Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Dems are ‘values voters,’ too
On the eve of the election, I am pleased that my fellow Democrats have finally learned not to concede “moral values” language to the other side.
In past elections, we heard a lot about “values voters”—a code-term for right-wingers on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Senator Obama, among his many talents, has made the case that we should all be “values voters;” that foreign, economic, and environmental policy are moral issues; and that compassion, equality, and justice are values, too.Still, my fellow liberals often have a hard time with the language of morals—whether because of an admirable humility, a lamentable wishy-washiness, or both.
That aversion results in a number of common but dumb claims about morality and ethics. (Like most philosophers, I use the terms interchangeably—there is no “standard” distinction.) Here’s my take on these claims:
(1) “Morality is a private matter.” To put it bluntly, this claim is nonsense of the highest order. Morality is about how we treat one another. It’s about what we as a society embrace, what we merely tolerate, and what we absolutely forbid.
While morality respects certain private spheres—and while some moral decisions are best left to those most intimately affected by them—morality is generally quite the opposite of a “private” matter.
(2) “You shouldn’t judge other people.” This claim is not only false, it’s self-defeating. (If you shouldn’t judge other people, then why are you telling me what to do?)
The reason this claim sounds remotely plausible is because of a slight ambiguity in what it means to “judge other people.” Should you go around wagging your finger in people’s faces? Of course not. No one likes a know-it-all, and pompous moralizing is counterproductive.
But it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t make any moral judgments about other people’s behavior. Doing so is often the best way to figure out what traits to emulate and what mistakes to avoid.
(3) “I don’t need anyone’s moral approval.” If this claim means that individuals don’t need the moral approval of any other given individual, then fine: there will always be those whose moralizing is ill-informed, sloppy or insensitive—and thus best avoided. But to deny that we need the moral approval of anyone at all overlooks morality’s crucial social role.
Morality, unlike law, does not have formal enforcement procedures: police and courts and the like. It relies instead on social pressure—encouraging glances and raised eyebrows, nudges and winks, inclusion and ostracism. (Interestingly, some right-wing bloggers have reacted to my recent work by worrying about “court-enforced moral approval”—as if that concept made any sense.)
Moral pressure can help us be our best selves. But in order for it to work, we need to take other people’s moral opinions seriously most of the time. Just as unreasonable or unenforceable laws erode our confidence in law itself (think Prohibition), widespread dismissal of others’ moral views erodes morality’s social function.
(4) “Morality is just a matter of opinion.” Whether boxers are preferable to briefs is “just” a matter of opinion. Whether coffee tastes better with cream and sugar is “just” a matter of opinion. To call our moral values “just” a matter of opinion, by contrast, is to ignore their social and personal significance.
The problem here is that people start with a legitimate distinction between facts and values—in other words, between descriptions of the world and normative judgments about it. Unfortunately, the fact/value distinction morphs into the much fuzzier fact/opinion distinction, which then morphs into the fact/ “mere” opinion distinction—suggesting that values are unimportant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
(5) “There’s no point in arguing about morality.” Moral problems are practical problems: they’re problems about what to do. “Agreeing to disagree” is fine when the stakes are low or when the status quo is tolerable. But when something is badly wrong in the world, we should strive to repair it. That often requires making a persuasive moral case to our neighbors.
My own experience as “The Gay Moralist” suggests that moral arguments can make a difference—which is not to say they do so instantly or easily. Sometimes they require an extended back-and-forth. Sometimes, they help us get a foot in the door so that an emotional connection can be made. But the idea that they never work is not merely defeatist, it’s downright false.
In short, we should all be moralists—liberals and conservatives, religious and secular, red-staters and blue-staters—because we all need to figure out how to live together.
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
For over fifteen years he has traveled the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics. His writing has been featured in regional and national periodicals, at the online Independent Gay Forum, and in numerous scholarly anthologies. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
we must fight the churches on their own stupidity. they got into politics/civil rights. there has to be a lawyer out there who can nail them. the morman church hasn’t an extra wife to stand on. lol. take away tax-exempt status. between them and catholics….. etc. we could substantially bring down our national debt. pursue less rights, same taxes, we will win if we cstick together and, FIGHT BACK, AS “DIRTY AS THEY DO”. JERRY CALLAIO
in constitution we are allequal.(BUT IN THE BOOK ANIMAL FARM;SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS). WHERE IS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE???IF WE ARE LEGISLATED TI SECOND CLASS CITIZENS: THAN WHY DO WE PAY SAME AMOUNT OF TAXES?WE CAMNNOT ADOPT HERE, WHY PAY SCHOOL TAX? BUT IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH…. THE MORMAN CHURCH.. PREACH AND GIVE $ TO POLITICAL CAUSES; WHY ARE THEY STILL TAX-EXEMPT????? WE CAN BEAT THEM ON THEIR OWN HYPROCISTY!!!! THEY OWE TAXES; JUST LIKE WE HOMOSEXUALS!!!!! JERRY CALLAIO ACT-UP!!!!
In most major religions, some version of the Golden Rule – treat others the same as you want to be treated – is the foundation of morality. The rest is detail.
In response to Chad:
Merely pointing out a flaw (or arguing Ad hominem against) in someone’s argument does neither you nor the author any good.
If your response was meant to challenge someone on how to define morality, then I believe a Philosophy professor is definitely the wrong person to challenge.
Plus, I believe your issue was addressed in (1).
You are right Chad when you say, “Your readers may not be as smart as you think they are.”
Typo.. Last sentence of my first long paragraph should read:
….which I believe is a necessary condition to the pursuit of a virtuous life.
Some comments on here are particularly strong… but I understand where they’re coming from. The issue, I believe, is rooted in our tendencies as humans to not talk to each other when we are in disagreement. We shut ourselves off from the other argument, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The failure to communicate prevents us from moving forward, beyond our differences of opinion of what constitutes morally virtuous beliefs, behaviors, etc. This is the main reason why it takes so long to convince someone that their views are possibly mistaken (or even ourselves for that matter). Some Philosophers will even argue that just because someone says or has a certain belief, it does not follow that they actually believe it. Another issue is whether a person’s belief formation process is rooted in false belief or poor evidence for their beliefs or self-deception (and I believe this applies to most of us as evidenced in research in cognitive psychology of human tendencies to rationalize: “I deserve this” etc etc). How obvious will this be to the average person? It has, in addition, been argued that reflection on our beliefs will enable us to make corrections as necessary (Cartesian), but most people do not seek objective, external sources of criticism (naturalist) in their beliefs which is believe is a necessary condition to the pursuit of a virtuous life.
What is needed is for us to find some common ground in our moral arguments, things that we can agree on in order to “get our foot in the door”, to get us talking because that is what we desperately need right now. I believe that that common ground is right in front of us, before our own eyes but we’re all blinded by our egos, or whatever else, to see it. Equality, love, freedom, autonomy,…
There are, in my opinion, objective and universal moral truths that can be arrived at through our arguments.
The solution to an argument is more argument…
WTF Chad?
John, unfortunately too many people believe that their CHOSEN MORAL POSITION is something sacred and holy. In nearlyy all cases, that can never be true. Below is my list of items that one’s “moral or immoral” positions does not grant to anyone. They must understand what they can do and CANNOT do with their ideals and goals assiciated with their position.
That said, every person who chooses a morla position does just that: THEY CHOOSE A MORAL STANCE. It does not choose them. And thusly, their choice affords them no special place or status in society. They need to get over themselves and quit listening to the brainwashing done by their “no-so-holy-than-thou” morality leaders.
So let it be known to everyone, moral or not, that because a person chooses their moral position, and adopts the ways and policies of their chosen belief system, their choice ABSOLUTELY:
(1) does NOT give them a superior moral position over anyone else.
(2) does NOT endow them with a monopoly on good, kind, ethical and high moral behavior,
(3) does NOT transfer to them a position of authority over any other human being.
(4) does NOT allow them to become judge and jury over any other person or group.
(5) does NOT grant them any privileges to spew hateful speech, to incite hateful actions, or to manifest hurtful actions or evil deeds against another.
(6) does NOT authorize them to act with discrimination, picking and choosing whom they believe to be virtuous and faultless, or the opposite.
(7) does NOT pardon them for their discriminatory behavior.
(8) does NOT authorize their so-called “moral” texts to have any superior status over the secular laws of the land.
(9) does NOT allocate to them any preferential status within the United States government or governments of the States or its local communities.
(10) does NOT allow them to act contrary to law, or against another person, without rebuke or reprisal.
Please take this list and apply it to every so they will begin to understand their status with our society. I do not wish to belittle their beliefs, but then again, I require that they do not diminish me or any other “suspect minority” which they may dispute. I demand to be treated with dignity, and they must comply, and according to law or court ruling, as the case may be.
Let it be written; let it be done, NOW.
Thanks, Dr. Corvino; even if I sometimes may disagree with your viewpoint (which is seldom), I am compelled always to read your articles, if for no other reason, when I see the picture of your pretty face! Good article! Good guy!
John, I always enjoy reading your articles. Maybe you can do one on the word “conservative” the next time.
Thank you for this article. The topic was appropriate, and of significance. However, it appears that you failed to explain what morality is. You went into some detail about what morality does, and what morality isn’t, but you left what morality is wide-open. Next time,try going into greater detail, and don’t assume that your readers can your mind. If they can, then what are you writing for? Don’t imply. Word it out. Your readers may not be as smart as you think they are. Then again, you may not be able to. If that’s the case, and you can’t articulate the facts, then stop attempting to tackle subjects that are beyond your ability.
Thanks John for all the great work
you do! We are never too old to learn.
Hopefully you and other intelligent
people like you will further help
our people and all others too!