The Merits (or Immorality) of Indulgence

Question:

What are your financial obligations, if any, to our fellow human being?

Background:

Humankind’s religious traditions (and a good number of secular ones, too) are replete with archetypes of generosity.  The Islamic tradition boasts countless hyperbolic tales of munificence: of `Umar and Abu Bakr donating half and all of their possessions, respectively, to the community; of `Ali and Fatima sharing their very last dates with passersby on Ramadan evenings.  The same can be said of any of the world’s traditions, and in fact today’s two most generous philanthropists hold to no “tradition” at all. It would seem in examining the classical literature that these types of activities are the pinnacle of a morality-informed model of wealth — that to the extent that one has a privileged position of wealth, and to the extent that there are others in dire economic need, the most ethically superior act is to give away the difference.

But it doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to recognize that this ascetic lifestyle is not our society’s norm.  Perhaps for good reason: our jobs (if we have them) may be on thin ice, saving is at a premium in society [for those who can (retirement, health expenditures, children's collegiate expenses)], and our greater-than-bare-subsistence lifestyle is far from easily dispensed with.  To standardize the following discourse, let us presume (if it is not the case) that we have at least some disposable income, however small.

When we spend on ourselves, on non-essentials are we negating the notion that “All lives — no matter where they are being led — have equal value”? (from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).  If we are rejecting this notion, on what basis do we do so?  If we aren’t, is there a moral justification for this spending?  Can we say it is “wrong” for a multimillionaire to purchase a private jet for recreation while his (figurative) neighbors have to make difficult decisions between food and health care? On the other hand, is it mere reductionism think in terms of “spending on non-essentials for ourselves while other go without”?  I understand that the category of “non-essentials” is not self-explanatory, i.e. what would count as an indulgent expenditure (the newest iPhone, an iPhone in general, a phone in general) if another individual isn’t able to place food on the table or afford medication?  Surely built into these questions as well are our opinions as to why people are poor, and also why people are rich (they earned it, they benefited from their social situation, pure luck, some combination thereof).

Ethicist Peter Singer lays out a compelling argument that “doing our share” isn’t good enough; also present is the story of Zell Kravinsky who donated the near totality of his 45 million dollar fortune to live a humble lifestyle with his life and family.  Also, upon hearing that thousands of people die each year awaiting kidney transplants, and that the risk of death associated with the effects of donations are 1 in 4,000, he made a non-directed kidney donation to a stranger. (accessible here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?pagewanted=all, the original article can be found here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972—-.htm).  Thus, the stories of individuals giving away nearly everything are not only the legendary narratives in scriptures and hagiographies.

At the same time, I heard a philosopher state that each year, with millions of Americans barely making ends meet, families across country take summer vacations to Disney World and elsewhere for the enjoyment of their children, and it’s a good thing as a society that we do.  I always wish I had heard his explanation, perhaps one of you can provide it.

 Dynasty 1 | Diminishing Returns and the Extent of Obligation

I think it’s interesting to note the way in which billionaires spend their money. It seems to me that billionaires eventually “run out” of things to buy. As their wealth increases, they typically buy houses, cars, and all those wonderful material possessions. There is a point of diminishing returns however where more money and more “stuff” ceases to increase happiness, at which point so many billionaires start to donate their money. This was Jim Leitner’s reasoning; he’s a hedge fund guy, and one day he decided that he ran out of things to spend his money on. He was approached by members of Fordham about putting his money to good use, and the Leitner center was born. Now he throws his fortune at human rights projects around the world. This isn’t to downplay the wonderful works of philanthropists, I don’t think these acts are based in anything greedy or selfish. On the contrary, I think that deriving happiness from the happiness of others through genuine empathy is the key to altruism.

I do wonder however why it takes us so long to get to that point of diminishing returns. I’d be interested to see a study on how much money people give away per different levels of wealth and income. I would imagine a sort of third degree function where people at low income levels don’t give any charity (because they can’t afford it), as wealth increases, so too does charitable giving. But at some point, money begins to corrupt and we start spending money on ourselves in large amounts, while still giving some charity, but perhaps at smaller percentages? But it goes back up when we run out of things to buy. But that wasn’t the question you asked, right?

I remember having a similar discussion on an earlier thread regarding our moral obligations to help others in need. We concluded that legally, you have no such obligation (except in Vermont, remember?) but I’m not sure if we came to a conclusion regarding moral obligation. Supposing that whatever creed we happen to be following is the “moral way”, I think it’s interesting to note that Islamic finance does not prohibit the rich and the poor from existing. People are allowed to be rich, and people are allowed to let poor people exist. On the other hand, it still holds true in Islam that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye. I think this means that people who have the means to help others are morally obligated to do so, the question however is the extent. Certainly we shouldn’t force everyone to be like Vincent Van Gogh, giving up all of our wealth and living as a beggar. Islam tells us that we are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of life which have been made permissible to us. That also begs the question of extent, how much spending on ourselves does it take to make that spending “non-permissible”? Again people are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor; the question is just one of extent.

The answer in Christianity is quite clear: 90%. (This is “tithe”, that everyone must constantly give 10% of their income to charity.) But it’s less clear in Islam since zakat really isn’t that much, and saddaqa isn’t associated with any set percentages.

I think we can think of this in two ways. One framework could be that everyone in a society (or the global society) has a base “necessity”. This is calculated by taking all of the resources and materials (the “stuff”) in the world, dividing it evenly among everyone (accounting for special circumstances of course such as medical conditions, disabilities, etc.), and whatever that amount is, that is everyone’s “base necessity” (sort of like a poverty line, but way more than 1.08 dollars a day). If you are below this, keep all your wealth. If you are above it, you must give away wealth until you reach the “base necessity” line. All of your income above that will continue to go to charity. If everyone cooperates, the gini index will equal 1, everyone will have the same amount of “stuff”, and everyone is even. Spending on yourself after you have reached the “base necessity line” is immoral.

I don’t like this at all. It doesn’t account for the idea that people who work harder should get more. So perhaps we could adjust the “base necessity line” or the “base wealth line” as a formula to “amount worked” or “amount of utility”.

Another framework would be a spectrum. We can say the more you earn, the more obligations you have to give to others. I think this is actually the way Islam does it. This would allow us to enjoy more of our wealth according to our earnings, and it will still require us to give charity. I don’t really know where to go from there.

I should also note that I disagree with answering moral questions formulaic-ly (which is exactly what I just did). I think that moral questions must be tested and answered a prior-ly, but maybe this formula stuff could render an interesting thought experiment?

Dynasty 2 | Devotion and Charity: A Religious Perspective

Very interesting topic and one that is incredible hard to answer.  In my personal opinion, donation comes from a personal connection to God and humanity.  One without the other can have some satisfaction but complete contentment comes when both are present.  For Abu Bakr and Umar (r), there connection was that deep.  There cause was that important.  I say there cause b/c although I share their same faith, I can’t say I have the same level of faith to be able to recognize the very purpose of existence that they did.  One of the most interesting stories that I remember is when Umar (r) was Khalifa.  It was noted he would spend all day at the work for the people and most of the night in devotion.  This seems a bit unrealistic until you hear stories that Malcolm X would only sleep 4 hours a night.  The reason being was the devotion they had to their purpose.  We can all probably relate.  All-nighters are not something we are in the habit of but at times our devotion to getting done whatever it is we need to takes over.  Now imagine a devotion for a purpose that spans the entirety of your life.  Would sleep, money, or anything else really stand in the way?  In some respects we could all be so lucky to find such a devotion that encompasses who we are and what our purpose is.

To the topic at hand.  The stories and encouragement we see the various religious traditions does give us examples of pious actions.  However, underlying that is something deeper.  It is a personal commitment that one must have to doing what has a profound effect on them.  In that sense, pointing out the action is nice and definitely praiseworthy.  But actions on their own must be rooted in some foundation.  If it is in pleasure of others, then your commitment to a course of action will only happen until you see success in changing people’s lives (not always the case unfortunately as sometimes we do fall short).  If your action is rooted in being praised, then your commitment will only sustain you until someone does something bigger and more deserving of praise which dwarfs your ability.  However, to do something for Allah (swt) and simply to be near to him, to truly have that belief will be something that is never ending in this life.  So to donate and give to those less fortunate, the underlying principle must arise from devotion and not from simply the action.

That said, in Islam (which is the only religion I feel confident enough to discuss), there is zakat.  Zakat can have a devotional aspect to it as discussed above (in which case paying that amount would be considered too little).  However, Zakat also has a practical aspect to it.  Remember, Zakat isn’t on income but rather functions as a tax on the hoarding of wealth.  Meaning, if you earn an income and spend it all consuming things (food, vacations, etc), and do not possess any savings or wealth (i.e. items such as gold, etc) then you have zero Zakat obligations.  One may wonder if this is just or if this is what was meant by Allah (swt).  True, self consumption one will be held accountable for but that doesn’t mean one couldn’t do it.  However, this points to the function of Zakat as being a way to encourage organic growth, investment, and spending in a broader economic context.  If you take today’s economic crisis and notice what we are trying to do with tax cuts and spending measures is to create economic growth by encouraging others to spend and invest.  Instead perhaps a tax on that wealth would encourage people to spend.  Thus Zakat, while it could be looked at as a devotional aspect is at the same time also a very practical tool devoid of devotional considerations.

Overall, I do believe that issues like this are ones where the devotional aspect is needed and to encourage outside action to cause charity is good up to a point if there is no devotional connection.  Remember, the very person we condemn for buying a private jet is putting someone to work who probably needs that job.  On the hand, scholars would often shun away from eating at restaurants not b/c it was sinful but rather they were afraid that there would be people who could not afford to eat at a restaurant passing by and it would hurt their feelings.  Thus, we must remember there is balance in some respects.  On the one hand we do need certain spending done in order to keep certain economic growth going and helping people to get jobs.  At the same time, on a personal level, we must increase our own devotional connection with Allah (swt) and realize that connection through other people and actions.

I can’t say I have found a full balance or clear explanation.

Dynasty 3 | Distance as the Extent of Our Moral Obligation

In agreement with Peter Singer’s general viewpoint that we have some kind of moral obligation to donate our disposable wealth to the poor, I would like to bring to the fore the issue of whether or not the extent of our moral obligation donate money to the poor is dependent on distance.  By “distance”, I mean to say whether or not we have a greater obligation toward our own family, our own community members, or our friends, than we do toward someone in a developing country on another continent.  Singer does not give much (or maybe any) moral significance to the notion of distance. I would like to present a few ways to argue in favor of the moral importance of distance in determining the relative extent of our moral obligations toward helping others, and then use this view as a possible attempt to justify spending money on the enjoyment of our children beyond bare necessities.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation quote seems to imply that an attempt to justify spending for enjoyment or something beyond bare necessity on oneself or one’s children would have to rest on the notion that all human beings do not have equal value. In other words, if we were only to recognize that all human beings do have equal value, we would not spend on anything beyond the bare necessities as long as there are others we could be helping with our disposable income. However, I think that setting up in the question in terms of whether or not all human beings have equal value is not the most appropriate way to do justice to the issue of the role of distance in determining the extent of our obligations. This is because one can still justify the view that our moral obligations differ on the basis of distance while still assuming that all human beings have equal intrinsic value. In other words, I don’t have to claim that my close friend has a higher intrinsic value than someone in a developing country to justify the claim that my moral obligation to donate my disposable income is greater toward the close friend than toward the person in the developing country.

I think there are two ways to argue in favor the moral significance of distance while still maintaining that all human beings have equal value.

One argument is based on Michael Slote’s view of the central role that “empathy” and “self-other asymmetry” play in our moral judgments. According to Slote, the notion of “empathy” is built into our moral judgments, along with the notion of “self-other asymmetry.” For instance, Slote appeals to our intuition that we are allowed to sacrifice ourselves for some worthy cause, yet we would not say it is permissible to sacrifice someone else for the same cause. Or, we might think it permissible to autonomously engage in activities which harm ourselves, yet completely immoral to harm someone else in a similar fashion. According to this view, the level of empathy that one has for someone else should determine our moral obligations because we cannot think of morality without the notion of “self-other asymmetry” which is itself grounded in empathy. I don’t find this view too compelling, because it might be subject to the is-ought fallacy (just because we do think in terms of empathy or self-other asymmetry doesn’t mean we ought to) and it relies too much on reference to intuitions. Still, I think it has at least some force, and I’d like to see if anyone else has thought about the role of empathy. I know Dynasty 1’s post did mention the importance of empathy and altruism.

Another way to go about defending the moral significance of distance might be to rely on social structures of parenthood, family, and community. You might think that a society creates these structures of obligations to ensure that people who are in need are being taken care of, and that it is good to keep these structures local so that the aid or help can be sensitive to particular contexts. Along this line, one can make the argument that one has a greater obligation to spend money on one’s own children or the poor within one’s own community, than toward someone in a developing country, based on these socially defined roles. Although one can counter-argue that these social structures themselves have failed (due to the widespread persistence of poverty) and that a more “global” structure of roles and obligations would be more fitting for a world in globalization, I think the argument still has some teeth.

While I don’t find either of these 2 arguments 100% satisfactory for justifying buying private jets or spending money on lavish vacations, I do think they are good enough to argue against Singer’s extreme claim that we should treat our obligations toward someone in a developing country the same as our own children or our close friends or community members. In this sense, while the lavish vacations and private jets aren’t justified, I do think one can justify spending less of one’s disposable income for the global poor in order to spend more on a better college education for one’s child. Or, spending more of one’s disposable income to relieve poverty in Baltimore City (where I live) than in sub-Saharan Africa.

I would be glad to hear anyone else’s thoughts on the issue of the extent of our obligations as a function of distance (in terms of empathy, socially defined roles, or anything else).

Dynasty 4 | Obligation to Help

We are composites.  No human being was born wealthy, they either accumulated it on their own (e.g., business) or they were given that money from someone else (e.g., inheritance).  Other people have contributed to your success in some way shape or form.  (Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law Professor, sums this up:  http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs)  We owe people to be treated fairly, and whether that is in the form of money or creating infrastructure or investing in the society, the rich owe that to the rest of us.

Obligation to Help.  We all, as human beings in equal in worth, have a responsibility to help other human beings.  Because (1) we are social beings, we need society to function, (2) society has helped us get to where we are and it is selfish to not return the fruits of someone else’s labor. (3) Selfishness is bad.  However, we do not have an obligation to spend or limit our spending as a way of helping.  Again, we do have to help, but not necessarily in the form of charity, donation, or money.  We can help in a number of ways.  Feeding people, providing them shelter, educating them, building infrastructure, using your social/political power to make a change in practices, etc.  There are a number of ways to help, giving away your spare money is not necessary.

Morale and Motivation.  For some, as Dynasty 1 points out, money relates to happiness.  That happiness may keep one’s morale high, and certain chemicals in our brain are correlated with certain behaviors and certain chemicals are released from certain stimuli.  Have a relaxing vacation at Disney or watching a really cool movie will give you a burst in inspiration or pleasure, or it will revitalize you such that you are more likely to share in your happiness.  People’s work and attitude drop when they don’t have the opportunity to find enjoyment and certain things are created to facilitate enjoyment.  Outlets for dealing with stress are needed, and for some it’s spending, or partaking in activities that may be costly.  We should question the prices on these things and not the activity (assuming the activity is nothing unethical)

Pricing.  I place blame on companies and what not who charge exorbitant amounts of money for things that are the same as the generic.  But competition is what causes people to charge different prices for different things.  If everything was generic and at generic prices, there is no incentive to make something cooler or taste better or awesome or cheaper or efficient because it doesn’t matter, they will be purchased regardless.  Tylenol has incentive to make their drugs work better because someone is competing with them that offers a product that is more effective at fixing headaches quickly.  However, there needs to be a threshold at which companies cannot ask for, aka fair pricing.  iPhones are necessary for many because of its high functionality, but it did not cost that much to make and to charge that much is ridiculous solely because the hype around it will drive people to pay that amount.  These types of products ensure that the rich stay rich and poor stay poor.  Its a two way street.  Supply and demand type of situation.

Capitalism.  The point of capitalism as it is commonly understood is to maximize profits and people will do anything to maximize profits, whether it is exploiting people, or becoming more green to improve marketing because being “green” is the new thing to attract consumers.  (Slavoj Zizek has a great opinion on charity that Dynasty 5 once shared with me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g)  I argue that we should be more interested in the maximization of the quality of life, better health, better education opportunities, better access to the resources that we all own, etc. That should be valued in and of itself not because it will get you more customers.  It is justified if richer people pay more for things so the poor can pay less because the rich already have their basic needs met (e.g, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and the poor do not.  The poor’s responsibility is the meet these needs, something the rich (it is assumed) have achieved.  A system that helps everyone achieve these needs are important, and money can’t buy needs such as esteem and self-actualization.  The dent rich people feel in their quality of life is so low compared the dent a poor person will feel toward meeting their basic needs (Warren Buffett on this topic:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4)   If you want to talk about “Islamic” finance which is more or less the Islamization of our current financial models, true “Islamic” finance, or “Humanistic” finance is the model which I just articulated.    (Failures of Islamic finance:  http://works.bepress.com/haider_ala_hamoudi/6/)

Salaries.  We should give the most money to people who create opportunities for others.  (A Dynasty member shared a great video of me of Tupac Shakur articulating this: http://bit.ly/ryJZ4D).  The richest of society should be those who give the most in non material things like education, health, etc.  I am advocating that teachers should be the richest, then doctors, etc.  This obviously presumes who I value as important in society, but I am open to a reordering of these, but people like cashiers or hedge fund managers should be paid lowest.  I am familiar with the implications, and I will assume you understand the nuances of the point I am making here.

Also I disagree with Dynasty 2’s point about devotion in God or doing something for God as being a reason to do something. In fact, I am very much opposed to that idea.  We should donate or be good people because our action is good in and of itself irrespective of who says it’s good.  Reminds me of the Appeal to Authority.  The infinity life of “true belief and being near to God” is an arbitrary metaphysical belief that only a self selecting group buys into.  With that same logic, we could argue something extreme like, it is the devotion that can justify immoral actions like killing.   We should evaluate the deed by itself.  Atheists donate to charity, volunteer their time and they don’t believe in a pie in the sky god.  They recognize the value in the deed.  The alternative question is, if God didn’t exist, would you not donate?  According to that logic, no.  There are better reasons for why we should donate, I hope I articulated that above, and I think Dynasty 1 posed his/her reasons as well.

In sum, to answer the question:  we are not negating the idea that all are created equal when we spend on “non-essentials” because what qualifies as “non-essential”?  Things serve different purposes for different people including for recreation.  There is some sort of meaning that is placed on the financial transactions we partake in and fulfill some sort of need.  Needs are “essential,” no?  Hence, it would be reductionist to think of it in terms of “spending on non-essentials for ourselves while other go without”.  We are, however negating that all are created equal when we don’t help people, and help doesn’t necessary have to be in the form of money.  It is wrong to not help the neighbors who “have to make difficult decisions between food and health care” but that help does not have to be monetary, we should seek creative and/or alternatives to help.

Dynasty 1 | Alternative Considerations

In response to Dynasty 3’s interpretation of the Bill Gates Foundation’s quote, I think it’s dangerous to equate the value someone has with the amount of money we give them. Legally the value of a human life is an “inalienable” right (and in fact the only inalienable right, not even life itself is inalienable). Law makers and courts struggle with attributing a money damages award to wrongful death/homicide civil actions because it is so hard to quantify a human life with money. This means however that just because we don’t give someone as much money as we do to our kids doesn’t mean they are worth less, and I think that helps your argument.

In regards to Dynasty 3’s argument about distance.  What about the efficiency argument? It is more efficient to help those closest by considering transfer/transportation costs, learning curb of societal understanding, logistics, etc. Also, people close by tend to be more open to it. If I open a charity in my neighborhood, that’s great. If I do so in Ghana, I’m met with the response “who is this white foreigner coming into my country telling me what to do?” I call this the “hearts and minds” cost. This is of course a utilitarian-esque argument.

In regards to Dynasty 4’s point about capitalism. I don’t think capitalism’s main goal is in fact to maximize profits. I think it’s to curb human nature to help and not hurt society. People will do what they want, so let’s create a system wherein people do what they want and those actions help the entire system (i.e. a market). I’m going to make an Islamic bank. This is moral and Godly, etc., but I’m doing it because I’m selfish and I love money.  However, I don’t think my moral obligation of charity comes into play here.  As far as Islamic finance is concerned, this is structured such that charity by institutions is correlated to the financial instability of the community.

I think that Dynasty 2’s relationship-with-God reasoning is very important. First, if you get people to do good things for any reason, we win (e.g. capitalism).  Second, remember one of the names of God in Islam is “the truth” or “the reality”. Hence doing something “for” God is doing something more than a being or entity, it is doing something because it is in fact the right thing to do. It is, depending on your relationship with God as Dynasty 2 pointed out, the essence of morality, that is, doing something just because it is the right thing to do.

I would still like to pose the question: to what extent are we obligated to give? Is there a bright line test? Is it a subjective standard? Legally there is no standard. Islamically it seems subjective. In Christianity it is 10 percent but better to give more. Is there a bare minimum of how much we’re supposed to give?

In terms of Dynasty 4’s argument about the obligation to help; I think selfishness is great, it is human nature. We should help people because we are social/a part of a society and want society to succeed, I agree. But this is in fact a selfish reason. Capitalism seems amoral, but I actually think we can have a moral capitalism, i.e. one based on the good parts of human nature to suppress the bad parts of human nature (e.g. use jealousy to curb envy). Unfortunately charity seems at odds with capitalism (unless we conceptualize charity as “buying positive empathy” which I don’t like). Actually, maybe that’s the reality. Thoughts?

Dynasty 4 | Capitalism and a Defense of Distance

Dynasty 1, you ask “to what extent are we obligated to give?”

We are not obligated to give, but obligated to help as it relates to our capacity to help and whether or not an effort is made.  Your obligation to help varies based on your “distance” to the person.  I.e., you are obligated to help your child MORE than child X.  Why does distance matter?  Because the people “closest” to you are responsible for shaping who you are, they have sacrificed to some extent to help you get to where you are.  This is where I disagree completely with another Dynasty member who said that he does not discriminate who to help based on their relationship to him.  Which is the most absurd thing I have heard since the people who have sacrificed their time to help you achieve your status deserve your attention first.  You don’t donate to a random university, you donate to your alma mater because your alma mater shaped you, and random university didn’t shape you as a person.  The way you haven’t accumulated your money on your own, you haven’t become who you are on your own.

Capitalism and Libertarianism.  I Disagree with Dynasty 1.  We should NOT let people do what they want.  No individual autonomy, more of a principled autonomy.  People’s actions, as insignificant as that person may think they are, actually have a weight on society and social norms.  A person who wants to pimp himself may seem innocent enough, but someone who looks up to him may be convinced to partake in that activity.  We have to recognize how our actions relate to the collective norm-making process that takes place.

God v. Good.  You run into the Euthyphro dilemma (which Dynasty 3 brought to my attention earlier this week).  I wager that the deed should be Good in and of itself regardless your source of motivation, whether it be for God or for something else.  The deed should matter, not the approval of some authority.  It does make much sense for someone to do something “for God” and it being something more than for “a being or entity.”  If you want to add a religion twist, I would wager then, that the deed is Good is promoted by scripture.  It is not good because the scripture says it’s good.

Selfishness.  Just because selfishness is an inclination, and he can divorce ourselves from what is, and do what ought to be.

Capitalism.  Why do you have to work within capitalism? Why not some other system?

Dynasty 2 | On God, Humanity, and Morality

I figure since my injecting God into the discourse started one of these tangents I should finally chime in and explain my position clearly.  First, I believe I needed to make myself fairly clear that it is both God and Humanity that I said need to be served.  Not one without the other.  By that token one could do one without the other, it just would be incomplete in my opinion.  Therefore, an atheist can do objectively (or overwhelmingly subjectively) moral/just actions.  I am not here to deny that and anyone in faith would probably not deny that either.

To the point on why I mentioned God and Humanity.  There is a premise of why people believe we must be moral beings.  If I am at a superior material/social level why should I be morally just or charitable to those “below” me.  Is it because I wouldn’t have gotten where I was if it wasn’t for them?  There are philosophical postulations that support this position for sure.  John Rawls came up with the Veil of Ignorance to support this notion of what constitutes as moral norms.  However, assuming we can objectively determine what the moral norms are, doesn’t mean there is a full scale mechanism to apply today.  Even if we find that there are moral norms that say we must be grateful, there is still the flawed assumption people will recognize it.  What if I just decided I had no reason to be grateful?  Seems a bit callous for sure, but at the same time, a person who is not grateful would probably not recognize the interdependence of the individual and society in getting where they have gotten.  Rather they will take an individualistic point of view and say “I did this” or “I accomplished this”.  Perhaps this person will give some gratefulness to their professors, parents, mentors, etc.  But he could easily ignore being grateful to some random blue collar worker, or a starving child in Africa.  Why would he be grateful to them?

There has always been a debate in philosophy on the inherent nature of a human being.  Are they inherently good or self-interested?  Classic Locke v. Hobbes.  If you assume that human beings are inherently good, then the gratefulness would be self-evident.  If you assume, however, that human beings are inherently self-interested, then comes the notion of how to get the human being to do good.  It requires finding motivating factors, but those motivating factors must move the pendulum of self-interest otherwise they won’t work.  So simply saying, hey we are all interdependent, won’t work unless they truly see and believe that.  This is a hard sale to say the least (per the example above).  Thus the other motivating factors could simply be sheer force (democratic elections with policy implications of higher taxes, shame, or in certain cases pure revolutionary force).  It could also be the desire for something intangible (donating to become known as a philanthropist, or because you are emotionally moved by someone else’s plight, etc.).

Overall, my point is this.  I say working for humanity and God solely from my own focal point on how I look at faith, philosophy and how I see the world working.  Working for Humanity has not been much disagreed upon right now.  However, the reason I place in God is because that is my inherent motivation.  It is what takes me out of my base inner-self of self-interest and moves me to my higher natural state (yes I know I am combing Locke and Hobbes, but that’s how I believe Islam views human beings).  Perhaps there are other forces, philosophical, etc. that work in a manner that religion does.  I don’t discount, but I will say I have seen religion as a leading major motivating factor for good (and yes, unfortunately, for evil as well).  But academically speaking, when looking at what motivates people to move off their self-interest standard, religion does indeed play a role and it’s important to acknowledge.

Dynasty 5 | On Human Nature, Charity, and Wealth

As Dynasty 4 previously mentioned my interest with regards to Slavoj Zizek’s argument, this is undoubtedly a topic I’ve wanted to contribute to.

The idea that humans (and human nature) are inherent driving factors of a capitalist economy is something that I find particularly unhelpful in any larger discussion on the matters at hand here: charity, empathy, altruism etc. I have to agree with Dynasty 4 in his/her argument towards capitalism as a bedeviling system that attempts to maximize profit. And in this system we incentivize and bring about a human nature (greediness, competitiveness), not human nature itself. A particularly well articulated frustration of this monolithic sensibility of human nature was expressed in relation to Occupy Wall Street (OWS) here: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111191022862285.html

I think that human nature can be equally caring, selfless and collaborative (and wish our economy could bring these natures to bear our fruits of labor). I would agree that religion can be a system that encourages this type of humanity. Religion is not the only means to the emergence of these characteristics. Family and friends (in the 1.0 sense expressed by Zadie Smith here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/?page=1) are two other ways by which these qualities are manifested.

On Distance.  Jumping off from some of the points that Zizek makes, I think that the distance afforded between let’s say someone in “need” of a new pair of shoes in the United States and a child [truly] in need of shoes in sub-Saharan Africa has provided a very convenient place for our capitalist system to lodge itself and create opportunities [for profit]. I think that the distance is in many ways key here, for:

 1. There remains an element of unknown, so that we as American consumers are able to imagine a very incomplete version of the truth where a young aspiring child now has shoes, and thus the world at their feet!

2. That incompleteness creates a lot of problems a la neo-imperialist; how are we permitting ourselves to profit and feel that our thirst for a moral path has been quenched in the same singular act?

This leads to pertinent questions: how are we letting communities in Durham, Baltimore, Chicago, eastern NC, Harlem, Oakland ad infinitum suffer? These are communities in our backyards. I would argue that the proximity is in fact the issue, because in our heart of hearts we know these fights: illegal farm workers in Tar heel, NC and subsistent [turned Marxist] farmers in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, are not as simple as a single purchase (or even a culmination of an entire society purchasing in this way). We prefer to feel good in that singular act rather than face the difficulties of reality.

The Veil of Ignorance doesn’t hold true in our globalized world. The “99%” at occupy wall street (which I would assert mostly reflects the 90-99% range and particularly excludes people of color, aboriginal Americans and those who would fall in the 0-25%) knows that it will go home to relative comforts (and is part of a 1% global population) My point being that we know our place in society and we act accordingly, the people at OWS have a capacity and agency to take their fight to Zuccotti Park, but they too are not fully able to understand the scope of what is needed or what exists. My favorite question to myself is how to we gainfully employ the bankers, hedge fund managers etc? And are you Mr. or Mrs. protester willing to unpack boxes and stock shelves at your local grocery store (even if you are making a living wage and its all organic food being sold there?) Those individuals know where they come from and they too have personal demands and indulgences that are part of the economy we live in today. They will go into any decision making process, no matter how equitable the process, with that in mind.

On the Relativity of Wealth and Poverty.  Charity is fascinating; Zizek argues almost outright that it’s bad. He describes Soros as “building with one hand what he destroyed with the other.” The fact that he was able to accumulate wealth to such a great degree is the only way that he is able to now donate in the way he does.

This isn’t how social democracies work: Scandinavia, Canada, Germany etc. I struggle to think of individual private funding in these places that even comes near to the degree that this happens in the US [Saudi and UAE].

On the flip side, the World Bank wants to bring down the poverty line in India to 28 rupees because “you can live in a village in India on 28 rupees [and you can virtually eliminate poverty in India if this is your benchmark]. In Montreal last week there were 30,000 students in the street because tuition was being raised (from about $2,600) by 75%. It’s bizarre coming from the US knowing friends in debt tens of thousands of dollars and fighting against these kinds of raises.

Canada (as my other most familiar point of reference) provides an interesting counterpoint to American philanthropy. The country doesn’t have the kind of accumulated wealth that the US has and subsequently we don’t have universities that send their students for study abroad trips, internships etc globally or the likes of the Gates or Soros Foundation. Yet we have a system where one could argue that education is truly accessible (38% have post-secondary educations: the highest in the world), as is healthcare, there is multiparty democracy (with government provided campaign spending).

It’s far from perfect. But I think that with the excess of accumulation of wealth [and subsequent indulgence] in the US, the need for charity to fill that same gap in moral lacking has been necessitated. Whether we are talking about tithe (no matter how convenient the 10% number is), zakat, or charity, will a compulsion predicated on a systemic dictate ever fill the void of an indulgent lifestyle?

My own answer is no. Community, solidarity and constantly trying to counter a subjected “human nature” are where that filled void can come from (for the void is created increasingly by Zadie Smith’s 2.0 people that exist on the facebook profiles of nearly every person camped out at OWS). Faith and community based around faith can definitely be a vehicle for many of these ills, and one day, hopefully, we will have an economy that offers [and values] a similar vehicle.

Edited by: Abbas R

The Point of ‘Marriage’

Question: 

What is the point of marriage?

Background Material: 

http://www.abbasrattani.com/2/post/2011/01/on-relationships.html

Taking people for granted:  http://www.abbasrattani.com/2/post/2011/01/enhancing-relationships.html

Dynasty 1:  Marriage as Contract

As I see it, marriage is a contract between two people, and in that contract there are a number of promises that are made and are to be kept.  Things like: will help with the financial burdens, take care of any offspring if we choose to have them, not copulate or have intimate relations with another person, etc.  And morally speaking, we are obligated to uphold these promises, and if we don’t we are basically denigrating the worth of that person.

For example, if a man cheats on his wife he is basically saying via action:  “The betrayal and hurt you will feel by my actions is not worth anything such that I feel comfortable violating my obligation.”

Demonizing another human’s value is immoral because if the tables were turned we wouldn’t want that same situation to happen to us.  Almost all relationships that we have with people are contractual relationships; we expect certain things and behaviors from people, and when they break those contracts we expect them to apologize and make amends.

But what makes a marriage different is that it is intended for life.  It has legal and moral components. The legal part intervenes when the contract is broken or violated.  Law is useful in addressing situations when someone wrongs you so much that they need to be punished for their immoral actions.  The moral component is similar to most relationships between people, it is a constructed obligatory principle that makes humans operate with each other on an ethical level.

Maybe marriages should have an escape clause, or a renewal clause so that after X amount of years people can decide to renew it or negate it.  But then the question of children come in, is it necessary for children to be raised by a mother and father?  (What about homosexual parents, or single moms, or being raised by other relatives, adoption, etc).  Is it reasonable to expect two individuals to be married happily for so long? Is happiness even a concern?

It seems to me when humans start viewing other humans as disposable in value, or take them for granted they seem to act in morally suspect ways because to them, their relationship, and that person is not of equal value to them.  Because all humans are infinite in value, it’s concerning when someone starts devaluing another person.

Dynasty 2:  Paternalistic Power Dynamics in Marriage

While in the most ideal fashion marriage is, as described, a contract between two individuals formalizing their commitment to one another I begin to question its value and in some cases relevance in the modern era. As U.S. divorce rates remain quite high (1 in 2 in some studies), one is forced to confront the necessity of marriage in the first place. If we extract the obvious tax and medical benefits that heterosexual couples are offered in the U.S. if they choose marriage: filing joint tax returns, federal and state benefits, the ability to make emergency medical decisions, then we come to consider the less quantitative benefits associated with marriage.

Several studies have been devoted to studying the biological human need for establishing kinship systems (I certainly am no anthropological expert) however several researchers have explored our intense human need to settle down with a mate, it is in our nature to trust the familiar and fear the strange. I fully accept the human pursuit of settling down with someone; however I refuse to believe that this can only be successfully achieved through the institution of marriage. Recently the number of long term committed couples who choose not to get married has risen. This can be attributed to a number of factors, many point to the rising number of women in the labor force as women no longer have to become married in order to be financially stable.

The Canadian Encyclopedia refers to these couples who cohabitate but do not perform a ceremony as “common law marriage” which I think stems from the need for Western societies to formalize and codify relationships. “In Canada and most other industrialized countries the marriage rate is declining and the number of families living in common-law relationships is increasing… The 1981 census was the first Canadian census to record common-law unions: at that time approximately 6% of couples were living common-law. Twenty years later the rate had more than doubled (14%)”  (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005119)

Which leads me to my major problem with marriage: the paternalistic power dynamics that accompany marriage and serve to oppress women.  I can’t put it any better than militant feminist activist Emma Goldman in her essay Marriage and Love, “The popular notion about marriage and love is that they are synonymous, that they spring from the same motives, and cover the same human needs.  Like most popular notions this also rests not on actual facts, but on superstition….Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact.  It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting…If, however, woman’s premium is her husband, she pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life…If motherhood is the highest fulfillment of woman’s nature, what other protection does it need, save love and freedom?  Marriage but defiles, outrages, and corrupts her fulfillment.  Does it not say to woman, Only when you follow me shall you bring forth life?  Does it not condemn her to the block, does it not degrade and shame her if she refuses to buy her right to motherhood by selling herself?”

While Goldman’s point of view is certainly extreme and she was writing in 1917 which one can argue women have come a long way since then, as a woman living in the contemporary world I can’t help but point out that my perceived value as a human being is lessened if I choose not to get married and if I choose to get married there inevitably is an expectation that I will take on the burden of 80% of the chores, leave work if I want a family and give up part of my identity for my husband. Is it worth it? Many continue to think so and as someone who has been blessed to live in a home with two parents who are happily married and truly love each other, not fabricated cheesy Hollywood love with walks on the beach and making out in the rain, but rather a commitment to one another through the good and the bad, to support one another and be companions, perhaps there is still a thrill to be found in declaring eternal love to someone in a formal contractual agreement.

Also as I explore the current fight for homosexual couples to marry I was touched by this NPR peace: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128409696.

I do not know if I will ever be able to fully accept that marriage as an institution. It is flawed, and mostly outdated, carries consequences in the quest for gender equality and is mistakenly associated as the only means for couples to demonstrate true love. I think love is a far more powerful force, radically more significant than any contract or institution. However, I speak from the perspective of a semi jaded 19 year old feminist and my biases are apparent. Currently I think it is most important that we allow all individuals to make the choice of whether they want to be married or not. Even if it is a poor choice, I believe all people should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

Dynasty 1:  Formal Marriage and Love

If true love exists outside of marriage and a “common law marriage” is a way of holding parties accountable in a court of law if there is a contract breech, then is there a point of getting married formally?

I ask this because:

(1) I also believe that love can exist outside of a legal marriage, but I also believe that two people in love or two people who care about each other already enter in a contract with each other.  Close friends have obligations to each other, and if one violates their obligation their friendship can be at risk.  Hence, couples, non-legally married, are more or less married in an unspoken contract and they more or less make a commitment to each other not to violate the sanctity of their bond (side note, interesting new book by Harvard philosophy professor “All Things Shining” on how the term ‘sacred’ has lost meaning in today’s society; I agree. MacIntyre talks a little about this in “after virtue”).  I see nothing wrong with awarding them the privileges that certain cultures, religions, and societies bestow upon formally married parities.

(2) The concept of marriage is socially constructed and one probably created to preserve lineage or legacy.

Dynasty 3:  A Dating Contract

The purpose of marriage, and possibly life itself, is simply happiness. Focusing on any particular perspective of marriage, such as the moral / legal / expectation conception (Dynasty 1) or the feminist perspective (Dynast 2) may over-complicate the picture unnecessarily or just attempt to explain away individual preferences / emotions.

I have to call out this obligation / expectations theory.  The foundation of marriage, or any union, is love. The contract / obligations come second. But defining marriage in terms of ‘I expect X as per contract clause Y’ takes the essence out of any loving relationship. Expectations usually get in the way emotional well being, as they can turn into burdens. However, recognize the distinction between expectations and decisions. Decisions are where two people out of love decide to do X or Y for one another. Expectations can be created out of thin air while Decisions are made by two people set on a foundational basis of love.

On a tangent, I still think that some preparation before getting married is very necessary. Dating can be useful but is highly vulnerable to abuse, while temporary marriages are quite useful but presupposes good faith. So, I support some sort of dating contract that sets the goals / boundaries of pre-marriage interaction for those want to get married.

Dynasty 1:  Expectations and Marriage

A marriage is a promise; you can have love without making promises.  You can make promises without having love.  A promise is a contract.  And expectations do not come out of thin air; expectations are something you can anticipate to happen because it is only what a morally mature person would do. You expect a person to be at location Z when they said they would.  You expect person to not cheat on you when the both of you are exclusive.  You expect the truth, etc.  Decision is made when a problem or dispute is present, it is something you solve/resolve.

Is there any real need to get married?

Dynasty 2: Marriages as Social Etiquette

I have to disagree with a previous point saying that discussions of perspectives/obligation/roles are arbitrary when discussing marriage because love is the most important factor to be considered. If this is the case and in hopes that we formulate societies that allow for the ultimate open pursuit and recognition of love then we must question whether when we impose institutions like marriage if they serve as unnecessary burdens and in some cases detract from what the previous commenter (and Aristotle) previously stated as the ultimate human goal: true happiness.

I also have a hard time understanding the emphasis on contracts when discussing agreements/relationships. Western thought seems to have this obsession with contract. Social contract is heralded as the basis for our political system. If we extract the term contract and say instead that humans enter relationships on a leap of faith, hoping that when you allow yourself to be vulnerable with another person that they will not take advantage of that trust and vulnerability I don’t know if that is necessarily a ‘contract’ or rather just our biological need to find ties.

But even as I make the most rational argument I can think of for why marriage seems on the whole unnecessary and based upon antiquated notions of ‘being proper’ there are individuals who despite these doubts choose to get married, some even fighting fiercely for the opportunity. I don’t really know why someone would want to get married but there seems to be a sort of security that comes with formally establishing that you plan on staying with someone for the rest of your life.

However, what I do not understand is that if you wanted to be with someone then you would be with them, marriage or no marriage. Even if you choose to stay married simply to follow up on your commitment past the point of loving someone doesn’t that prove that marriage serves more harm than good?

Dynasty 4: Marriage as a Symbol

In my attempt to begin to answer that question, I have to bring us all back to our earlier thread about symbols.  Marriage, in the way I see it, is very much a symbol of one’s love/commitment/devotion to someone else. No, I do not in any way think that is the only way, or even that it is necessary (as I said earlier), to demonstrate one’s love to one’s significant other. However, I do think that marriage is, in our society, perceived as a symbol of the love two people have for one other. I think it is for this reason (excluding the legal benefits Dynasty 2 mentioned that one gains from being in a marriage) that same-sex couples and allies fight so adamantly for the right of marriage.

Aside from the legal advantages a marriage has over a civil union, marriage has itself stood for many centuries as a symbol, a symbol that many feel (including myself) that all couples deserve to partake in. I believe it is for the sake of this symbol (and to not be discriminated against) that homosexual couples want the state to recognize same-sex marriages.

This may be an aside, but I was just considering this a couple of days ago – why do people wear wedding bands, or engagement rings? (I am not including here the women who love to show off how much money their husband/fiance has) I could not come up with a practical reason, other than perhaps functioning as sort of a I’m-not-available warning sign to other singles out there; I think, most significantly, it is a symbol that has carried on through the years that demonstrates the endless commitment and love two people have for each other.

Although I agree that, technically speaking, marriage is a contractual agreement between two people, I view it more importantly as a symbol that has permeated our society for thousands of years. Whether we choose to marry someone or not should certainly be left at each person’s discretion (and if one chooses not to be married, he/she most definitely should not be criticized for it), but my understanding of why one would choose to be married is for the sake of this symbol, a promise – as Dynasty 1 said earlier – to be fully committed and loving “until death do us part.”

Dynasty 1: A Deontological View of Marriage

Symbols, in this day in age, still do and don’t have meaning.  The contemporary Aristotelian scholar, MacIntyre, seems to believe that our language of things that have meaning, namely morality, is fragmented and now meaningless.  That book “All Things Shining” also references the idea that we have lost meaning to the word sacred.  Marriage, in some alternate universe, is supposed to be a tawheedic (Oneness) symbol, a union of two in a cosmically divine sense.  Some even say that the circular nature of a ring is in and of itself a symbol of an infinite eternal type of love.

A contract is a promise that is made.  That promise doesn’t have to be vocalized, and I think in our own human consciousness we automatically make promises to uphold certain expectations when we make that “leap of faith” to trust someone and we also expect that when a person joins us in that “leap” he/she also promises to uphold and honor the expectations made of said person.  Because, if it was such the case that we didn’t think or care about promises (or more formally, contracts) we wouldn’t feel guilty if we hurt someone, or the person wouldn’t feel resentment if they were wronged.  The very nature of feeling wronged is based on the idea that as a human being we owe something to our fellow human being and at its base level, it is to respect our dignity (a word that has now lost meaning as MacIntyre points out.)  Tim Scanlon, in “What We Owe To Each Other” highlights this concept in more detail.  At the fundamental bond between two humans, a contract/promise/expectation exists of a certain type of behavior that does not lead to feelings of indignation.

If I decide to copulate with another out of biological inclination, there is still a level of moral obligation that I owe to the person I am copulating with, and that is to acknowledge them as an end, and not as a means.  The moment, I simply use another to satiate my desire (a biological inclination) I have committed an immoral act because I have basically said that the person I am copulating with has no worth outside of satiating my desire.  That right there is immoral.  This also goes for our need to have a partner, or be social.  We should be aware if we using others for our personal socio-psychological reasons.

The moment you extend your vulnerability to someone, you expect that the person honors and respects it.  You trust the person with your vulnerability.  If that trust or expectation is violated, you are less likely to extend it in the future as a way of protecting yourself from crippling feelings of indignation.  Biologically, a person wouldn’t extend their vulnerabilities (an element of human weakness) if they were going to be violated because that lead to devastating biological consequences.  People only extend their vulnerabilities because latent in that extension is an expectation of upholding a contract/promise to not violate or undermine one’s dignity.

Dynasty 3:  Marriage as a Tool

Asking ‘what is the point of marriage?’ risks building a straw man to be knocked down, and presupposes that marriage has to have a point.

Rather, why not think of marriage as tool, which seeks to achieve what all loving unions seek (companionship, love, etc).

So, if one feels that marriage will help you achieve your goal, it’s for you. Otherwise, it’s not. This decision rule provides a simple, neat and pragmatic solution as to the question of whether marriage works or has a point (for you).

Dynasty 5:  Marriage as a Form of Control

As everyone has discussed so far, marriage does not hold a monopoly on love.  In fact, I’d argue that most couples who love each other aren’t married, whether that’s because love is fleeting or marriage isn’t necessarily something that interests everyone I don’t know.  And actually, I can’t know if most couples who love each other are or aren’t married, so I’ll stick to my point.

What made the first cave man who loved his lover say, “You know what, this love thing isn’t enough.  I want to sign a contract that states how I will love you, support you, and spend my time with/without you”?  Probably the first cave woman.  But what made the first cave woman say that?  I venture that it was compulsion of some sort–from familial pressure, a chief, a rudimentary government.  Marriage contracts have always been accountable not only to the two people joined but to the governing body that rules over those two people.  Can homosexuals be married in North Carolina?  No.  Ergo their marriage license from Vermont is void, even though their love remains and their commitment persists.  Can pedophiles marry preteens?  Absolutely not.  Here.  Could they in a lawless place that has no norms, restrictions, or controls against such a union?  Maybe.  That place may not have legalized forms of marriage either, but I digress.

No matter what, marriage is indeed a symbol.  It’s a symbol that people love each other and it’s an evidence of how they love each other.  But it is a symbol that is undoubtedly rooted in governance, contracts (and not just Western contracts).  Think of who is entitled to marry and divorce, of who entitles others to marry and divorce.  There is always a ruling body–a church, the Church, a chief, a state, something–and these bodies proclaim their dominion over peoples’ love in every corner of the globe.  They always have.

Dynasty 6:  Marriage as an Evolutionary Adaption

I’m inclined to agree with Dynasty 3’s initial utilitarian bent. There’s a reason why monogamy as opposed to polygamy, polyandry, etc. is the most acceptable form of marriage in the world today. Robert Wright actually has some interesting things to say about this topic in the Moral Animal. Disclaimer: this is purely a recreation (from memory, so some of it may be off), and is by no means an endorsement. I do believe that the following illustration does have some value in this discussion:

*********

Imagine a society in which there is a thousand men and a thousand women, each ranked in terms of desirability. Like our ancestral environment, each man desires to reproduce as many times as possible and each women seeks to maximize resources for her offspring. This means that woman 1-1000 desire man 1 and, well, each man, with a few exceptions, maybe, desires woman 1-1000 (the idea is that men are inherently much less choosy than women when it comes to choice of mate). Now, in an ideal polygamous society, man 1 would take on as many wives as his resources would allow. This continues down the list, leaving a certain number of men at the bottom of the list who have no potential for reproduction. That is, they get screwed (evolutionarily, anyway). Wright goes on to say that, in such a society, the men at the bottom, due to their lack of mating opportunities, would be more prone to violence, desperate attempts (rape, etc), creating an altogether less pleasant society. Regarding this last assertion, there is also a large body of supplementary literature on criminality among young men. In summary, both criminality and genius/achievement, strangely enough, peak at a very young age. After marriage, both decrease.

Now, according to this framework, a perfectly monogamous society is actually a compact among men. That is, the more desirable men decide to sacrifice the opportunity to have a greater number of wives in order to create a more harmonious society. Man 1 pairs with woman 1, man 2 with woman 2, etc, all the way down.

*********

Anyways, a few things to think about. Again, the illustration is a very simplistic one as it is grounded in the “ancestral environment.” It begs several questions, including those regarding the implications of the financial empowerment of women. That being said, I do think that underlying logic is sound. Over thousands of years, monogamous marital arrangements have been found to be more conducive to peaceful societies than other arrangements and that is why it is so widespread today. This isn’t to say that it is “right” or “good.” It’s simply at attempt to explain why it’s there in the first place.

Regarding that “body of supplementary literature,” here’s a primer:

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JRP2003.pdf

Dynasty 7: Governance, Control, Symbols: A Recontextualized Approach

Marriage is an extremely complex thing to break down, as people get married for a ton of reasons (social, emotional, legal, economical, religious etc), and marriage itself means different things among different cultures and societies. I’ll attempt to break down this aspect that Dynasty 1 brought up earlier:

(2)The concept of marriage is socially constructed and one probably created to preserve lineage or legacy

So this is one concept of marriage that applies strongly to most marriages in our society, I think (not sure, as I haven’t surveyed many couples), and Dynasty 5 was essentially getting at my thoughts in his post. The way I see it, the reason why marriage exists the way it does in our society is because of the legal implications and ramifications that come along with it, and ultimately the issue of record keeping. Allow me to preface a little bit.

Writing was invented to solve a particular problem: information only existed if someone remembered it. Once it was gone from memory, it was gone for good. As human societies grew and became more complex, those attempting to control and govern them found that their memories were overtaxed – what they needed was an external storage device of some sorts, and Western Digital wasn’t a company yet. Essentially what they came up with was writing.

Let’s say I owed Dynasty 1 five bucks. If I say “I will repay you in April”, the words are gone the instant I utter them. They exist only in my memory, and in the memory of anyone who heard me. And who will say that I will continue to remember them? Obviously, Dynasty 1 is going to want more lasting evidence of my promise, even though we boys.

And so I extend the example to marriage – obviously it’s difficult for me to forget that I am married to somebody, but in the interests of running a state, you need a way to keep track of the myriad of marriages that are created, annulled, and those which currently exist. Moreover, there are a host of legal issues that come with inheritances, legal rights, lineage and legacy etc – each of which are kept track through writing and documentation in government records. Similarly, when you get a divorce, it needs to be recorded with the state so that the appropriate rules apply etc – the books need to be current and updated, and marriage is a somewhat neat way to keep track of that.

Like Dynasty 5 was saying, the pedophile and the preteen could probably marry in a lawless place – but then again, the point of getting “married” would be quite purposeless, as what Dynasty 1 was saying

I also believe that love can exist outside of a legal marriage, but I also believe that two people in love or two people who care about each other already enter in a contract with each other.  Close friends have obligations to each other, and if one violates their obligation their friendship can be at risk.  Hence, couples, non-legally married, are more or less married in an unspoken contract and they more or less make a commitment to each other not to violate the sanctity of their bond

Marriage exists whether or not a government exists. The government is only there to record the legal marriages, and prevent the “illegal” ones from occurring, irrespective of love or anything emotional like that.

Why does the state need to keep track of marriages? Probably a little of what Dynasty 5 said – control – and of course governance.

Extending this to what marriage means religiously, I would stick to the same reasoning – at least with the Abrahamic religions (and perhaps others), which bring with them rules and codes which they posit a civilization should follow, in order to bring around and live in a “Holy Society”, or as that is referred to in the Old Testament. Salvation and reaching heaven are of course then linked to how well we contribute to the holy society, ie: sticking to the religious marriage rules, etc.

In regards to marriage being a symbol, what exactly is it a symbol of? Hearing “X and Y are married” instantly triggers many presumptions in our heads, and that sort of kills any symbolic nature it had because it means so much in the face of the law and in our society. I’ll say that definitely the rings are a symbol, and the more important function of them is to be like “Hey, move on, this person’s a no-go”.

No, marriage is not a symbol for love or a promise or a full commitment “till death do us part”, but the rings seem to be an effective symbol for the marriage and the contractual promise that one person has to another. Don’t you even have to sign a marriage contract when you get married?

Dynasty 1: Registration and Government Control of ‘Marriage’: Another Theory

All marriages, whether religious or legal should be made a record of, and the state/society should take an invested roll in cultivating that marriage and representing and helping vulnerable parities who may be abused.  I was thinking about this, and I thought, a couple who is together for thirty years decides to go their separate ways because of some serious issue.  Now, one party will walk away with nothing, who decides how the assets which were shared over 30 years is divided and who ensures that they will be divided?  That’s where the state jumps in and creates laws and rules that in a worst case scenario, all parties walk away with dignity not compromised.  I am assuming too much when I say that love will work things out.  It won’t.  If a woman gets pregnant and the man decides to leave, who will ensure this child’s protections and that the woman has enough resources to adequately care for the child?  Even couples who are dating for X amount of time should have their relationship registered, and if they decide to absolve it and not pursue governmental intervention, they can just break up like couples break up these days.  There is a benefit to vulnerable parties in a relationship that need protections, and sometimes they are incapable of offering those protections themselves.  So high school kids dating for X amount of time should have their “marriage” registered in the state.

Edited by: Abbas R

Religion, Gender, and Governance

Question:

How do we understand religious gendered issues?

 

 

Background:

 Three Women in Malaysia turned themselves in because they felt guilty about having premarital sex and they wanted their rightful religio-legal punishment to purify their souls.  The situation at hand is women voluntarily coming forward.  Their identities are also protected and then they are beaten with a rattan cane six times each.  Whether or not the men were also punished is contested, and different reports claim an affirmative or negative.

Background Articles:

UK Guardian reports: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7031724.ece

Japanese Insight: http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/malaysian-women-caned-for-illicit-sex-say-it-was-opportunity-to-repent

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/17/world/main6215949.shtml

 

 

 

Dynasty 1 | Religions Assuming Intercessor Roles v. State Laws

This isn’t particular to one religion, and something that most religions have struggled with, i.e., intercessor roles.  What comes to mind is Religion v. State, philosophy behind the role of intercession.

My personal opinion:  Law should be a means of establishing orderly conduct and behavior in a society, and are usually based in morality.  However, not all morally wrong things have laws for them (e.g., if you call someone something offensive, you cant get prosecuted).

But not all laws are morality based (e.g., illegal to drive without a license, unless you argue, that you want to ensure that all citizens are protected and safe. So you are not a danger to people. Laws like X is a federal holiday are usually arbitrary).  So in this case, assuming there is no law in a State against premarital sex, these women did not commit anything immoral, and should not have to feel they have to seek punishment.  But when religion becomes reified/hypostatized dogma, its no longer religion, it is social order/law. Here we see morality and law are equivocated and these women are made to feel bad about having premarital sex when in reality, consensual premarital sex is not a moral (i.e., right or wrong/good or bad) issue.

This is reminiscent of when you steal something and don’t get caught, and then you feel guilty and you turn yourself in so you can rid yourself of that guilt.   Guilt is a moral emotion you feel before you can articulate why you did something immoral. Honesty in society, or not stealing or however the moral question should be framed: you did something wrong and you want to apologize and do right.  These girls feel like they did something wrong and turned them in to rid them of that guilt.

The problem as I understand it:

The courts aren’t the controllers of morality; they are there to maintain order (the role of government to maintain order and to protect citizens, and to invest in them).  Should the women seek repentance from themselves and or their “God”, because they wronged who, society or themselves?  It is an internal conflict.  Some women are probably having sex and don’t care if it’s premarital or not, they have no internal conflict. However, if it’s against the law, then they are in conflict with their society/government. If it becomes against the law, then the punishment is ridiculously harsh.  People have put premarital sex on this level as a terrible sin.

Religious Law Perspective

 In this situation you have religious women who care about their salvation that are seeking out the government’s help to cleanse their souls of wrongdoing.  They want to be punished in this life so they wont get punished in the next life/world.  This is a religion issue, after stripping the gender off it, because these women actively and voluntarily sought punishment.  It could have been men or transgender.  The real question has to do with religion and the state and implementation of “religious law”. This is such an interesting case, but it needs to be generalized in order to not focus so narrowly on one incident, because people seeking government’s help in religious salvation is commonplace.  We go to court to settle custody issues, inheritance issues, other legal disputes, and family law type issues.  But when something immoral has not occurred but it is illegal where do we begin to talk about the intersection of communal religious experience and individual religious experience? The Catholic Church, and other religions also have similar situations.  People who feel like they have done something wrong, they go to the Father and they “say 23 Hail Mary’s and you will be forgiven” this is the same thing, but less harsh (i.e., no beating) this is a question of intercession.  Religious governments view themselves as intercessors between God and follower.  So these women going to the government, they view the government as an intercessor between them and God, and the courts will solve the problem for them.

 

Dynast 2 | Islamic Perspective via Sharia/Hadith

There is the chance that the women were forced into “asking” for this punishment, but that takes a lot of agency away from them on conjecture, or based on how western women feel about things. Putting in controls for safeguarding their agency, we can move on to questioning the legality and morality of their decisions. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is between them, their partner, and God.

Likewise, who am I to judge a woman who wants to be caned, especially in the way of seeking pleasure from her Lord? If she feels the need to physically expunge her sins (there is an Islamic as well as a rich Christian tradition of this) in a way that is acceptable by Sharia’ law, I wouldn’t stand in her way. The famous prophetic hadith of the woman coming to the Prophet to be stoned to death comes to mind. He sent her away many times, for many years at a stretch, but after a while he found it was not his right to deny her what Sharia had prescribed for her. Offering people first the chance to come to their lord in contemplation to seek redemption, to keep it to themselves, etc. Some of us do not have the strength to do this with clear, 100% intention, and may fear we’ve not been accepted as humble before our Lord. Therefore, six whips with a rattan cane may be nothing compared to the fear of hellfire.

What I suggest, rather, is what we examine the society wherein such punishment is being practiced. I’m of the opinion that punishments – that being, physical punishments for serious crimes – cannot be fairly practiced outside of a society that governs by Sharia’ law and is safe from any outside influence, especially as it relates to the leadership. There’s no point in practicing such punishments in a society that doesn’t understand the reasons behind the law and does not have tawheed as a fundamental governing principle in day-to-day life.

Surely pre-marital sex and drinking existed before the reign of globalization in Malaysia, there’s no doubt. But whereas these things might have once been considered a family shame or a given “kids will be kids” thing.

This is, of course, still no reason to punish as they have. There is the need to create a unified popular front against such impositions. In Maoist China, the communists dealt with millions of drug addicts. These addicts had no place in a new society. The people rallied together and started a campaign to eradicate drug addiction. While people began to tackle their challenges on an individual basis, the people themselves began to “bust up” the drug producers and drug dealers, whipping them or expelling them, and indeed, in some cases even executing them. This was not an overnight movement; it took a long time, just like the abolition of alcohol in Medina. There were no punishments meted out until the entire population had accepted this party line and saw and understood clear reasons for doing what they did. Yes, there were those who were punished, but they stand out among the millions of addicts and thousands of dealers who willingly ceased their own actions, instilling a discipline and sense of empowerment into people who had previously been enslaved to opium and who, in another society, might just have become fearful serfs of the state.

It’s the wrong way to go about doing things, but I won’t judge these women nor say what they did was wrong. Malaysia is not an Islamic Caliphate and while it might be an Islamic society, you can buy beer in stores and sleep around with the tacit approval of society because, of course, there is no mass line against such actions. The state is over-reaching their authority in deciding it can be a vicegerent of divine justice. However, even as the Prophet himself hesitated at implementing such punishments, we should be a hundred, a thousand times more careful of thinking we can do it ourselves in the name of God.

 

Dynasty 1 | Government ensuring proper education

The issues that I see as relevant in this example are as follows:

 1) Religion’s place in society and government

2) Difference between how women and men are treated in religion

3) Personal and Public expressions of faith

4) Morality v Legality, and religion’s role in dealing with those dynamics

 In terms of Dynast 2’s argument:

Though I agree people should have the right to do whatever they want to do so long as it doesn’t affect anyone else, I believe that many people out there do senseless things and are unaware for the most part.  Hence, there should be more philosophers out there that drop the knowledge on why certain things lead to human flourishing (sure this is open to interpretation, but assuming its a priori) and why other things don’t.  At the end of the day, let the individual decide what is right for his/her self.

Ideally, I concur with imputing safeguards on people against themselves, assuming they are incapable of understanding their actions.  For example, it would be a bad idea to prevent a cigarette smoker from smoking if she/he knows the pros and cons of his/her decision and continues to make their decision one way or the other.  However, if the cigarette smoker thinks smoking cigarettes brings them long life, then the government needs to educate. Same way in the case of these women, who think the only alternative to resolving their guilt is to seek physical punishment, then the government should be more noble and say “hey, you know, you could just pray for forgiveness, and it would serve the same purpose.”  My issue is with deception.  If people had all the information necessary to make an informed decision, then let them decide how they want.  But if they are misleading to believe something, then we hit a problematic territory.

In sum:  No to people making their own decisions and doing what they want if they don’t know what they are doing.  After giving them all the information necessary, then let these people do what they want to do with their lives so long as it doesn’t affect anyone else around them.

 

 Dynasty 3 | Patriarchy and Cultural Relativism

While I agree that the women did seek this out voluntarily and it wouldn’t seem at first glance to be a gendered issue, you do have to keep in mind that this is operating broadly in a patriarchal system in the first place. What I mean to point out is that the men in this example did not turn themselves in; it seems that, due to some sort of cultural or religious preconception, these men either

1) Did not want to turn themselves in, in order to avoid the punishment

 2) Did not feel like they particularly did anything wrong in the first place or anything worthy of punishment

Although premarital sex is considered a sin in Islamic law, it is somehow considered more culturally acceptable - relatively speaking – for the men to have engaged in it, and thus did not turn themselves in. This applies even in Western societies – a man can be lauded for his sexual conquests, while a women is, in many cases, considered “loose” or “immoral” if she engages in [a lot of] premarital sex.

If indeed the men felt little or no guilt and thus felt no need to surrender themselves to the government, then this would be a gendered issue (perhaps due to cultural norms), rather than purely a religious one, although the guilt most probably originated in the religious beliefs of these women.

There is an inherent gut reaction against this sort of behavior, as it seems perpetuated by cultural norms mentioned previously (women need to be “pure” for their men, etc) and, like Dynasty 1, I don’t like the idea of premarital sex being considered a moral issue. However, in an attempt at cultural relativism, it’s understandable how this is an improvement from the women being dragged out of their homes and being stoned to death. And as Dynasty 2 pointed out, perhaps this is the women’s own way of feeling redeemed and purged of their sins. However, in agreement with Dynasty 1’s statement that perhaps, rather than the government being so quick to take action, that should inform these people of alternative methods of purifying themselves of their sins. In summary don’t condone the government taking action to punish people for religious wrongdoings, but don’t fault the women for feeling that they needed to turn themselves in, based on the religious and cultural context of the situation.

 

Dynasty 4 | More on Patriarchy and Cultural Relativism

 Along the lines of what Dynasty 3 said, it is impossible to separate this issue from the patriarchal structure in which it takes place. In fact, it’s almost impossible to approach any issue without analyzing the role of patriarchal, androcentric structures (whether remnant or still ragingly present) simply because these structures as having an infiltrated role in almost every aspect and realm of society.  In almost all religions (and cultures) women have long been the scapegoats of male sin.  I’m referring mainly to ‘sexual sins’ i.e temptation, lust, pre-marital sex.  In Christianity, the story of Adam and Eve involves Eve supposedly biting the apple first–so women are often seen as the origin of sin. Here are Biblical scriptures that reinforce this idea of inherent sinfulness and un-cleanliness of women for any who are interested (Exodus 34:14, Lev. 12:1-6 , Tim. 2:14 for starters–there’s more).

In practice, this idea is seen where women are commonly blamed for mistreatment or harassment by men because of their ‘immodest dress’, which can be anything from a miniskirt to ankles showing.  Whatever the case, the woman is often blamed for tempting the man. This isn’t only in Islamic cultures obviously–this is everywhere.  Even in our modern country of America, women are still often blamed for being victims of rape (“Well what was she wearing?  Was she being flirtatious? Did she get in the car with him?”).

In cultures where women are raised in and surrounded by an ideology which views female sexuality as a dirty temptation that should be hidden away or as a means to sexual pleasure that men are entitled to, women grow up feeling guilty about…being women.  On either extreme, society often projects the misbehavior of men onto women’s sexuality.  Because of this all too common and widespread neanderthalic mindset, what often results is that the SAME transgression is often viewed as a lesser offense when, committed by a man than by a woman. In this sort of context, who will seek out the government’s corporal punishment in an attempt to seek atonement?  The woman, whose offense is viewed as an atrocious affront to the honor of her family, a detriment to her worth as a woman— or the man who made committed the act?  Boys will be boys!

Maybe governments should get their priorities straight and worry about prosecuting/punishing actual crimes.

 

Dynasty 5 | Understanding the Placement of Religious Law

I know we are generalizing away from this particular case in Malaysia so is the question then: “What role should the state play in implementing religious law and punishments?”  Dynasty 1 mentioned other questions such as “morality versus legality” and “personal and public expressions of faith”.

Should the state implement religious law and punishments?

This treads upon the fundamental question in the philosophy of law: where do laws come from and what do they represent?  A law in this conversation has a very “social” definition, that is, a ruling or decision that we all agree to follow as a collective social group (usually a government).  Different ideas have been posited as to what these “agreed upon codes of conduct” or laws should reflect:

 Where does “religious” law fit in discussions of law in general?

• Natural law:  Diverse groups of advocates of “natural law,” as we would now call it, are interested in absolutes that can be discerned from human reason.  What in human nature, in our very make-up and in all societies is proper?  Human rights are a perfect example: The right not to be tortured or the rights to work or to reproductive control for women are all examples of this avenue of inquiry.  To follow this line of thinking to its full course, one would say that the laws that we make in our society (such as in our legislature) should reflect these absolutes.
• Positive Law: Legal positivism, as it is called, is the dominant mode of operation in the American legal context.  It is to say that our laws should reflect not necessarily absolutes about our species but rather our laws are codes of conduct that apply to the needs of our (theoretically) unique circumstances and situation.  If there is a social problem that the community has identified, those with legislative power “posit” (hence “positive” law) solutions to these problems that will be codified by the society.
• Religious Law: Religious law appears to me to be an analogue of Natural Law in the sense that it is specifying absolutes.  Some would say that these divinely-received codes of conduct are accessible to human reason, others would differ.  The fundamental addition, however, that I feel is present in discourses on implementing religious law is an added emphasis of authority.

Implications of the authoritarian nature of “religious” law

Tradition can be a powerful source of authority (such as in legal precedent in the United States) but this is a far cry from the presentation of authority in religious law.  Authority in precedent only extends to the practical application of law.  If the Supreme Court decides a certain matter, lower courts are more-or-less obliged to follow suit in similar rulings.  This authority does not extend, however, to the legislative process (putting aside Judicial Review, which would apply only after a law was created in any case).  If one advocates a religious law, however, there is a definite tendency to view that law as static: if a law were to change it would no longer be the law that the Divine authority gave us.  There is then a negative pressure against changing a law, and when it is done it would have to be couched in language of “changing its application.”

Even in natural law, a law is always amenable to change because all parties involved agree that the law only originated in human rationality.  If a deeper understanding of our nature or if a stronger case is made, there would be no theoretical basis on which to be opposed.

The problem, as I see it, with religious law, has to do with its rigidity.  I take it as self-evident that both human societies and our moral imaginations are evolving.  As societies have changed both new issues emerge and our understandings of ourselves have changed.  We are confronted with an ever-expanding understanding of ourselves, both our nature and our needs.  The sort of “bad deed –> punish, good deed –> reward” thinking seems to have lost persuasive power as a social mechanism for many of us.  We understand that now that many bad or hurtful things we do can be reflective of our childhood experiences.  The psychological effects of parental abuse on children have manifested themselves in numerous undesirable ways in later adulthood for these victims.   It might not make as much sense to punish these victims for their transgressions as it would to help them through behavioral therapy or other supportive mechanisms.  I’m not suggesting solutions to social problems; I am simply contending that our codes of conduct should represent our best understanding of ourselves.

My view is further that laws are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.  It would be problematic to have an attachment to a law itself.  If a better way is shown to divide an estate among heirs or to organize our society I see no reason why we should cling to a particular statute which is what setting aside a particular statute as “religious” or “Divinely inspired” would encourage

The extensive inquiries by the late N. H. Abu Zayd into Islamic law specifically would be outside the scope of this discussion but it should be clear that Shari`ah is inevitably a human production.  The ways in which we read (subjectively) the Qur’an and reconstruct its context, the ways in which we fallibly understand, subjectively evaluate, and selectively apply Hadiths that were subjectively adjudicated for their authenticity, only after being subjectively understood etc. etc. should only further emphasize the point that “Religious Law” is much more, effectively, a claim to authority than a real insight into the will of the Divine.

 

Dynasty 1 | Governmental Interventions and the Existence of Inequality of Genders

If I understand you (Dynasty 5) correctly, you are adamantly opposed to religious law because

(1) It establishes a false sense of authority based on subjectivity

(2) Not subject to review (even if archaic), for it is overly rigid and viewed as an end.

As I understand it, religious law is considered to be absolute (i.e., as ends) by those who adhere to it, and thus, not in need of amendment.

What is your take/opinion (and obviously this extends to everyone who hasn’t offered a comment on it) on self-governance (i.e., you being responsible for your actions) in relationship to communal governance (i.e., government at large)?

Obviously, not everyone defines certain moral duties as deeply and maturely as the next person, whereas laws in civil society serve as benchmarks of our moral development.  Hence, when laws in civil society are violated, the violator is held morally and legally culpable for their actions. But to what extent can we give people freedom in deeming what is moral and what is not in relationship to a larger government?  And with that, to what extent to other governing bodies have to obligation to comment on other governmental bodies?  My questions may be elucidated through the following example:

All human beings have an innate sense as well as an empirical knowledge that all human beings have the moral duty to protect life.  From this proposition, murder in many occasions is punishable by law.  However, not all people define what it means to be “human being” the same way.  Hitler, for example, believed that he had a moral duty to protect human life.  However, the Jews, gays, disabled, etc were not considered as “human.”  Similarly, The Hutu in Rwanda would refer to the Tutsi population as “cockroaches” in order to emphasize that they, the Hutu, were not killing “human beings,” but rather “roaches.”  In both situations, other governmental organizations intervened.  The fact of the matter is moral principles and duties exist a priori to our current context, through dialog we can cultivate and deepen our moral knowledge, so long as we are progressing in that direction.

Fundamentally, women may be viewed as secondary or subordinate to man by specific cultures. Hence, abuse towards women is seen as being acceptable.  Their “human being” status is demoted to second-class citizens, (e.g., Dynasty 4’s argument of “Boys will be boys”) and men are allowed to “get away” with more than women.  Now, where do we, those who I argue, “know ” better (i.e., similar to aforementioned example on genocide, we know that Tutsis, Jews, disabled, gays, etc are human beings of equal standing to any other human being) step in and attempt to change a system?  Human rights organizations exist for this reason; they try to hold all nations to the same moral standard, that moral standard being a benchmark in our human moral development.

In sum:  In this particular example, and in many other examples, women are not viewed equally to men, hence, they are not treated the same way.  When in fact, their importance in society (a metaphysical claim at this point) is greater than that of men, and should be offered more protections under law in relation to men.  Unfortunately, they have far less than equal protection to that of men (as highlighted in cases of rape, immodesty regulations, and everything else Dynasty 4 mentioned).

 

Dynasty 5 | International Relations and Tolerance within Societies

Almost any “what should we do” question inevitably regresses, back to questions of foundational, theoretical perspectives on the world or on the subject matter.  In international relations theory there are three main lenses through which to view the relationships between states:

 liberalism (that state entities should collaborate in supranational entities in order to achieve common aims)

realism (that states are inherently in a state of competition for the role of hegemony), and finally

 idealism (that a particular guiding philosophy [isolationism, desire for return of caliphate, etc.] should guide foreign policy for a given state

Individual Liberty Within a State Context

Churchill has famously said, “Democracy is the least imperfect of all imperfect forms of governance.”  This I accept.  Arend Lijphart’s “Consociational Democracy” would be a good starting point, a coalition-preferencing, non-majoritarian model forged for the most conflict-ridden, divided societies.  That I would take pluralism over majoritarianism stems from my own meta-ethical perspective that ethical claims can’t be decisively proven and they never will be.  I’m not a relativist (at least not meta-ethically) but there’s simply no way, in my book, to demonstrate conclusively that a given action or outcome is morally right or wrong.

In any case, as long as there is a glaring degree of fallibility, I don’t feel fit imposing them upon anyone else.  In a governmental/legal setting, I would say that we should give each other full license to think whatever we please and to devote our lives to any cause we please.  Our restrictive laws, which will inevitably have some majoritarian tenor, should be minimalists in nature — aiming to protect us from the harm that might be done by ideologies gone out of control.  I think, “easier said than done” ought to go without saying.  I also happen to believe that we ought to legislate a whole lot more a la social programs.

In essence, answering the question of what freedom can a government give individuals in determining what is moral: full freedom.  Laws and morality ought not to be conflated.  Laws in a liberal democracy are not meant to impose moral ideology; they are in place as safeguards against abuses of the liberty that is inherent, thankfully, in the system.

Grayling argues, in responding to the “should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” question, a resounding no, they shouldn’t.  I think that’s less of a mind-boggle when one considers that we aren’t ultimately talking about absolute tolerance, here, among the tolerant — it is simply a contingent which views an open discourse as the most productive context for social flourishing.  That this has an assumptive quality that may need to be idolatrously guarded shouldn’t tarnish the endeavor as a whole, it simply represents an attempt to take compulsion out of the social picture as much as possible.  That at least covers the defensive aspect of the international relations question, that a tolerant society has the right to defend itself.  Should we invade/liberate states where there are gross atrocities and moral transgressions, by our standards?  I’ll let someone else handle that.  It’s all the more tricky in the post-Orientalist, post-Colonial world.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Navila and Abbas

Symbols and Swine

Question:

Pork and the point of a symbol?

 

Background:

Dynasty 9 stated that there were 3 reasons that were usually giving in cultural and religious studies as to why certain groups don’t consume pork:

1. As a community identifier.  E.g., “you don’t eat pork either? Great, you must be part of our community then.”

2.  God said so.  E.g. “we don’t eat pork, because we just don’t, that’s it, nothing complicated to it.  God ‘said’ no pork, so no pork it is.”

3.  It’s symbolic for something else.  E.g., Pig is symbolic for both Jews and Muslims as something dirty, i.e., it is unethical.  Abstaining from eating pork is symbolic for abstaining from immoral behavior.  Not eating pork is not of concern; it’s the abstaining from immorality.

Dynasty 10 argued that bacon is delicious and if a pig is just symbolic of immorality then actually eating pork shouldn’t be a big deal.  The big deal is immoral behavior, and it isn’t immoral to eat pork.  Dynasty 5 counter argued:

 Violating the symbol in real life renders its value and its symbolic meaning useless.  For example, a Jew would never wear a swastika.  Why? Because that orientation of lines is a symbol of the Holocaust, but the orientation of those lines in and of itself is harmless, it’s meaningless.  If a Jew wore the swastika it would be insulting because the symbol carries value for him/her but the same symbol cares a positive meaning for some Hindus.

 But what is a symbol?

 

CLASSIC RELIGIOUS DEBATE

Dynasty 1:  Reconciling Traditional Religious Views

I don’t agree that abstaining from eating pork is symbolic. There are legitimate biological reasons for not eating pork, especially in seventh century Arabia and earlier. Also I fail to see the difference between abstaining from pork as “unethical” and abstaining because it is obeying the will of god. One would necessarily lead to the other, else wise we would have injunctions to not eat cows or chickens too I suppose. I would agree that eating pork is unethical because a) it contains diseases, b) it is an intelligent animal, c) the insides of a pig are uncannily familiar to those of a human being, and d) pork as a meat is biologically and environmentally unsustainable, please see http://regionalworkbench.org/USP2/pdf_files/pigs.pdf for more info. I went six years without eating pork and I don’t simply think it’s a symbol. I don’t believe in symbols unless they hold actual power or can change your mind in a measurable way (for instance, Satan-worship, cruciform, and the symbol for god in Arabic) and I don’t think that not eating pork is symbolic. Like abstaining from alcohol, there are legitimate communal and individual benefits.   Pork might taste great, but maybe so does human flesh, antifreeze, and strawberry daiquiris.  Why does an injunction have to be seen as symbolic and not simply for your own good?

 

Dynasty 2:  Reasoning from Divine Law

There are legitimate biological reasons for not eating beef (mad cow) or chicken (bird flu) etc. Muslims, for example, are allowed to eat many other intelligent animals, with insides similar to our own. Also, don’t humans share 95% of the same DNA with all other mammals?

If we know God’s will is not arbitrary, than it follows that we humans, given the gift of intellect from God, must be able to derive the fundamental reasons for the laws that God wills. To say prohibition of pork is symbolic conveniently avoids the issue of trying to come up with some kind of actual explanation beyond a God Mind Trick (given that attempts at actual explanation have so far failed).

God choosing pigs as a symbol for abstaining from immorality, doesn’t make sense. Once we realize the symbolism, the effect of this symbolism is intellectually neutralized even if emotional biases remain. The swastika example is quite instructive, in that when its importance in Eastern (pre-Nazi) religious tradition is realized, this understanding will intellectually counter any negative symbolism. But the emotional reaction by any Jewish person will probably remain, and that’s fine, as long as they don’t go associating Eastern religions with Nazi thought.

Keep the symbol-driven emotional bias; lose its real life biased application.

 

Dynasty 1:  A Traditional Religious View, Part II

It doesn’t actually follow that humans should be able to reason out why god commands what he does. Reason has no ability to penetrate the unseen that which only God knows. It’s not symbolic; it’s a real prohibition. God says so, and if we were able to reason the unseen there would be no need for religion or prohibitions at all, because we would simply reason our ways to paradise and good living. You don’t accept a commandment from god based on “oh, I get you god, that’s cool! That makes sense. I’m down with that.” You can demonstrate how such a prohibition can benefit people, but you don’t take the commandments on reason.

The Asharis in Baghdad debated with philosophers who took from Greek thought, and as a result they had to base their argument in Greek parameters to prove the existence of God. If you end up basing your faith on some model you’ve reasoned out rather than faith itself you run into the problem of having to justify the scripture against your model, which is where all this stuff about created/uncreated holy text and whatnot comes from. The authority is god, not our reason. I don’t know everything about zoological illness but I know god said don’t eat pigs. Maybe it has nothing to do at all with pigs or pork or anything, maybe it’s some consequence that seems totally bizarre and unforeseeable. That’s why we need the holy text in the first place and why we need to swallow our pride when it comes to what it says. Everyone sins, it’s part of the territory of being human – the point is submitting to the word and admitting when we go off the straight path instead of trying to rationalize everything.

SYMBOLS AND MEANING:

 

Dynasty 3:  Summarizing of Points Thus Far

: What is the point of a symbol?  From what I can tell so far of Dynasty 1 and Dynasty 2’s answers,

 Dynasty 1believes  that God said so, so don’t do it, which as is said makes it less of a symbol and more of a simple rule

 Dynasty 2 essentially believes the same.

 Ultimately, the three reasons for symbols are not exclusive.  A swastika makes me think of the Nazis because they used it as their logo, of not just anti-Semitism but also racism and hatred in general, and of other people who detest all of these things like me.  Dynasty 2 makes a good point, however, that rationalizing what a symbol stands for and feeling the ingrained bias that the symbol evokes are two separate things, and our action must be based on rationality.  To see a Hindu praying to a swastika would shock me because my initial reaction will be of disgust for Nazis and what they stood for, yet while that antipathy will not wane, I will rationally understand what the Hindu is doing and respect that.

Assuming pork is bad, does it not therefore become a symbol for all other bad things too?  As humans, I think we generalize as often as possible, and pork is no exception.  Pork and pig are insults, metaphors for filth, and ordained inedible by early Judaism as a punishment.  I side with Dynasty 2 that the idea that pork contains diseases is insufficient as a reason to ban its consumption, but even if there is some, as Dynasty 2 puts it “God Mind Trick,” there is also a symbol.  However, in terms of this “God Mind Trick,” I think believing that something is inherently good or bad just because a book or teacher says so is a very dangerous way of going about life in a world where other people have different books and teachers; real life and what we can deduce from it are the things that link us together.  But as a symbol pork has affected many cultures, including the West.  In Christian-dominated America, pigs are still considered filthy creatures and I would be offended if someone called me “pig,” and this is all in spite of the fact that most Americans eat pork.  In fact, most of my Jewish friends eat pork too.  They seem to be moral and healthy.  I guess this symbol may be outdated and thus our discussion of whether or not pork as a symbol is legitimate. I suppose that any true symbol for our understanding would need no discussion.

Dynasty 4: Types of Symbols

I’m not sure it’s fair for them to be thought of as symbols of immorality.  Honestly, the best ‘symbols’ of immorality would probably be humans. To make a symbolic stance against immorality, we should abstain from each other.  Just read the news.

But in all seriousness now (I’m only half-joking about the humans).   It has been demonstrated that some may hold pork as a symbol, the reasons for that symbolism are relevant to this discussion.  To start off, for me, there are 2 types of symbols.

 One is unrelated in nature to what it represents; it is arbitrary. Like logos, or take the swastika, for example.  Does the drawing of the actual lines in that shape inherently suggests the deplorable morals of the Nazi regime?  No.  This shape has merely become associated with that.  Is an olive branch actually peaceful?

 The second kind of symbol is one that directly implies what it represents.  To me, this is the more powerful kind of symbol. Essentially, a good symbol should somehow illustrate what it is attempting to symbolize—a good symbol will give the essence of its symbolee, if you will.  For instance maybe, a symbol of courage or prowess is often the lion, because it embodies those qualities.

Again, this is how I personally feel about it, and I don’t deny that some symbols, which I find arbitrary, might hold true meaning for others.

As someone who neither cares much for eating pork nor believes that it is forbidden to me, the environmental health scientist in me will say that it is indeed a source of various diseases. However, this is true of most things we eat.   CDC statistics: turns out incidence rates of food-borne disease are highest for campylobacter, E. Coli, and shigella infection—all generally obtained through non-pork sources.  One of the main causes of concern often cited about pork—trichinosis—is actually only responsible for about 10,000 cases worldwide (only 400 in the US).   Compare that to salmonella, which is responsible for 40,000 cases of illness in the United States alone.  So if we were to say that risk for infection or disease is a reason why pork is forbidden, we shouldn’t eat eggs, chicken, or beef either. So I have, and will again reject this reasoning for abstaining from pork.

Rejecting that, we move to pork as a symbol.  Can we really say pigs are immoral creatures, or that our consumption of them causes us to commit immoral acts?  If we agree that no, this is not the case, then I personally think that it is then a poor symbol of immorality. Then why not eat it?  That is for each and every faithful person to decide if they wish. Personally, I would move to suggest that this is maybe a time-contextual rule since at the time, refrigeration was not available, and warm temperatures in the area would have likely increased the incidences of trichinosis—which if untreated, can affect the central nervous system and produce neurological deficits—most likely to have been viewed as some sort of psychological madness in a time when the disease was not understood.

So, I’m generally not a big believer in symbols just for the sake of symbols; or rather, doing something simply because it’s symbolic.  In terms of actions, if I do something, it’s because I believe there is a practical aspect to what I am doing, or not doing.  For example, to me, alcohol might be a better-suited symbol of immorality because I actually believe there is an association between the two.

However, it all goes back to how our views of symbols affect our individual actions.  If viewing something as a symbol of something helps you lead a better life, then that’s awesome.

 

Dynasty 5:  Making Sense of the Discussion

So basically, Dynasty 3 is right when he/she says that both Dynasty 1 and Dynasty 2 believe that the reason they don’t eat pigs is because “God says so”, this is something I don’t agree with but that’s fine.

I think the discussion is based on the premise that IF a pig is seen as a symbol for X, and abstaining from its consumption is supposed to be a symbolic gesture, then, if I eat pork, am I desecrating the symbol?

 

At this point I think the conversation has split into two separate but really useful conversations.

 1) On symbols

2) On pork not being acceptable in Islam and Judaism.

 As far as symbols are concerned:  I think Dynasty 4 brought up good points, that there are two types of symbols: one that actually is what it represents, like lion is power and then one that is arbitrary. An upside down triangle doesn’t necessarily mean homosexual other than the value we arbitrarily ascribe to it through social construction

However, aren’t cows for some Hindu sects considered holy?  If so, cows are not consumed because they embody a certain value or meaning of sacredness, and eating or killing a cow is considered desecration of that value. Would it be desecration of the value associated with the symbol, if a cow was killed? If so, why?

Making sense of all this is very confusing, what is the point of a symbol? If a symbol is something that represents something else, something more abstract, is this just a way for humans to concertize abstract concepts? Power is abstract, so wearing a lion on my shirt symbolizes I am powerful, that’s how a symbol is supposed to work, no? What is the functionality of a symbol? To me, all symbols are social constructions, and maybe it is a bad idea to view a pig as a symbol of immorality but if it ACTUALLY prevents people from doing, bad things, why not right?  Symbols do have value, like alphabets or words, or names…they all represent other things. Is the purpose of a symbol simply a heuristic? Metaphors are also symbols.

***

As far as pork is concerned, it is seriously apologetic to try to explain a scriptural verse ex post facto, especially by using science.  I think Dynasty 4 showed that Pork is a lot less dangerous than any other meat.  The only reason I see to NOT eat pork meat is because pigs are intelligent creatures and we should abstain from killing other intelligent beings.  Slippery slope? No, because what is deemed as intelligent for me is any creature that engages in leisure activity outside of instinctual behavior.  Dogs are intelligent, no eating dogs.  No eating dolphins.  Dynasty 1 also mentions another point about organ system of pig, that’s true.  There are a lot of studies going on in the field of xenotransplantation involving pigs because they are the best candidates for organ transplantation (see enclosed article).  For those two reasons, we should not eat the animal.   The disease and environmental instability doesn’t have me convinced. Unless, can the pig, used in both Judaism and Islam, be a symbol of something greater? I am not down with the “just accept it, it is the Unseen, and we will never know”. I would hate a God who gave me reason only to say that I can’t use it.  The Unseen to me is something deeper and spiritual, more Sufi in nature than something that is used as a scapegoat to avoid philosophical discussions. I think blindly following or what’s known in Latin, as argumentum ad verecundiam is logically fallacious and problematic.

 

Tangential; General Thoughts on Food Consumption:

Dynasty 4

Pretty much everything we eat contains a natural or unnatural additive that alters natural processes, such as high fructose corn syrup (which is in basically everything) which inhibits proper secretion of leptin, which is supposed to regulate your appetite–that’s why we can’t stop reaching for more candy or Twinkies, much like this supposed maniacal craving for pork.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064539

And that’s the least disturbing additive that we eat everyday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2006/aug/20/foodanddrink.shopping1

There’s pretty much nothing you can eat in the United States that doesn’t contain chemicals and stuff that you really, really, don’t want to know about.

However, what has been shown is a possible addictive property of dietary fat.  This could be the possible explanation for bacon frenzy.  Pork is a high-fat content meat, but so is beef and lamb.  Ice cream is fatty.

We should all be careful of the self-fulfilling prophecy.  It’s easy to find things wrong with pork if we’ve already been told it’s bad, but it doesn’t mean those are the reasons, especially when the reasons we find are easily pointed out in other non-forbidden items.

 

Dynasty 8

People who are psychologically primed to dislike particular items of food should be careful when judging others for eating that thing.

 

 

 

Edited by:

Abbas and Navila

 

Some Thoughts on God

Question:

What do we mean, exactly, when we say “God”?

 

Introduction:

This question is derived first and foremost from an excellent blog post written sometime ago. The post argued:  “I think of God as the awakened spirituality, the radical and transformative love that can exist in every human being.”  We exist, we continue to exist.  We have ambitions, and we project ourselves into the future.  We marvel at the borders theoretical physics has taken us.  Even the very notion of spirituality can be conceived of as “God,” because it is something beyond empirical knowledge.  It is metaphysical. By definition, it is beyond the conventions of quantifiable knowledge, the foundations of which are laid out by Locke and Hume.

 

Could this be what we mean by God?  Does an a priori God or definition of God exist?  Is God then internal to us humans? And as each of us becomes our awakened spiritual selves, are we then Gods?  Or is God something beyond us, and we are mere manifestations of something Divine?  What separates God from any other metaphysical idea? Does the abstraction of God have/need essential properties, if so, what are they? Is God an experience? These are some of the question we hope to answer.

 

We will all have different understandings of the concretized notion of God (God is an abstraction by definition).  However, we are interested in how God is conceived by all, and if there is such a thing as no God.  It’s hard to think about because we are trying to avoid reifying God, but at the same time the whole question revolves around reification of some sort.  Maybe from our collective engagement, we can expand our knowledge on thinking about God.

 

Conceptual and Contextual Information:

 

No one can reasonably claim (nor can anyone really contest an individual’s claim) to have the “correct” view of god. We all generally strive to lead our lives by the same overarching principles.  Indeed, this is itself a central tenant of Hindu philosophy that all paths ultimately lead to the same truth. The caveat, of course, is that the path one chooses must be followed diligently and honestly. And this is where the discussion gets interesting. In his 2005 commencement speech at Kenyon College, David Foster Wallace made a profound point that, in all honesty, has crafted a philosophical outlook on life, religion, etc than any proper spiritual text you may ever read. Here’s a not-so-brief excerpt (if you haven’t read the speech in full, I highly recommend it):

 

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

We’re all rolling the dice in Pascal’s wager, but at least we get to choose the stakes. To put David Foster Wallace ‘s point in context of the earlier contention, atheism doesn’t exist not because the experience of God is subjective per se, but because it is characteristic of humans act in accordance with some end principle, whether they are aware of it or not. Those of us who do believe in the divine, regardless of whether our vision is a dualistic or monistic, hold such a belief because we have made the conscious choice to do so. This is the beauty of being human and the reason for the enduring value of faith in a world where it is often maligned as primitive and cowardly.

 

That being said, how should we even approach the question at hand? As David Foster Wallace says, religion and the principles therein have stood the test of time; the systems of religious belief that we see today have proven themselves able to elucidate the best, most noble aspects of our own humanity (though, to be fair, they also often elucidate the opposite. But that’s a question for another time).  On the other hand, all religions are historical, born in a particular area and from a particular people. Consequently, theological debates and the scholarship that surrounds them are also fundamentally historical. They are debates about god and religion that are premised on a common understanding among scholars/adherents in a given time period– a common understanding that, like anything else, is subject to the vicissitudes of political instability, human mobility, scientific progress, varied interpretation etc.  Interestingly enough, the Greek philosopher Xenophanes postulated if horses could conceive of a God, I guarantee you they believe in a horse-like God.  It is not surprise that many humans believe in a human like God.

 

The challenges we face now and will face tomorrow are unique and discussions about how we identify god and bring ourselves closer to our own conceptions of the divine should always bear reference to the realities at hand. The challenge is to tackle such issues without losing sight of what makes religion so valuable in the first place.

 

 

Conceptions of God:

 

Dynasty Member 1:

 

So what do I believe God is?  First of all, I do believe in God, but my idea is probably very nuanced and error-ridden.  So, I think that God is all things.  Simple: God is love; hatred; the chairs that you, the readers, are sitting in; and whatever the opposite of a chair would be; all things, seen and unseen.  Tons of people say this, but I think I take it a bit further than most when I follow what I know about physics that teaches that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.  Well, this has led me to the conclusion that we–and birds and trees and the moon and past generations–are all reorganizations of what God is.  I have thought that we do not draw from all that God is, but certainly all that we are comes from God.  I think of God as a giant Rubik’s Cube.  This allows me to understand what free will might be, why events happen, and what absolute truth must look like.  I’ll try to explain how.  Bear with me.

 

I’ll start with free will.  I do not have absolute free will.  Neither do any of y’all.  Sorry.  I have wished pretty much every day of my life that I could fly.  Not yet, gravity says.  My body has yet to sprout wings too.  On every choice or dream or reality there are contexts and limitations.  I cannot fly because my space on the Rubik’s Cube is limited in its progression.  I cannot end someone’s life or bring someone back from the dead without God’s consent because those choices may be limited.  This might sound ridiculous, but could I kill someone if God didn’t want me to?  Then what use would God be?  The things we do are along paths that are not necessarily immutable but they are certainly harnessed.  This also explains how events happen, and answers that “why bad things happen to good people” quandary.  I hope.

 

I think the truth of it is that we are each parts of God, equally as sacred, and He is just a mishmash of everything, which explains why people have differing tendencies.  Think of it like this: God says that He is closer to me than my neck (this is from the Qur’an, in which I believe in a very abnormal way).  This could either be a metaphor, God literally saying that he is a part of my neck, or God saying that what I am is something different and that He is closer to that than this thus far inseparable part of me that is my body.  Saint Thomas Aquantas says that God is best described by metaphors and negative statements (God is infinite; God is love, even though we know He is more than just those properties).  If the “closer than your neck” bit is a metaphor, then I still think I’m right.  God could also be a part of my body, which a bunch of people tried to argue until Descartes’ idea that there is a specific part of the brain that channels dialogue with God was shot down.  I happen to believe that I am not my skin, that this body is one of my properties but not me, much as I believe that the wind is powered by God, but God is not just air or the turning of the planet  So, I am something and God is close (physically and metaphorically) to that thing.  I believe that I am pieces of God–girly handwriting, love, English language, a propensity to lie–all thrown into one cube on the Rubik’s.  When I die, I will be separated and reformed, and before that the only real thing that matters is that I respect that all other things are equally parts of God.  This is why killing one person is the equivalent of killing all of mankind, because God is just as much in one thing as in all of them.

 

I have thought of the idea that God gives us morality so that when He separates us He can cast away the parts of Himself that are immoral.  But I don’t know that I’m convinced.  And I don’t necessarily believe that I need to know what would happen to me if I’m not good if I know that I should be good at all costs because it is right to respect essentially other versions of myself, which if I read more I would claim are something akin to quantum physics versions of ourselves.

 

 

Dynasty Member 2:

 

My conception of the Divine aligns most closely with what has been called panentheism.  With a nod to Paul Tillich, God, to me, is the ontological power of being, that is, that absolute reality from which all being and existence (the Greek “ov” in ontology) emanates.  Untroubled by currents of extreme epistemological skepticism, I take it as self evident that I exist and that there is a broader existence of which I am a part.  Through a fortiori argumentation I contend that in order for me, the universe, or multiverse to be there must in fact be a power of being which has facilitated that existence.

 

Long before human beings started thinking in ontological terms, though, we were already experiencing — and recording in artistic and oral forms — transcendence, as far back, it seems, as 45,000 years ago in what archaeologists term the Creative Explosion.  There has been something in the experience of mystery, of love, and of beauty — or, of the numinous —  that has transformatively shaped us since.  In time, introspective forms such as prayer and meditation crystallized as efficacious means of interfacing with this dimension of our humanity — or, perhaps, to the source of this dimension.  It is in this experience, I believe, that we can experience God.  In the Qur’anic account, God as the speaker declares in creating the archetypal human: “I breathed in him of my Spirit.”  Likewise, we hear from `Ali that “he who knows himself knows his Lord.”  I am a panentheist because I believe that everything is of God and thereby is infused with the Divine.  Through prayer, meditation, our relationships, the appreciation of art, and elsewhere we can get a sense of this mystery, though our ability to understand this experience is constrained by our cognitive processes and our social context.

 

I very much appreciate Dynasty Member 1’s theological monism, though, I define evil and our suffering much more through the lenses of Buddhist philosophy — rather than as representative of a form or manifestation or integral element of God.  Our beguiled distraction from the truth of which we are all aware — as in the Wallace piece — is for me the central locus of my reflections on our unhappiness, though this is all for another conversation and was surely an aside of his remarks.

 

In conclusion, God to me is reality at it’s deepest core, that from which all emanates, the source of life, of love, and of beauty.  All that is is with-in God (Pan-en-theos).

Dynasty Member 3:

 

One place to start is “I don’t know what God is, and I don’t think anyone can know”.  To me, this is the beauty of God, that we just don’t know, and searching for answers is a life-long source of intellectual stimulation, philosophical thought, and analysis of self.  I’m happy with never reaching a conclusion about what God is.  It thrills me to think about it daily and to try and articulate what I believe.  I have lots of ideas, but I’m not sure any is more valid than the other.  And I go back and forth on it all the time.  I suppose I believe that any attempt by humans to definitively characterize or conceptualize God is pretty meaningless, not just because of the limitations of our minds ability to perceive something so beyond our realm of thought, but also because of the limitations of language.  I think at some point, we all ‘feel’ what God is, but where we fail is at putting it in words.

 

What I will say for sure is that I do not believe God is a ‘man’, or that man is created in the image of God.  I was raised a Catholic, and I remember from a very young age objecting to the idea that God is a man in the sky, a ‘heavenly father’.  I’d ask, but why can’t God be a woman?  I get really frustrated with the use of the pronoun “He” used for ‘God’ in holy scriptures.  To me this has automatically, on some level, created the idea that God is man.

 

I think I am most comfortable with the idea that God is so many things.  An awakened spirituality, love, compassion.  Khalil Gibran once said “God is the conscience of the rational world”.  I like that.  But when I think about it, it makes sense to me that God is love, compassion, justice, responsibility, respect, etc.  Because I believe that when I carry out my day to day actions to reflect these things, I am worshipping God.  That is the type of life I strive to lead, and I think I lead it best when I think of God meaning this.  But I also believe that if someone else leads this kind of life all the while envisioning God as a polka-dotted hippo in a tutu, then whatever.

 

 

Dynasty Member 4:

 

I argue God is a separate entity from man, from all living, created, timely things.  Humans who reach an awakened spiritual level are portals to the Divine, and reflect a notion of beauty so other-worldly, that it is an essence of the Divine.  One of my dear friends once told me:  all humans are stones.  Some of us have opened our hearts enough to allow the Light to shine down and in us.  And when we become illuminated by this Light, we reflect that Light back out.  A ruby or a diamond is still a stone, but it reflects, while other stones don’t.  They are precious for a reason.  I guess in that story, God is the Light.    I resonate with the idea that one’s personal views on how he/she conceives of God changes from day to day.  That is the beauty of uncertainty and contemplation.  Because God is abstract no two people will agree on what God is or is not.

 

 

Comments on Atheism:

 

Dynasty Member 1:  On Religion and Theism

 

To touch on the notion of no god at all, I would like to say that I think this is totally possible.  I understand the idea that we each define our own God and set of moral principles, but I actually believe that there are plenty of people who do not believe in a supreme being.  There is a theory of The American Religion that states that religion now means essentially any set of principles or beliefs that guide a person through his or her daily life; there is no necessity of afterlife, judgment, or power inherent to most conceptualizations of God, only the motivation to choose one thing over another.  For example, it can be said that here in Denver there is Denver Bronco-ism, wherein every believer lauds John Elway (this explains a lot, people) and every weekend game is watched.  That’s it; that’s a religion according to the United States Supreme Court.  According to the same Court, Islam, Buddhism, and plain reading a lot of Kant are also religions, which is how a lot of people get “conscientious objector” on their Selective Service card.  The idea that every person has a guiding set of principles is totally legitimate, even anarchists do.  But it would be difficult to convince that every religion is a deist religion.

Dynasty Member 2:  Self Reflections on Atheism

I am perplexed with the question of atheism.  If God to us is simply “what is” or, “that which is and is beyond what is,” then how do we consider someone who professes to have no belief in God, yet, does believe in something of our existence — which would be God in actuality, but only to the extent that we do define absolute reality as “God” to begin with.  To me this is just a web of confusion — I think we can only be atheists relative to each others’ conceptions of the Divine.  If A, a self-proclaimed atheist believes only in nature and natural laws, and B also believes only in nature but holds nature to be “God,” then A considers them both atheists and B considers them both theists.  That’s the best way I can think to put it.

 

Dynasty Member 4:  Absolute v. Relative Atheism

I do not think there were any real atheists out there and God is very much an a priori thing.  Who we subscribe as atheist is more or less an individual in opposition to theological dichotomies or just others’ reified definitions of God.  Current neo-atheists simply highlight the gaps in religious thought that theists don’t/can’t come to terms with.  They don’t really tell us anything new.  The reason I argue that no true atheist exists comes largely from the blog post; the definition of God is subjective and a social construction. Whatever other-worldly, metaphysical idea we can conceive of, I argue, is God.  When a person lives for some reason or another, he/she recognizes something beyond them, that beyond-ness could very well be God.

 

If God is a man or spaghetti monster then you can call me an atheist as the word is used in its truest from, i.e., lack of a deity.  What God is, is open to interpretation, like all abstract things, we can define God how we want.  So that is where I disagree with Dynasty Member 1.  I could care less how the government defines religion, at the end of the day the Denver Broncoists do believe in something greater than themselves, or even a collective consciousness, that can be defined as God.  No one exists without some existential conception that guides them, and those ideas, other worldly could be categorized as God.

 

So what is the point on trying to define what God is?  Well, I think the way in which we define God, the depth and complexity, or even simplicity by which we make sense of this dimension of our existential development shapes how we are as people.  Thinking of God, as everything in its basic form, not created/not destroyed, we are all made from the same stuff, and those elements are God (thinking of God almost as the 10^th or 26^th dimension for the string theorists out there).  As light and reflection and stones and gems like I mentioned earlier.  Your world, actions, conception of the good life, and even moral intuitiveness is shaped by your definition.  Your existential beliefs shape who you are.

 

Edited by:  Abbas

 

 

 

Basics of an Islamic Deontological Moral Theory

let me attempt to break down this notion of moral worth and doing things out of love for Allah from a deontological lens 

1.      I agree with this notion of innate ideas, and I do agree that part in parcel of what makes us human is this innate sense of knowing. However, that innate sense of knowing is not sufficient in it of itself. You need empiricism to further develop your sense of rationality. Via rationality, we are ALL able to extrapolate basic principles and ideas from which we create these duties. It is innately known that we should: act in a way that your action could become a universal law without contradiction. That might be a mouthful, but think of it as the Golden Rule.

a. Example: I want to lie. If lying was universal, could I get away with lying? No. The only way I could get away with lying was if it was universally held that no one lied.

2. 2.        There is a difference between ‘inclination’ and ‘duty.’ We are inclined to call our parents when we miss them. We are inclined to go to chipotle when we want some food. Inclinations, should have no baring or affect on others; acting on inclination is fine so long as you are not trespassing on others. It then becomes morally wrong to act on inclination when you have a duty. Basically, to be able to say “this is what I desire/inclined to do, but I will operate on what the ‘right’ thing to do is/what challenges me = freedom/autonomy, because you are not a slave to your inclination. Animals are slaves to inclination. This is where free will comes in, we are free so long as we are capable of departing from inclination and operating on duty. Ability to act on duty alone gives you infinite worth, what is known as dignity; acting on duty gives you moral credit not worth.  In Islam, there is this notion of the struggle against the self (jihad al nafs); moving away from inclinations and operating solely on obligations.

a. What is duty more specifically? Duty is a moral code that we have established for ourselves, which is derived from rationality. For example, the duty to protect human life.

i. There are 2 types of duties, and in each type there are 2 more types, lets consider them.

1. Perfect Duties: These duties are obligations, what you would call in Arabic, fard. You have Duty to yourself (e.g. don’t commit suicide) and to others (e.g., don’t steal, kill, betray, torture, etc.)

2. Imperfect Duties: you have more freedom in terms of how you fulfill these obligations to yourself (e.g., develop your talents and skills) and to others (help others, beneficence, charity, etc.)

ii. There is nothing that is intrinsically good, or good in it of itself other than Good will, which is the only thing you can trust. When I am acting on a Good will (purity of reason), is when I act according to my obligations/what duty requires of me. Basically, when a human acts on duty he acts on good will. Any action done on Good will is an action that carries moral worth. Remember, there are actions that have nothing to do with morality, such as, choosing Chunky Monkey flavor of Americone Dream (the flavor Ben and Jerry’s made for Stephen Colbert). Most of the day we operate not in the realm of morality.

iii. Guilt is a feeling you get when you don’t abide by your duty

3. 3. So lets discuss moral worth a tad bit. There are 3 types of motives:

a. Acting on the motive of duty, and a principle is central to action, acting on duty alone. (i.e., I do X because it is the right thing to do) This alone carries moral weight

b. Act on a selfish inclination (i.e., I do X because it serves my self interest) this type of action has no moral worth because you want to do what serves your interests only.

c. Act on a virtuous inclination of feeling (i.e., I do X because I love Allah)…an example would be when you say “I helped that homeless man because it feels good to do it, and that is the only reason I did it, cuz it felt good to help…oh, and because I love Allah! Subhanallah!” This type of action is done because you love Allah or your community or whatever, you did not do it because it is the right thing to do, but because you love Allah. Your virtuous inclination was jumpstarted with some sort of sympathy. So long as sympathy is there, you keep doing it.

i. This is an inconsistent view, and cannot fully be trusted  like Good will can. As long as you love Allah, you do it, if you don’t love Allah anymore, you stop. Though sympathy is good in initially getting you to do something, it may also serve as an impetus for you to do wrong things, it is not reliable as a motive.

4. 4. Please refer to point 3, (a) through (c). I am about to spit some equations right here:

(a) + (c) = over determined (a good thing!), you are in line with what duty demands of you

(a) + (c) or (a) + (b) are good, but you cant have just (b) or (c) alone, for there is no moral worth in that.

(b) + (c) do not add to moral worth, though what you want to achieve is (a) + (b) + (c), this is the ideal state!!!! Not only are you doing duty, you are doing it because you love Allah, and because it serves a self interest of yours!!!! Word to your Mother!!!!

5. 5. 3 proposition of morality to keep in mind, 1. Only actions done from duty matter, 2. Moral worth is all about intention, and 3. Duty is derived via rationality.

a. Your sense of duty is individually determined, it is what YOU hold yourself to, not some State or what have you.

Word, I hope this made sense. Inherently, Islam is a deontological religion, which means it is a religion that prescribes duties and principles to us that may lead to a happy life. (if you want to get into what happiness is, mention it in the comments). Intention is weighed more heavily than your action, and basically the ends do not necessarily justify the means. In Isalm, the means matter more. Whether or not you love Allah, or you fear Allah, at the end of the day, the concern is whether or not you are doing the right thing in society. Do not try to conflate the two here, if you believe that loving Allah is the key to happiness, then we can have that debate separately, but it has nothing to do with morality itself. The central question of morality is what should we do? What is right or wrong? Islam provides a cheat sheet in terms of “these are the key principles in life, which are obligations for you, you can use your rationality to draw these same conclusions or you can just take Our word for it.” I have not considered some of these principles, that can be for another time. I want to simply elucidate the issue of morality here.

For many of you, whatever I just outlined sounds very familiar, and for you philosophers it should, this is largely extrapolated from Immanuel Kant’s work entitled “the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” Feel free to read it.

Side note, I feel compelled to add this side note, if you have a personal vendetta against all things Western, or if you HATE Kant simply because he is a Western philosopher, then that is perfectly fine. There are a lot of Muslims today that have questionable hatred against ‘modernity’ or the ‘West.’ But claiming that the aforementioned argument is false, or bullsh*t because you think Kant is a stupid-pants, is not a logically valid conclusion (i.e., argumentum ad hominem). Evaluate the merits on it own accord, and as Ali ibn Abu Talib said, “It should not matter who said it, but rather, what is being said.” As someone who spends all day studying moral theory and philosophy in Islam, there is A LOT Islam can learn and adopt from scholars like Kant who have spent their entire lives attempting to break down this construction of morality. Islam, like Judaism, is an orthopraxy faith, and may sometimes loose its moral direction, especially when there is no theoretical foundation by which it can refer back to. Inshallah, Islamic scholars today are dabbling in the field of philosophy again, with the remembrance of the previous tradition of Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Farabi, Rumi, etc. Let’s stop being apologetic, and take more of an active role in our faith. And also, in the paraphrased words of Islamic scholar Tazim Kassam: Muslims risk their own faith and heritage if they do not make serious and concerted effort to address the challenges of this era.

Interesting question: Is prayer a moral duty?

-Abbas Rattani

New Possibilities in Islamic Thought and Spirituality

“When I speak to my students about God, I invariably tell them: If anyone should say to you, ‘Do you believe in God?’ the only appropriate answer to that question is: ‘tell me what you mean by God and I’ll tell you if I believe in that God or not.’  Is this the New Yorker cartoon kind of God, that sits in the clouds, an old man in a caftan?  Is this a Spinozist God that we are talking about? Or the God of the Jewish naturalist Mordecai Kaplan: the power that makes for salvation, or is this rather a Maimonidean God: the God that is “knowing” or knowledge itself?”

Rabbi Neil Gillman, Professor Emeritus of Jewish Thought at the Jewish Theological Seminary

Introduction

When we say the word “God,” what precisely do we mean?  How do we define and construct “religion” and “spirituality” and towards what ends do we employ them?  These are the two questions which I hope to address in this post.  It should go without saying that I am only able to speak from my own subjective perspective and that there will be as many different answers to the aforementioned two questions as there have been human beings.  As always in these posts, my primary aim is to stimulate a thoughtful and engaging conversation so that all of us may benefit from each others’ insights and experiences.  Though this post is not exhaustively researched or particularly well-written, I will address these questions progressively under the following headings: Whence Spirituality and Conceptualizing the Divine. Through these distinct yet interrelated discourses I hope to limn my own take on new possibilities in Islamic thought, Islamic spirituality, and Islamic Humanism.

Whence Spirituality

In order to discuss religion and spirituality in the present we need to examine humanity and our evolutionary past.  Towards this end, the discipline of archaeology is the primary lens through which we draw our insights.  I rely almost exclusively here, in the form of extended paraphrase and quotation, on the art historian and archeologist Nigel Spivey of Cambridge University.[1] In conveying and interpreting one of the professor’s orations on the topic, I attempt to describe my understanding of spirituality as an aesthetic and experiential dimension of the human experience, irrespective of the existence (or non-existence) of any supernatural forces or entities.

From what is determinable from the disciplines of evolutionary biology and population genetics, the species of Homo sapiens have existed for upwards of 200,000 years.  It was only 40,000 years ago, however, in the Upper Paleolithic to be precise, that human beings became, as it were, “religious.”  A radical development has been observed in our cognitive systems at that particular period: as a species we started to make things for the sake of beauty and not utility, we started to paint pictures, to carve sculptures, and finally to use symbols.  As a corollary to the introduction of symbolic forms, we likely began in this period to talk to one another and to play music.  In archaeology, this period is referred to as the “creative explosion,” it was a quantum leap in our human capacities.  Perhaps the most salient feature of this period, for our purposes, is that humans started burying each other properly, placing flowers and gifts at the site of deceased.  These offerings are indicative not only of an attempt at consolation, but also possibly a belief in some form of an afterlife or existence after death.

Sigmund Freud argued that the earliest developments in religiosity were indicative of the advent of a coping mechanism, a means by which humans were able to conceptualize forces and realities outside of our control for which we had not the emotional apparatus with which to contend.  This is, however, impertinent to my anthropological interpretation.  What is important in the “creative explosion” is the broadening of the human experience to include a “spiritual” aspect of our lives, for lack of a better term.  For better or for worse,  the appreciation of beauty, art, and music, and the human yearning for transcendence became indissoluble facets of humanity.  Wassily Kandinsky, in Concerning the Spiritual in Art, eloquently articulates spirituality as the confluence between these two facets: that the spiritual experience is an “inner resonance” towards beauty that transcends physical appreciation of color and form.  For the secularly-minded, one need not be alarmed by the religious overtones associated with the word “spirituality;” the erudite atheist philosopher A. C. Grayling utilizes the word spirituality to describe, among other things, “our enjoyment of beauty and our desire for love.”  Spirituality does not, ex vi termini, denote the presence or participation of a supernatural being or agent.  I argue that spirituality should rather be thought of as a dimension of the human experience.  At this juncture I will add that I frame “religion” as the cultivation of spirituality, of this lofty aspect of humanity.  Given that spirituality is a dimension of the human being, religion thereby exists as the process of becoming fully awakened to our human capacities for love and for appreciation of beauty in all its forms.  Put differently, religion becomes integral to the actualization of our human potential.

Conceptualizing the Divine

Outside the putative triumvirate of contemporary Jewish-American communities of interpretation, the Orthodox, the Conservative, and the Reform, exists a numerically minute movement which self-identifies as Humanistic Judaism.  The late Rabbi Sherwin Wine, a founder of the movement, initiated the term “ignosticism,” roughly synonymous with theological noncognitivism (to be described momentarily), which I find illuminating in discussions about the Divine.   The ignostic understanding asserts that other theological positions (theism, agnosticism, atheism) have built-in assumptions about the identity, nature, and characteristics of God.  Put differently, a lucid explanation of what one means by “God” must be offered if there is to be a worthwhile discussion of said concept.  In recalling the opening quote, it would be of no benefit, for the purposes of this discourse, to discuss God without first specifying what I intend with the word.

I will be candid in saying upfront that I find arguments in favor of God as a supernatural agent or entity, who created the world and human beings, who answers prayers and invades the world to accomplish the divine will – presumptions that are built into the Qur’an and some other scriptural texts – to be of exiguous merit and persuasiveness.  I do not rely here on the arguments of scientistic certainty from Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens (whom Terry Eagleton has collectively dubbed ‘ditchkins’), rather there are now theologians (Paul Tillich, John A. T. Robinson, John Shelby Spong), ‘ex-theologians’ (Bart Ehrman and Michael Donald Goulder) and atheist philosophers (such as A. C. Grayling, to name one contemporary example) who, for those interested, argue against such God definitions in a more nuanced and philosophical fashion.  There may indeed be such a God but it would certainly be beyond my ability to discern. Hopefully, however, Rabbi Gillman’s quote (from the beginning) has alluded to the plurality of possibilities in God definitions.  As this post is about my own spirituality, I shall continue towards the understanding of “God” which I find to be most efficacious.

A Zen Buddhist once told me that in Buddhism, one can come to experience that which other traditions would call “God.”  In this model of the Divine, God is not a being “out there,” rather God is a dimension of the human experience.  God can be understood as a metaphor for the awakened spiritual capacity of a human being.

The poet Jalal al-Din Rumi offers a congruous understanding of God, the sage writes:

“I searched for God among the Christians and on the Cross and therein I found Him not.
I went into the ancient temples of idolatry; no trace of Him was there.
I entered the mountain cave of Hira and then went as far as Qandhar but God I found not.
With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Caucasus and found there only ‘anqa’s habitation.
Then I directed my search to the Kaaba, the resort of old and young; God was not there even.
Turning to philosophy I inquired about him from ibn Sina but found Him not within his range.
I fared then to the scene of the Prophet’s experience of a great divine manifestation only a “two bow-lengths’ distance from him” but God was not there even in that exalted court.
Finally, I looked into my own heart and there I saw Him; He was nowhere else.”

God is to be found thus at the core of humanity, in the heart which is awakened to love. The search for the Divine outside of ourselves is also addressed by `Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani in the following passage:

“You!  Always traversing the world, searching . . .  tell me: what benefit has come of it? That which you are seeking is with you; and you seek elsewhere.”

Recalling the aforementioned definitions offered for religion and spirituality, “God” is the radical and transformative love (`ishq) that can exist in the human heart.   The attestations to this effect from mystics number as many as those mystics themselves.  Attar, for example, devotes The Conference of the Birds to the religious process of discovering God within.  I argue that religious practice and ritual should be conceived not as a means to appease a deity but rather a means to cultivate a particular spiritual experience that is characterized by radical, universal love.

John Shelby Spong stands as one modern mystic who has devoted his life towards the elucidation of this concept: “There is a God experience. This God experience calls us out to the edges of our humanity, where we experience, sometimes in ecstatic moments, a sense of mystery, a sense of otherness, and a sense of transcendence, and we call those experiences God.  [However, these experiences] can only be described in terms of our cultural prejudices and predispositions.”  It is for this reason that I, like Spong, recognize no inerrant scriptures or all-knowing prophets.  Of the latter group, none was able to see through a lens that was isolated from his or her own time and place in history.

A pertinent example would be Muhammad who awakened in himself a deep spirituality that fostered a profound sense of empathy, a willingness to forgive, and a desire to improve the lives of others.  There is no doubt in the Qur’an that the Prophet felt a deep love for all of humanity and he toiled his entire life to create a just society that reformed the treatment of women, the scorn for orphans, and the neglect of the poor.  Muhammad’s system advocated justice and forgiveness above all else.  It is also clear, though, that Muhammad took for granted, among other things, an anthropomorphic and supernatural God and the existence of such religious phenomena as heaven and hell that were uncontested and unquestioned in his day.   Nonetheless, Muhammad’s love for humanity and for God was an inspiration for later writers and mystics who would re-interpret God, expand upon these themes, and who would boldly declare that the Divine could be found in the hearts of humanity.

I have attempted to illuminate religion as the process of becoming fully human and of cultivating the dimension of the human experience that is characterized by a connectedness with all life and the cosmos, a universal love, and an overwhelming aesthetic response. As humanists we benefit tremendously from the religious language and symbolism whose efficacy augments such experiences.  This is the spiritual dimension of humanity, whether we are religious or not, and whether some form of transcendent reality exists – in the way most humans have conceptualized – or not.  Without solving that previous question, I think of God as the awakened spirituality, the `ishq that can exist in every human being.

“Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.”

- First Epistle of John, Chapter 4 Verse 8, New Testament

---

[1] The following has been derived mostly from a brief lecture by Dr. Spivey.  For a more detailed presentation of these thoughts one can consult one of the author’s books: How Art Made the World

-John Miller

Organs from Prisoners (Not exactly “Islamic” but tackles similar issues)

Background

I have been thinking about this issue of individual autonomy v. communitarian morals within the Islamic context.  Namely, to what extent is individual autonomy valued over the values held by a particular community?  Wouldn’t member of a “Muslim” community share the same values?  Ideally, sure.  But then again in a world of limited resources, there has to be some give and take.  I have recently stumbled upon a few articles in regards to solving the organ debt in society, and it deals heavily with what we value as a society and how it may or may not conflict with our understand of individuality.  I make the argument (as noted below) that if we are going to kill people (i.e., punishment for  murder, treason , et al.) then why not use their organs to save other peoples’ lives.  Is this too much of a crazy idea?  I would like your thoughts, maybe I missing something?

My Main Argument

It is fairly evident that a shortage of organs exists in the world.  In response to this crisis, many have offered suggestions for meeting the transplantable organ demand.  In a world where decisions are governed by limited resources, it ultimately seems that we have to forgo particular principles in order to fulfill other moral obligations.  In other words, in order to meet the demand for organs, we must forgo certain principles.  Certain individuals have suggested that we should not obtain organs from prisoners, mainly on the grounds that there are vast amounts of abuse that occur in said organ procurement.  Specifically, Thomas Diflo argues that we should “speak out against this gross violation of human rights and medical ethics.  We must be strong…in our condemnation of the use of executed prisoners’ organs for transplantation.”[1] His argument is rooted in the idea that without proper consent we are unethically procuring organs, and often times the standards of death are so relaxed that organs are procured from individuals still alive.  As a result, physicians are violating the primary tenet of “do no harm.”[2] He concludes by stating that “desperation does not justify illegal or unethical actions.”[3] I agree with his moral qualms in regards to unethical treatments of human persons specifically that of procuring organs while inviduals are alive.  Unfortunately, since circumstances are so desperate and resources are so limited, we must respond to alleviate the organ crisis.  One can argue that (1) a different legal standard, in regards to consent, should be applied to death row inmates, and (2) either a social destigmatization should occur, in terms of organ procurement, or patients should have no knowledge of the origination of the transplantable organ.  Basically, there is no need for more organs to be wasted.  If society is content with killing certain individuals for the benefit of society (regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong) , then the organs of these individuals should be used to save the lives of others because it achieves the same  end, a better society.  A classic utilitarian argument.

Societies that require individuals to provide consent before organs can be procured, should make an exception for death-row inmates and default them to a presumed consent system.  There is extensive literature on the utilitarian justification for limiting the rights of inmates, this does not mean that their basic human rights are limited, just their legal rights.  I do agree with Diflo’s point that oftentimes prisoners are arbitrarily given the sentence of capital punishment (in certain countries) for less severe crimes such as grand theft auto and embezzlement.  However, if better regulations were in place to prevent such lax sentencing, we can assure that people would not be arbitrarily sentenced to capital punishment for the sole purpose of organ harvesting.  Furthermore, it should also be noted, for the purposes of argument, that a common objection to the use of organs from executed prisoners, from a social justice/human rights standpoint, is the issue of cruel and unusual punishment.  Unfortunately, what qualifies as ‘cruel and unusual’ is an arbitrary standard and subject to opinion and social stigma in many cases.  Lethal injection or death by firing squad are arguably forms of cruel and unusual punishment.  If capital punishment was administered through controlled cardiac death, then the procurement of organs from prisoners would reflect a “judgment in favor of an improvement in quality and quantity of organs procured over an increased certainty of death.”[4] Instead of opting for archaic, time-bound means of punishment (i.e., firing squad), controlled cardiac death should be the option in order to procure high quality organs which will ultimately benefit society by saving the lives of many innocent individuals.

A form of destigmatization must occur in order to transplant organs from executed prisoners into individuals who may have social reservations from obtaining such organs.  It should first be noted that I am operating under the notion that capital punishment does not have any social stigma and the killing of felons is seen as a benefit to society as a whole.  Secondly, the ethics of stigmatization arises from the fact that the organs belonged to criminals.  With that said, it is assumed that patients may be weary about receiving organs from felons who may have committed heinous crimes to atrocities.  Oftentimes patients may be socialized into thinking or holding a particular principle, such as organs received from a criminal may in some way affect the physiological processes of the body.  If patients view an organ solely as a part that needs replacing within a machine, it may be easier to strip such stigmas from the prisoner’s organs procured.  However, I am not advocating that we interfere with people’s personal beliefs; instead I am suggesting one way in which we can approach the ethics of destigmatizing organs from prisoners (i.e., from a utilitarian perspective).  Another alternative is based on a form of medical paternalism with roots tracing back to Plato’s noble lie.  If patients are not informed about the origins of a particular organ, they may not have any reservations or qualms about accepting the organ.  Granted there are ethical issues at stake in regards to the physician-patient relationship, but again, this is solely a suggestion to the problem of stigmatization.  Also, it is possible that those individuals, like myself, who adhere to a deontological view of ethics may be opposed to accepting the organ on a matter of principle against the killing of individuals, period.

I agree with Diflo in the sense that we should speak out against the abuses involving the “not well defined or fully accepted” certification of brain death, or the lack of brain death criteria in organ procurement (i.e., procuring organs from live prisoners).  Nonetheless, just because such abuses and haphazard measures are taking place, we should not eliminate the idea of organ procurement from executed prisoners.  In society, there is a clear distinction between prisoner and innocent, and because of this difference society upholds different legal imperatives.  Therefore, if prisoners are automatically defaulted to a presumed consent, the issue of consent no longer is relevant in the procurement of organs.  Whether or not these prisoners should have the right to opt out of this is a question of whether a given society values individual autonomy over communitarian values.  The issue of legalization of morality also comes into question, an issue that must be addressed as well when societies decide the value of autonomy over communal morality; e.g., to what extent does forgoing legal rights impede moral/human rights?  Finally, ethical issues arise indefinitely, and will arise as a result of the suggestion in question.  However, I believe the largest issue is in regards to the stigmatization of organs, which will have to be addressed before prisoner organs are allowed to enter an organ bank.

In conclusion, since people are dying due to a lack of availability in viable and transplantable organs, and certain prisoners face capital punishment, it is only sensible to procure organs from those that are subject to capital punishment in order to save the lives of the innocent.  In other words, if it is morally acceptable (from a utilitarian construct) to ‘waste’ the life of an individual because he/she is viewed as dangerous to societal progress, then society should have no reservations in terms of procuring the organs from said prisoners in order to save innocent individuals in the interest of benefiting society so long as they ascribe to this utilitarian point of view.  The end goal in both cases is the benefit to society, whether certain individuals are killed because they are irreclaimable or whether organs are used from executed prisoners to save lives.  However, this argument is contingent on the idea that society is in favor of capital punishment.  My personal views on capital punishment is a separate issue and one not addressed herein.

-Abbas

---

[1] Thomas Diflo, “Use of Organs from Executed Chinese Prisoners,” www.thelancet.com Mecicine, Crime, and Punishment 364 (2004):  11.

 

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Teck-Chuan Voo, Alastair V. Campell, Leonardo D de Castro, “The Ethics of Organ Transplantation: Shortages and Strategies,” Annals Academy of Medicine 38.4 (2009): 361.

Rethinking Prophecy: From “Revelation” to Personal Spiritual Reflection

Beyond Exceptionalism, Beyond Revelation

The conceptualization in Islam of what represents a “prophet” has received little to no attention by Muslim theologians.  The earliest scholars reached consensus in the idea that the angel Gabriel had essentially whispered the words of the Qur’an into Muhammad’s ear and that particular definition has been virtually uncontested through today.  This ‘orthodoxic’ theory is rooted in some manner of exceptionalism with regards to Muhammad.  Some people at the time (of Muhammad) were priests, some were spiritual reformers, more still may have been very pious, but then something different happened, something that had not happened for a long time.  God emerged from silence and revealed a new dispensation to the unsuspecting prophet.  As this putative explanation has lingered in our collective conscience though the ages, our understanding of Muhammad has become progressively ahistorical.

In the Ancient Near East, prophets were, believe it or not, a common lot.  Within Judah and Israel, for example, prophets were officially employed individuals — equipped with formal training — who served in the government.  This was alongside diviners who studied the natural world, in order to better understand what the future held, and the self-proclaimed itinerant prophets and seers who often traveled and harangued the ruling authorities, denounced their enemies, or otherwise tried to instigate religious or political reform.  The founder of Sociology, Max Weber, in his Sociology of Religion chose the Biblical Prophet Amos as his paradigmatic prophet through which to explore the meaning of the concept and its function in the Ancient Near East.  Scholars later noted that Amos was quite atypical as a prophet in the Ancient Near East and thereby not a particularly worthy candidate for study.  Amos, who was what we might anachronistically call a ‘freelance prophet’ did not represent the norm.  Most prophets in fact had formal training and were employed by the ruling powers.  To the gaze of one unacclimated with Ancient Near Eastern Society, the station of a “Prophet” might appear quite a spectacular and supernatural occurance, something outside of the norm of everyday religiosity.  We might be inclined to believe that this individual was in some form of ‘special relationship with God’ that led to all sorts of theosophical insights and esoteric or gnostic knowledge.  It is for this reason that I argue that our image of prophethood is ahistorical.  The esteemed scholar Abdulaziz Sachedina writes on this topic: “later idealization of the Prophet gave rise to the notion of his being something more than an ordinary man; he must have been divinely chosen and hence the true leader who could guide his people to salvation” (emphasis mine).  This quote eloquently frames the central contention of this essay.

In mythologizing the position of prophets, we also are invariably led to mythologization with regards to the teachings of these figures.   We have indeed come a long way in rejecting the idea of the angel at Muhammad’s ear.  Nonetheless, I remain dissatisfied with some of the more recent revisionist theories.  It has been hypothesized, and I myself used to subscribe to the notion, that Muhammad was a mystic (in the modern sense) who discovered the divinity within himself and then put into his own words the eternal divine truth that he had discovered.  This conception might be accurately described by the theory that the Qur’an is “divinely-inspired”  in the sense that Muhammad was involved in the production of the ideas, but, his message bears the stamp of God’s approval and is saturated with theosophical wisdom.   After ruminating over this idea, I find it just as ahistorical as the aforementioned theories of the angelic messenger and, ultimately, equally unsatisfying.  Despite the message, in this case, originating internally within the Prophet, these theories still smack of religious ideas being ‘revealed’ to Muhammad who was a special class of person licensed for such divine  receptions and who was bestowed with ‘authority’ in these matters.  The religious teachings are not products of Muhammad’s thinking, in this model, they are ultimately God’s ideas ‘discovered’ by the Prophet.  That these religious ideals came from some form of revelatory source, I argue, presumes an archaic conception of God. Further, these theories unfortunately reek of Muhammadan exceptionalism.  Do we really feel that Jeremiah, Amos, and Hosea were some form of mystics who actualized their spiritual potentials and who came to experience the divine truths within themselves?  If so, we haven’t read them very closely.  We need to fit Muhammad into continuities of time and place and into prophetic context.

The Alternative

The alternative model I propose is quite simple, it’s something we have all probably done at one time or another.  I view the messages of the Biblical and pre-Biblical prophets, as well as Muhammad’s, to be the product of a process of reflection on the meaning of life and of God (as understood in contextual 7th-century or prior terms).  This crafts prophecy as a process of inner spiritual dialogue, of learning and observing from the outside world and thinking deeply about how to move forward humanity’s moral, societal, and theological understandings.  This ties in intimately with AbdulKarim Soroush’s contention that Muhammad actually believed that which he taught.  Muhammad was not made privy to the secrets of the universe and then decided to use such archaic ideas of heaven and hell, Satan, and Adam and Eve for rhetorical effect; I feel it is quite reasonable to demonstrate that he firmly believed in these models which were the consensus among monotheists of the time (and even still today).

With specific regards to Muhammad’s teachings in the Qur’an, there are many which I quite frankly do not accept and do not incorporate into my spirituality.  At the same time I do not feel that for students of religion, such as ourselves, this is altogether particularly radical.  Do any of us look in awe to the laws of Leviticus as legal rulings that originated with God?  Even if we do think that, they are quite plainly not (academic scholars have shown that many of these laws were appropriated from pre-Israelite legal corpora of the Akkadians and other communities).  Do we truly take seriously the stories of Noah and the Ark (a saga derived from the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh), or the traditional Genesis creation story (a derivative of the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish)?  Most likely we do not.  Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, an expert on Qur’anic Hermeneutics has shown quite convincingly that many of the Qur’an’s legal rulings are inspired by Roman Common Law codes that filtered down into Arab society, should we be surprised?

I am by no means suggesting that Muhammad was a literalist with regards to the Biblical stories — that seems to be a much more modern phenomenon — nor am I suggesting that he or other prophets were ancient plagiarists who deserve to be exposed.  To the contrary, the sapiential literature that makes up our scriptures is truly precious and its influence on modern moral and spiritual thought can scarcely be accounted for.  I simply argue that we have failed to situate the prophets (such as Muhammad) into their historical contexts and we have profoundly misconceptualized the nature and content of their teachings.  Ironic though it may appear, my appreciation for the Bible and Qur’an are significantly elevated if I conceptualize their writers as normal human beings who meditated deeply on  moral and theological challenges (many of which still await resolution).  I can appreciate the Bible and Qur’an as moral, theological, and literary landmarks in the development of human thought that have initiated many of the theological metaphors that still are relevant to our spiritual journeys today.

Who Is a Prophet?

If prophecy can be defined as an inner spiritual meditation upon theological matters, who, then, is a prophet?  Though vastly outside the scope of this essay, I am most intrigued by the notion of God — in terms of his presence in our plane of time and space — being defined as an inner spiritual experience.  If God is defined as such, it makes much more sense for prophecy to be a process of spiritual meditation and inner contemplation.

Essentially, I view Muhammad to be a wonderful spiritual teacher in 7th century Arabia whose message was the product of a life-long internal spiritual discourse and reasoned deductions.  To illustrate what I mean by ‘spiritual teacher’ I would cite such examples as: scholar of Islamic mysticism AbdulKarim Soroush, Episcopalian Bishop, mystic, and reformer John Shelby Spong, the Bishop of Durham and renowned ancient historian N. T. Wright, ‘Progressive Islam’ theorist and scholar of Persian Sufism Omid Safi, Iranian theologian Mohsen Kadivar, scholar of Biblical hermeneutics Marcus Borg, and Egyptian literary critic, Arabist, and Qur’anic Scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd — just to name a few prominent examples.  To me, there is no functional difference between how these figures develop their thoughts about religion and the method employed by Muhammad (although those at present have many more tools at their disposal).  “Prophet,” would be just a 7th century way of saying one who reflected deeply on spiritual issues and likely taught a community.  How do we recognize who counts as a valid spiritual teacher, you may ask?  Well, quite simply, things aren’t that black-and-white: the “true prophet,” “false prophet” and the “not-a-prophet-but-really-spiritual-person” categories are not particularly helpful.  I cite `Ali’s exhortation not to focus on the identity of the speaker but on the content of his speech.  No individual should be given the right to have their ideas accepted at face value as being automatically true and revealed by God.  For every figure, historical and present, with whom we interface in the formulation of our spirituality, we must critically analyze their ideas and craft a piety as personal as we are.

-John

God and Human Suffering: Recapitulation of a Debate

The Background

On Wednesday, October 7, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill served as the setting for a debate on the existence of God in light of the problem of suffering.  Hosted by the Fixed Point Foundation—an organization dedicated to “publicly defending Christianity through education”—the debate featured James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature at UNC and agnostic, Bart D. Ehrman, and Fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institute, Christian, and author of What’s So Great about Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza.  The debate filled UNC’s Memorial Hall and received a standing ovation from its attendees.  As Dr. Ehrman noted in his opening statement, he does not care what people believe, he simply hopes that each of us does not settle for simplistic answers in confronting life’s greatest challenges.  In that line of thinking I decided to share my experiences from the debate in the hopes of instilling an internal dialogue in all of us on this most-important topic.

Ehrman’s Opening Statement

In his opening statement, Dr. Ehrman gave a brief autobiographical sketch of himself with special regard to his spiritual journey from evangelical Christian to agnostic.  Ehrman entered the Princeton Theological Seminary with the aim of becoming a minister and augmenting his knowledge of the Bible—a text he held to be the Word of God.  While completing his degree, and eventually becoming a minister, Ehrman had become disillusioned with this particular conceptualization of the Bible.  He began to doubt his long-held views on the text in light of his scholarship on early Biblical manuscripts.  One of the problems Ehrman wrestled with, which led to his recent publication of God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer—was the problem of human suffering.

Ehrman’s first point was to address the reasons proposed for suffering as found in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament—explanations Ehrman finds to be overly simplistic and unsatisfying.  First he mentioned that at points in the Biblical text, human beings are depicted as suffering on account of their sins against God—i.e. as punishment.  Ehrman remembered one parishioner of a friend’s Church who had just lost her 16-year-old daughter in an accident.  “I know why she died,” explained the woman, “I promised God that I would quit smoking and I still haven’t.”  Ehrman is not convinced of this conceptualization of the Divine.  Additionally, the Bible depicts humans as suffering as a test to see if we remain faithful.  Lastly, the Bible at times depicts human suffering as the product of specific forces of evil: viz., Satan and his henchman.  Ehrman finds all of these unconvincing and, he says, these are rarely offered in e-mail rebuttals he receives on the topic of his book.  Most Christians, he says, use the argument of free will.  God has granted us the ability to do “nasty things to one another.”  The problem, Ehrman explains, is twofold: first, this explains the problem of moral evil (what humans do to one another—genocide, wars, etc.) but it does not explain biological suffering—i.e. a slow and painful death of a family member to a terminal disease.  Secondly, where is the Biblical God?  The Bible is saturated with stories of God intervening to save the Jewish people or to enact justice upon wrongdoers.  He helps lead Moses out of Egypt and he chooses the Persian King Cyrus to end the first Jewish exile.  God apparently has no qualms in stepping into creation and changing the course of events, why does he not act in this manner any longer? Where was God in the holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc.?  Why doesn’t God answer, Ehrman asks, when a man broke into the house of an 80-year old woman and raped her despite her prayers to God?  These are indeed issues of human free will but is God involved or is he not? Does God answer our prayers or does he not?  He used to—in the Bible—so where is that God now?

D’Souza’s Response

Dinesh opened his portion of the debate with a counter to Dr. Ehrman’s overall thesis.  “Does suffering really call into question the existence of God?” Dinesh asks, or does it simply call into question the validity of our image and understanding of God?  Dinesh contends that our suffering should lead us not to question the Divine presence but to meditate upon our purpose here and God’s purpose for us.  Is the purpose of life to live in blissful comfort at all times or is it something more profound?  Dinesh uses an analogy to explain his point.  Let us say that we are a child with a father figure who loves us and wants what’s best for us.  We feel he is there to protect us from any harm that may come our way.  If we are running outside and fall and scrape our knee, what would this lead us to conclude? That our father doesn’t exist? Certainly not, what we would logically conclude is that our father’s purpose and position in our lives was not as we thought it was.  We would re-examine our beliefs about our father but we would not doubt his existence.  Dinesh asks us to extend this to our inquiries into the existence of the divine on the topic of suffering.  Does our suffering mean that God is nowhere to be found or that we have conceptualized God in the wrong way?  The helpful dichotomy of moral evil (what humans do to one another) and natural suffering (earthquakes, hurricanes, cancer etc.) was offered by Dinesh to help elucidate his point.  On the topic of moral evil, Dinesh emphasizes that when murder and war happen, the humans are wholly at fault, not God.  God, in fact, exhorts us to do the opposite and to love one another.   Dinesh did not have time fully, in his opening statement, to explain his understanding of natural suffering but there is one more point that I will add.  When we lose a close family member it hurts so badly because we deeply love that person.  If someone dies whom we do not know, it hurts less.  Therefore suffering is directly proportional to the amount of love we have for another human being.  Is Ehrman suggesting that we just abolish love? Maybe life wouldn’t hurt as much.

Ehrman’s Rebuttal

Ehrman began his response by stating that, while all of that was fine and nice, Dinesh didn’t actually answer any of his questions and didn’t actually pay any attention to the Bible.  Ehrman is an agnostic, he doesn’t mind the thought of some God out there, he wants to know about the God of the Bible.  Dinesh did not mention the holy text once nor did he discuss the issue of prayer.  Ehrman also rejects the notion that moral evil results solely from our free will.  He asks this of people who make that argument, and who also usually happen to believe in the existence of heaven: “Do we have free will in heaven?” People usually answer that yes we do, we do not simply become robots.  “Well,” Dr. Ehrman continues, “is there still moral evil in heaven? Do people still do nasty things to one another?”  The answer is inevitably, “no.”  So the argument that there has to be suffering because God thankfully gave us free will does not seem to be relevant to the conversation.  That is more or less of an aside, Ehrman does accept free will as the cause of moral evil, what he wants to know, however, is where the Biblical God is in this picture?  Does God still answer prayers or not?  What does Dinesh think about the authority of the Bible in confronting this topic?  Additionally, Dinesh had mentioned that without any suffering there would be no reason for humans to do any good deeds to one another or to be virtuous.  To this Ehrman responds that he is revolted by the idea that children have to starve to death, and were thrown in to the concentration camps in Auschwitz simply so that he could have virtue.  Is this unconscionable suffering really necessary just to see how moral we humans will be?  Is there really no other way that God could have created the system?

D’Souza’s Second Response

Dinesh’s responds by addressing these two issues.  With regards to prayer, we need to consider for a moment the nature of prayer and the contract we have with God.  God has plans for us but most of our prayers are for direct requests for God to abandon his plans and give us exactly what we want at a given moment: “God please help us do well in this football game or on this test.”  The archetypal Christian prayer is, of course, the Lord’s Prayer which features the line “Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (J: If I remember correctly).  God understands our needs and our fears and our desires, and we should constantly be in dialogue with God, however, we should understand that God has plans for us and our goal should be to listen and to conform as best we can.  Secondly, Dinesh again responds to Ehrman’s assumption that the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God would result in a suffering-free existence.  Maybe suffering is necessary.  Our parents love us dearly and they have the power to keep us safe in our houses for out entire lives, keeping away all dangers and protecting us from any discomfort.  They also love us dearly.  At the same time the send us off to college for us to be hurt in relationships, to get bad grades, and to experience the vicissitudes of life.  Does this mean that they did not have the power to keep us safe? Does this mean that they don’t love us? Or is there something more there below the surface—a deeper wisdom, as it were.

Lingering Questions

I could go on for much longer but I’m sure those reading have already had their fill.  I also hope that I have done justice to both participants’ points of view.  I’ll exit with a couple of lingering questions that I felt went unanswered in the debate

I felt Dinesh failed to compellingly explain the problem of prayer and suffering as well as the authority of the Bible.  This applies equally to any other theists, not just Christians.  Are the answers found in the Bible and Qur’an compelling? Are they even the answers we use in our daily lives?  Are they our foremost source for confronting these difficult questions, or has their insight waned as human thought has developed?  Also, where is the God of the scriptures? The God that intervenes in our affairs, that guides the “good army” to victory over the “bad army.”  Is that God still here? Was that God ever really here or is that just how people thought about God when our scriptures were written (this is more my question, than Bart’s).  Further, Dinesh never addressed the issue of natural suffering.  Free will explains genocide but what is the reason for someone having chronic pain?  Why must there be tectonic plates that destroy poor villages from time to time in the form of earthquakes?  Is that necessary? Did things have to be that way?

I felt Dr. Ehrman could have responded better to Dinesh’s critique of his assumptions.  Does our suffering automatically lead us to question God’s existence or should there be preliminary questions before we reach that conclusion such as – have we completely misunderstood what God is? (cf. Rabbi Harold Kushner who, in When Bad Things Happen to Good People, suggests that God is all-loving but not omnipotent.  Most theists will immediately reject this but I will just say that it’s one of the most highly-acclaimed and respected books on human suffering– and I obviously can’t do justice to it here). Further, do we read the texts literally or do we use a historical-metaphorical hermeneutic (cf. Theologian  and Professor Marcus Borg) that might allow for us to conceive of God differently than the scriptures yet still value the symbols and metaphors of scripture in this present age.  Finally, is there any possible wisdom to our suffering?  The sage Jalaluddin Rumi notes that God let us feel pain so that we could know it’s opposite.  Without relying on the doctrine that at some point we do feel pleasure without pain (i.e. heaven) can Ehrman respond to this?  Or then is Rumi’s statement a bit overly simplistic, isn’t it a bit excessive that some people have to feel chronic pain their entire lives? Is this really of God’s best wisdom or is Rumi’s contribution just as oversimplified as the rest?

I hope this summary and these questions lead us to think more deeply on the topic and to challenge our own simplistic understandings of these most important issues.

-John