On Moral Tolerance - Quareness Series (42nd "Lecture").
To tolerate can mean many things (like almost everything else?) and the root cause of the diversity of meaning is simply that in the final analysis the human condition is necessarily subjective. Whilst you are tolerant by for example allowing others to practice their religious faith or philosophy undisturbed and without harassment, being required either by yourself or another to agree with that faith is inherently intolerant. Firmly believing in your heart that your way is the right way, is only tolerant if it is subjective for yourself alone. Any belief system that denies the unique seeking of enlightenment by each individual person through "objectifying" the essentially subjective experience of God (or indeed any other high ideal to which we may pay homage) is really exhalting my own interpretation "away above its station" (in biblical terms the sin of pride perhaps?). This is apart altogether from disregarding the scientific truth that the different perspective in the act of observing by each person is integral to reality itself. An authentic faith therefore is one open to truth (and the real religious experience is a journey of discovery of the truth reflected in reality) rather than a closed set of beliefs about anything. This latter I feel is driven by a fear of losing control and breaching of boundaries, but I find it hard to get my head around how we can learn if we don't "push out the boat".
The righteous mind worries me. I think respect for free will is a core fundamental.
The core value of the exercise of free will is one of learning (which I'm inclined to believe is mostly why we are all here in the first instance). Taking a cue from the Bible you might say the learning history of the human race began with the exercise of free will in the Garden of Eden, fully respected by the Creator even though He presumably would have known the painful outcome beforehand. In the circumstances I think it important that how we arrange civil matters has to place this free will type of freedom (with its inherent risks of being a negative influence) at the centre of our value system. Any restrictions placed need to be confined to those commensurate with maintaining reasonable order. By all means let's have freedom to seek to inform and persuade others to our moral point of view but we shouldn't please try to take away their right to make their own moral decisions. Learning the hard way is still learning. Taking the decisions away from people maybe isn't learning at all.
My understanding of righteousness is that of a moral outlook totally convinced of its correctness for oneself and for others. In this world I believe no one has the full script. Our history here in Ireland has had some unfortunate experiences with some righteous minds e.g. Oliver Cromwell, and indeed we still live today with some remnants of this type of mindset.
The exercise of individual free will without undue interference from the Civil Powers, only makes sense to me if there is freedom to make the "wrong" moral choice. I see the Bible and other religious texts as just some among many sources of human history and mythology. As far as I know the biblical story of creation for example, does cover free choice (and shame as a consequence) but perhaps what some might see as the consequential perpetuating dulling of human conscience is just an opinion on what followed long term? We can say that responsibility should accompany our freedom to choose, but for me such responsibility is morally liberating only if it follows from the full exercising of free choice.
Where matters of reasonable public order (which could well include some "moral" aspects) are concerned, I do think that laws should seek to protect the vulnerable from abuses of power. I do so on the grounds that we are not at all well served by a fundamental flaw in the body politic when the working of the law aids the strong to wield their stick. However, many real live issues are still ones which may be irreconcilable to the satisfaction of all the righteous minds involved.
In the public sphere where circumstances give rise to a clash between a personal moral code (e.g. being against abortion, or voluntary assisted suicide, etc.) and the right to free will, the latter has to take precedence for me even if we fear the results will be negative. Taking the example of abortion again, such can be seen as the initial consequence of a moral decision to prematurely terminate a unique form of human potential - for me the destruction of potential uniqueness is the fundamental moral wrong but in the world of civil affairs this goes on all the time and no doubt many would disagree with me.
While I would insist on taking my own moral stances in such affairs, I would totally respect any other's right to do the same except where matters of reasonable public order are concerned. Perhaps many would ultimately regard abortion and its societal after effects (as they see them) to be such matters and perhaps it would logically follow from such a view that the Unborn should be fully protected in law, but the question then arises as to how to do so. Ireland faced an awkward problem some years back on this when an official attempt was made to prevent a young lady leaving the country for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. Here was a practical straight up clash between the freedom to travel for whatever reason and the moral "imperative" to protect the Fetus. The end result was a Constitutional change voted through by the Electorate enshrining the right to travel. In the final analysis we had to face the fact that this was an essentially private matter with an unhelpful public aspect which most people here decided (for good or ill) should not arise again.
I would try to show respect for anybody's moral beliefs whether religious or otherwise. I would not regard acceptance of such as my defending oppression of certain members of society. If others chose to oppress I would not feel in any way responsible for those choices. At the same time I would state my own moral view if given the chance, and I would strongly support the provision of alternatives to more readily facilitate their deciding more in keeping with my view.
The truly religious will search for God first and foremost in our fellow humans. History has shown that the pseudo religious outlook tends to try to alter humans so as to fit in with a predefined notion of God (which view ironically has itself been defined by the human mind). And the same could be said for real and pseudo humanism.
It's from these small minded origins that much intolerance as well as atrocity derives its distinguishing marks of self perceived justification. Much if not most organised religion sees itself as fulfilling a core mission of saving souls for Christ, Allah, Yaweh, Khrisna, etc. Again history has shown the efficacy of operating hand in glove with the forces of cultural/political/ social domination in order to further this mission. Is it any wonder that a "little" force and pressure and dehumanising of the "enemy" can often seem perfectly justified within this mindset? - a mindset which has provided and continues to provide the world with many examples of projecting its own savagery onto others pretending that the roots of its own evil inclinations are the sole preserve of enemies or totally aberrant member of its own side.
The "other way" is one of celebrating and truly respecting diversity in our world and in the long run this alternative may prove to be the only viable way. The God of Life and the God of Death are both alive and "kicking" within all religions and no religion. Its up to us mere humans to decide which to support. In this way Tolerance far from being an unprincipled stance (as is often alleged) is in itself a moral principle of most high value.
Finally - a cautionary tale for the rigid righteous mind...
Our sense of personal identity appears to inhabit the left hemisphere, while the right brain harbours the "stranger within". And the right brain seems then to be the gateway to consciousness, a different way of experiencing the world than the rationalising of the left brain.
A disturbing "second self" or "doppelganger" can develop in the right brain unheeded by the rational left until a moment of particular vulnerability or stress, when it precipitously erupts into full blown life. Angrily and frighteningly confrontational, the second self demands that the reality-oriented conscious left self meets its considerable needs. Sufferers may have a history of tending to avoid conscious awareness of the shame and humiliation inflicted by others and of the self-contempt they feel for not achieving the fulfillment of their personal identities. In trying to avert pain, they cast their disavowed experiences into their right brain, relegating the shaming experience to emotional processing rather than to cognitive awareness i.e. they have stored their hurtful experiences in the right brain along with a negative narrative voice. And over time this "doppelganger" continuously fed the psychologically powerful diet of contempt and rage, gains ascendency over the unexamined vulnerable conscious self. Without the mediation of reason, the afflicted person becomes more prone to primitive rages as well as to irritation and annoyance.
The older right half of the brain is imaginative, physical and volatile, craving excitement and challenges, but it requires the left brain to articulate and justify its demands. When one mind (or half of the brain) dominates, its separate and distinct "personality" has full access to and control of the physiological functions of the entire body. However, it is a mistake to think each of us has dual personalities and that the wicked self can overpower the good self and force us to act malevolently. Such belief that we are powerless absolves us of responsibility. Rather what really happens is a gradual process whereby the socialised left brain is gradually put aside, being anesthetised by rationalisation and denial. In its place the emotional, violence-prone right brain is given authority. Over time, continual rationalisations and denial erode the sense of positive personal identity. The idealised values that are vital for self-esteem are compromised and finally cast off, a surrender that is experienced as shameful. Much hurt, resentment and self-contempt accompany this shame, and in the end this combination of contempt and increasing rage produces a malevolence that lashes out at the world.
In the final analysis what distinguishes the more benevolent person is not the absence of hostility and contempt toward oneself and others, but the willingness to struggle against our troublesome urges, to work to understand them, and to deal courageously and compassionately with the hurt that has provoked them.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
May, 2014.