|
I originally set up this web page to start a revolution! No, seriously, I had this idea I thought was a good one -- the few people I've bounced it off, seemed to have agreed -- and it is this: Moral Minimalism. Before I go off on Moral Minimalism, I want to clear up something. It concerns separation of church and state. I think separation of church and state is a good idea. However, I think the total separation of morality and state is a bad idea. Church and morality are not identical. They are two different animals. Religions try to teach morality, some better than others, morality does not necessarilly try to induce religion. Anyway, with that in mind, I wrote a pro-life letter to the editor for our local paper which gives sort of the gist of moral minimalism. You can read that by following the link below. |
|
|
|
Moral Minimalism is not necessarilly a pro-life principle; it is a separate principle that can be applied to the abortion debate. Basically, the principle is this: there is a moral minimum beneath which a society or an individual shall not transgress and still deem itself civilized. The general criterion is life and death and excessive physical brutality. The principle is basically a reply to two different arguments. First, is the argument that you can't impose your beliefs on anyone else. Generally, I would agree, but there comes a time (as in the dog example in the letter) when you must intervene. There is a point where the use of force is justified, be it force through law or force of arms (e.g. when fighting Nazi Germany). The second argument or position that it is intended to rebut is moral relativism. There are times when one must actively seek to suppress certain cultural beliefs. For example, the Aztecs and the Thuggees of India practiced human sacrifice. The world is a better place now that that particular practice has been relegated to the past. Oh, it is also a reply to such arguments that there is no truth, no moral truth, no absolute truth, or no absolute moral truth. All of which are kind of popular these days. I think the biggest problem with moral minimalism will be agreeing where to draw the line. Arguing that there is no moral minimum is tantamount to saying that there are no depths to which we will not sink. But arguing for a particular "line in the sand" is bound to promote disagreement. Nevertheless, I drew one at life and death, and excessive physical brutality. Notably very low. Some people would want to raise the minimum to a higher level. Maybe one could do that, maybe one couldn't. But one must realize we are setting a minimum on behavior, and minimums are meant to be low.
As in the letter to the editor, I feel obliged to point out current moral issues that the moral minimalism principle might be applied to. These include: abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, and doctor-assisted suicide. Some issues that it obviously does not apply to are homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, race relations, etc... By nature, I think the issues to which the principle of moral minimalism applies are more important than the ones to which it does not. Being a non-violent racist is not as serious as beating someone senseless or killing someone. Moral minimalism carries with it the notion of moral weight, and that is something that seems to be lost in this day and age. |
|
