he won’t come. He won't be a spoiled rich boy who has visioned himself as the savior of the country but the saving must be his way or it won't be saved. Not a political experimenter who will not be taught by his mistakes. Not a man of an oriental cast of thinking whose prime thought is to save face and who has not the honesty of ego to say 'I have been wrong when I wanted to be right. God let the voice of the people tell which is right and I will so do."

 What a terrible thing it is when a politician turns from that which, if continued would make him a statesman, to the devious and easier way of policy; whose political convictions are as a rubber hose that will bend around the rough spots and not an honest iron rod that will drive through to the right straight and true. This leader must come from the heart of the mass and not be a privileged product of a class.

But Lord God of the Hosts let him come soon for America needs him as never before to save us from the lunatic fringe that are now trying to shape our destinies.

 There must be an Esau crying somewhere in this wilderness of loose and un-economic thought that there is a way out; a plain and honest way" to decent living for the great majority of the people of this country.

"This was planned, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise." A very little more planning of this sort and we are undone.

Jed F. Shaw
Feb 17 1938
Published in The Deposit Courier

Why Humanism Matters in Politics

I promote Humanism for a reason.

The Atlantic had a great article about how the secularization of the electorate is impacting politics.  If you are unfamiliar with the term, let me translate. More and more people lack religion. Because our beliefs impact our politics, larger groups of people who don’t believe in gods will necessarily impact politics.

The problem, for all my atheist friends who are adamant that promoting atheism will produce humanistic approaches to politics, that doesn’t appear to happen.  Here is the article. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/

The gist of the article is this. If someone was conservative before losing their faith they are conservative after losing their faith. If they were angry before losing their faith, they are angry afterward. If they were liberal before, they are liberal afterward. Switching to atheism doesn’t change one’s political temperament.

Which is why Humanism is so important and why Humanism needs to be promoted!  If we are going to create a more just world, converting people to atheism isn’t going to accomplish that. Encouraging people to adopt a more humanistic attitude will!

For the readers of my blog who are engaged in atheist activism or who use the term atheism when what you really mean is Humanism, please ask yourself why. Why do you promote atheism. If it is because you think atheism will help people become more humanistic, realize it doesn’t work.  If you want peoplet o be more humanistic, you need to talk to them about and promote Humanism.

If you want to learn more - get the Handy Humanism Handbook: https://humanistlearning.com/jen-hancocks-handy-humanism-handbook/

Why critical thinking is so important for kids

I don’t normally delve into religion or politics in this blog – but, I think recent events make an excellent case for why as parents; we need to ensure that our kids learn how to think critically. And this goes for all parents of all backgrounds and not just for humanist parents.

Recently a 19 year old boy was arrested at the airport as he tried to leave to go to Syria to aid ISIL. His parents are horrified. This is not what they taught him to value.  They are upset that ISIL is brain washing kids in this way.  They make a pretty good case that – look – he’s a kid – he’s stupid – he really didn’t understand the consequences of what he was planning to do and he came under the influence of a really bad cult.

I want to provide a quote from the interview Anderson Cooper did with his parents at (http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01/16/ac-intv-khan-durkin-isis-teen-parents.cnn) I want to draw your attention specifically to a comment made by his mother. This is not an exact quote because I left out the ums and you know, but it’s mostly correct.

When asked what she would say to other parents whose kids are watching these ISIL recruitment videos who may be unaware of the risk, she basically said,

 “Maybe the mistake we made. We were trying to protect our children. We were trying to protect our culture and our values.  But maybe that was a mistake. I would tell them to expose their children more to what is going on in the world. Help them develop critical thinking skills, to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.”

Why is this important?  Because her son was recruited by a violent cult and she had not prepared him properly to differentiate between good religion and bad religion.  She had taught him – to protect the culture and the values of that culture in the form of their religion – and THAT’s what made him vulnerable to recruitment by the cult.

The solution – learned too late to help her son – is to be more secular. Do not insulate yourself within your community. Expose yourself and your children to different ways of thinking – so they know what’s out there and so they learn – not to believe everything they are told.

And mostly – teach them that it’s not faith that makes you a good person. It’s how you choose to act.

Empiricism and Moral Politics

Why critical thinking is so critical to moral reasoning.

I reread some Bertrand Russell recently. One of the essays in particular struck me as important. It was an essay on Empiricism, specifically, how empiricism improves politics.

Empiricism is the idea that knowledge comes from experience. Russell goes further and defines it as a scientific mindset open to revision in which nothing is known absolutely. Basically, an empiricist occupies the middle ground between dogma and skepticism. Dogma is not being open to revision and strict skepticism refuses to acknowledge that we know anything for sure.  Empiricism, according to Russell is a balanced view based, as much as possible on what can be known objectively and understanding that what we think we know may not be so – which is the being open to revision part – which is essential to a scientific mindset.

Taking this approach has significant implications for moral reasoning, especially moral reasoning as it is applied in politics.  On the value of empiricism, Russell says,

“In the sphere of practical politics, this intellectual attitude has important consequences. In the first place, it is not worthwhile to inflict a comparatively certain present evil for the sake of a comparatively doubtful future good.”  He goes on to say, “If it were certain that without Jews the world would be a paradise, there could be no valid objection to Auschwitz; but if it is much more probably that the world resulting from such methods would be a hell, we can allow free play to our natural humanitarian revulsion against cruelty.”

Obviously, it would have been nice if he had taken a stronger stand in favor of the basic and intrinsic humanity of Jews, but his point about the important role that doubt plays in ensuring moral actions is critical.

Doubt prevents us from inflicting certain cruelty for uncertain rewards. This harkens back to the Epicurean formulation for morality. A little pain for a long term gain is ok. It’s amazing how often this formula is invoked to justify cruelty towards others, even today.

The empiricist, as Russell points out, will never accept that sort of deal precisely because it can never be considered moral. In such situations, the proposed better future is unlikely to result, but also because the methods to secure this better future are so heinous. It is highly unlikely you can use heinous methods and not create heinous results.

To translate that into simple English, when it comes to intentionally inflicting cruelty – the ends don’t justify the means because just ends can’t be created by unjust means, no matter how many TV shows and movies purport to show just that.