moralhealth.com

Democracy without Gratitude

Laurence Thomas — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:09:58 +0200

merican democracy has come to be about entitlements and only about entitlements. Everyone is entitled to just about everything. In particular, American democracy has come to be entirely shorn of gratitude. I hold a very simple thesis, namely that democracy shown of gratitude will flounder. This is because few things nourish a sense of community—fellow feeling, if you wlll—like gratitude. Now, it might be thought that being rightly entitled to something excludes having gratitude for that the thing one receives. Not so, however, as the case of parental love magnificently shows.

If there are any indisputable truths in a world of uncertainty and relativism, it is that parents ought to love their children and that children are entitled to being the undisputed object of the love of their parents. Yet, if anything else is also true, it is that every child who has been the undisputed object of the love of her or his parents should have a deep and abiding sense of gratitude towards them. When parental love it at its best, there may not be any form of gratitude that can rightly surpass it. Once more, though, I point out that children are surely entitled to the love of their parents.

Democracy shorn of gratitude becomes a plethora of citizens who have little or no concern for one another accept for what they can get from others. In this respect, the language of rights has done enormous damage to a sense of fellow-feeling. For the language of rights have become synonymous with what people are owed, where the sense of being owed is privileged in a way that allows for no regard whatsoever for the goodwill with which people have served up what is owed.

Democracy without gratitude exemplifies what I call the manna-from-heaven mentality. No one gives up something so that others may have something. Rather, it all just falls from heaven.

A marvelous example of this is the claim on the part of some non-citizens that they have a right to become citizens of the United States, as if there is something called the government with endless resources. Never mind that we are having trouble doing right by those who are already citizens.

Sometimes the elderly present themselves as if they have a right to anything and everything that they might need in terms of medical assistance. Of course, any society should make an effort to help its elderly. That truth, however, does not change the fact that helping the elderly means that some resources cannot go elsewhere. Even for the elderly, there are no funds that descend from the heavens.

This way of looking at things point to why a democracy at its best must also be one in which gratitude abounds. For it is necessarily the case that decent law-abiding citizens sustain the well-being of other members of society. Even those who merely “put up” with the laws are sustaining the well-being of others. And sometimes in life, a person deserves a lot of credit for doing just that: “putting up” with the behavior or law in question.

The goodwill of citizens makes for a salubrious moral climate in which to live. And things have gone terribly wrong when we have become so fixated with our own self-interests that we cannot see the goodwill of others.

Interestingly, teaching provides a marvelous example in this regard. Nothing is more obvious than that if a student earned an “A” for a course, then the instructor should give the student an “A” for the course. Yet, there is all the difference in the world between an instructor took delight in the student’s learning and who was marvelously supportive and encouraging of the student, on the one hand, and an instructor who to no avail did everything permissible to see to it that the student would fail. Gratitude is owed in the first case although the student earned the grade.

A society shorn of gratitude is a less decent society. More importantly, it is a society that is less able to surmount the difficulties that confront it. This is because from the outset people do not see one another as allies but as hostile competitors instead.

When we experience gratitude towards another we are motivated to act on that person’s behalf even we do not in any way have to do so. There is a fundamental level with which we identify with that person.

The United States has become the land of rights-assertion. We are owed one thing after another—almost as it were ours in the first place; and those who do not rush to give us what we take ourselves to be owed are bastards. That is, in our characterization of that to which we have a right, we have deemed the other a hostile component.

It is a simple truth that people who have masterfully cultivated hostility towards one another are in no position at all to confront in a united way the problems that could be resolved if only people would work together in unison. And while some problems can be solved through fierce competition, some of the deepest problems have their solution only in the unity that comes with fellow-feeling. Defeating the Nazis, for instance, was not tied to fierce competition, but to nations working in unison with one another.

In one straightforward sense, gratitude is so much weaker than love. Yet, like the warm sunlight that comes through a window, experiences of gratitude remain ever so memorable and always far more expansive. It is not possible for everyone to have feelings of love for one another. But universal gratitude, or something very close to that, is very much a possibility.

The America of John F. Kennefy spoke to that possibility. By contrast, the American of the present has lost the will to speak to that possibility. Doing so would resonate with so very few. It is no wonder that America is floundering.

China's Grand Economic Lesson for Black Americans

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:33:36 +0200

hina is an economic power. China also provides an extraordinary lesson to ethnic groups in the United States who are forever talking about being oppressed as victims of this or that form of racism. China’s lesson is a very simple one: “Do you really wish that others who are not of “your kind” to take you seriously? Well, it suffices to become an economic power with which “the other kind” must contend, and your wish will be fulfilled by “those others” in spite of themselves. For you see, the rest of the world has to take China seriously whether the rest of the world wants to or not. Both China and the rest of the world know precisely that.

I have no interest in arguing whether racism of this or that kind still exists in the United States. As far as I can see all sorts of people dislike one another. Blacks and Asians are not exactly blood brothers in spirit. Cooperation between the two groups is virtually non-existent. Blacks are jealous of Asians and Asians despise Blacks. And while there is presumably some bond between Latinos and Blacks, that bond is more fragile than both sides seem willing to acknowledge.

If one takes Whites out of the picture entirely, there remains more than enough hostility between the remaining groups to keep everyone on edge.

But say what we want, the economic success of China in the world and of Asians in the United States is a most valuable lesson; and it is high time that Blacks and Latinos acknowledge and follow that lesson.

If Asians can be an economic force in America, then surely Blacks and Latinos can be. The sheer numbers make that a possibility.

As the case of Asian success shows, when a people become an economic force, then racism will bow to the reality of economic. Whether I like you or not: If I have to contend with your economic muscle, I am going to find a way to be, at the very least, polite to you. I am not going to call you a “nigger” if (i) it is manifestly clear to me that I need your patronage to survive and (i) you will go elsewhere if I am not polite to you.

The failure to appreciate this reality is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson failed as black leaders. They were much more interested in cultivating White guilt than black economic muscle. It does not take much insight to see that White guilt can in the end be rather patronizing: “There they go again. Let’s admit to racism so that we can get them to shut up and go away!” As we all know from childhood, it is easy enough to say “I am sorry” and not mean it.

But the lesson that China has made abundantly clear is that if you need me, then I won’t have to worry about you saying “I am sorry”, precisely because I can be confident that you will bend over backwards to appease me.

The religious ideal of forgiveness is no doubt a very wonderful one. But most of us do not come even to close to realizing that ideal in saying “I am sorry”. Rather, it is simply out of expedience that we make that utterance. But if it is out of expediency that an apology is offered, it is much, much, much, much better that the my apology to you flows from the fact that I cannot do without you than from the fact that I merely want you shut up and go away. That is the lesson that China has taught the world.

This lesson is so patently obvious that it is a mystery to me that Blacks and Latinos to do not readily see it and conduct themselves accordingly. Grasping this insight does not require a degree in economics. Indeed, as far as I can tell most of the Asians who own stores (cleaners, grocery stores, or restaurants) in the United States do not have a degree in economics, nor do most of the citizens of China have a degree in economics.

Yet, Jesse Jackson’s most philosophical argument was that Blacks should be referred to as “African-Americans” as a way of making explicit the African roots of black people—as if anyone has ever looked at an unmistakable Black person and wondered: Does that person’s ancestors hail from Africa or India or China?

All sorts of political correct folks have made a point of using the term “African Americans”. Yet, nothing at all has changed in terms of having actual respect for the group in question. As I noted above in these remarks, an act of appeasement is not thereby an act of respect. Can anyone really believe that making explicit that Black Americans have African roots is the most important issue that should have concerned Blacks?

The lesson to be learnt from China is absolutely telling. There is little doubt that a serious violation of human rights has occurred and continues to occur in China. Yet, the Olympic Games will there will be held there, anyhow. Not only that, all sorts of world leaders have managed to justify being present for the opening ceremonies. Does anyone wonder what the real explanation for this deference on the part of world leaders? I should hope not. What is surely obvious is that given China’s economic might nations do not want to get on China’s wrong side. Now, that is power—economic power, to be exact.

Whether American Blacks hail from Africa or Hades or the Pearly Gates, what will ensure their proper standing in the United States is none other than their economic standing. For some Blacks, this means buying only those things that have an African origin. That is just plain silly. Whether Black Americans eat French croissants or East African maandazi, if Blacks have economic clout they will command the respect of others.

And surely that is the lesson that China has made abundantly clear. No one thinks for a moment that China’s economic might is tied to the fact that Chinese people consume only Chinese dishes such as Adzuki beans and Bok Choy.

Quite simply, one has to be dysfunctional not to grasp this lesson from China and to keep going on and on and on about racism. Most significantly, the issue is not whether racism is an issue. Rather, the point is that the most effective way to make racism a non-issue to exhibit economic muscle. There are many gods. Indisputably, however, economic might is one of them. To that god, people have always found a way to show genuine deference—and not just displays of appeasement. To the god of economic might, there is always an altar in every port. What matters most is winning favor with the god of economic might—and not what the physical appearances of that mighty being happen to be.

You see, I don’t think that the Chinese give a damn about racism in America. And my very point is that Black Americans and Latino Americans, as well, are too busy going on about racism to grasp the poignancy of this bitter truth.

Truth, Dissimulation, and the Wizardry of Technology

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:48:28 +0200

On the one hand, technology has mightily facilitated the ability to engage in dissimulating behavior. On the other hand, technology now makes it possible to alter images and sound bites to such an extent that what counts as fact and reality is readily called into question. Taken together, what we get is that technology has masterfully undermined the commitment to truth in society.

Equality and the Decline of the United States

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:19:20 +0200

A society whose citizens cannot demand excellence of one another regardless of race, color, or creed or whatever is a society that is fundamentally worse off for all regardless of race, color, or creed or whatever. Make no mistake about it: That society is America.

The Second American Civil War? The Barack Obama Factor

Laurence Thomas — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:04:50 +0200

The possibility of the Second Civil War does not strike me as out of the question. For the unequivocal charge of racism should Obama lose is none other than a license to be publicly outraged; and the license to be publicly outraged is none other than a license to be violent. So it was when Martin Luther King was assassinated; and the rhetoric of the present regarding Obama seems to be awfully akin to that moment

Bottled Water, Starbucks Coffee, and Gasoline: Massive Stupidity

Laurence Thomas — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:45:42 +0200

here is simply no mystery that gas prices have soared. However, our indignation to mounting gas prices is most inappropriate. Here is why. We have been willing to pay $1.50 for 16 ounces of water (which equals $12 for a gallon of water) and as much as $4 for a cup of Starbucks coffee (which equals $32 for coffee, assuming for the sake of argument 16 ounces a cup of coffee). Now, think about it. In view of these prices for water and coffee, why shouldn’t the purveyors of oil raise their prices? After all, a gallon of gas at $5 per gallon is still cheaper than water purchased $1.50 for 16 ounces; and it is still cheaper than coffee purchased at $4 a cup.

Indeed, from the standpoint of simple rational reflection, the purveyors of oil would be fools not to raise their prices. For we the consumer have shown ourselves to be utterly silly and thoughtless in our willingness to pay extraordinary prices 16 ounces of water of all things.

I know: the argument is supposed to have to do with health and all those inappropriate substances claimed to be found in tap water. This line of argument would have a chance at being convincing if there was a shred of evidence that people who have essentially consumed none other tap water all their lives were more sickly or prone to premature death as a result of doing so. To date, however, there has not been a shred of evidence that would support any such conclusion. What is more, food in most restaurants is surely not prepared using bottled water. This fact points to just how brilliantly deceptive the marketing campaign for bottled water was.

How absurd can the following scenario be? We frequent restaurants which prepare their food using tap water all the while paying some exorbitant price for bottled water to drink with the meal. How much more of a duh moment could there be? The scenario is so incongruous that it is inconceivable to me how people have managed so to behave without experiencing some sort of brain contortion.

The same line of reasoning holds for coffee at Starbucks. The proof that I am intellectually bereft—if indeed I am—is that I have never ever been able to comprehend why so many have been willing to spend so much for a cup of coffee—and on nearly a daily basis no less. And please don’t tell me that it is the environment. That simply cannot be right.

For instance, I have noticed that people are flocking to the Starbucks coffee shops in Paris. And I am unable to see how the environment of a Starbucks shop is superior to the French cafés. Indeed, precisely what French cafés are known for is the fact that a person can spend hours at well-placed table consuming the drink that she or he purchased. There is nothing that Starbucks offers in Paris that tops that.

But even in the United States, where cafés of the French variety are common primarily in cities like New York, it remains incomprehensible to me that people have been willing to pay so much for what in effect is so very little. Besides, many regular customers of Starbucks purchase their coffee and take it with them. So, to begin with, these customers are not there to enjoy the lugubrious environment offered by a Starbucks shop.

So if you are selling oil and you see this sort of nonsense with respect to water and coffee, then sheer commonsense tells you that that oil prices need to go up. And that is what the purveyors of oil are doing. The explanation for this is so-called speculation. I don’t think for a moment that is the explanation. After all, if speculation were the explanation, then oil prices should have shot up years ago.

What I think, rather, is that the claim of speculation was found to be a convenient way to make sense to make sense of the sudden rise in oil prices to folks lacking in commonsense; and the mere fact that we have believed that explanation shows that the purveyors of oil got it just right.

The deeper point here, of course, is that commonsense has essentially gone out the window these days—as we see with so many things that people do. One of these is adults fighting with one another on what is known as Black Friday (the Friday after Thanksgiving) in order to procure a toy for a child. Another is the senseless spending that people do when clearly they do not have the means to purchase the things that, in the first place, they do not need. Or, what about folks camping out for days just to be the first to be a new gadget?

Some of the ways in which we who claim to be rational creatures have allowed ourselves to be manipulated are so transparent that they all but call into question our claim to being rational creatures.

It is in a society shorn of commonsense that oil prices have skyrockets in a way that makes no sense. And that, alas, is just the point. The soaring oil prices make no less sense than our paying $1.50 for 16 ounces of bottled water or $4 for a cup of Starbucks coffee. Alas, when we have proven ourselves to be so utterly gullible, then there is a very straightforward sense in which what we get is none other than what we deserve.

The prognosis can be put more poignantly, a people who can be so easily manipulated by rather transparent falsehoods cannot have much respect for themselves. We have become too blind to see that soaring oil prices have a lot to do with the moral reality that we have far too little respect for ourselves as is revealed by the massively stupid things that we routinely do.

Natural Abilities and Meaningless Equality

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:54:38 +0200

hen the framers of the U. S. Constitution exclaimed that “All men are created equal,” there is a manifestly straightforward sense in which what they said is unequivocally false. If anything is obvious it is obvious that human beings differ widely from one another in just about every conceivable way—not least among these ways is in terms of abilities. Once we move beyond very rudimentary activities, it becomes apparent ever so quickly that human differ widely in their abilities.

The framers, of course, were talking about moral equality. And it would never have occurred to them to associate moral equality with equality in terms of natural talent. Whatever else is true, it is true that Thomas Jefferson did not think for a moment that the average American, of whatever color, was his equal in natural abilities. Yet, Jefferson could have thought that in terms of moral standing the lowliest of individuals was his equal.

What is most fascinating is that the decline in moral objectivity is giving rise to the view that the abilities which people have is the ultimate measure of moral equality between individuals. And that is a fundamental mistake.

Morality gives people a platform upon which they can stand regardless of their differences. And by taking morality seriously, we have thereby given people a conduit to seeing their lives as having meaning; for a person could take pride in the fact she or he is as upright being even if the person did not excel in other ways.

Notice that the precipitous decline of objective morality has undermined—or better: destroyed—a moral platform that in times past given meaning to many lives. It is thus no accident that people do not take pride in being decent in the way that they once did. There is a very straightforward sense in which culture is denying people that possibility.

But it gets worse, because people are trying to fill the void that has been left by the rejection of objective morality. And one sign of this is that idea that we are all equally talented. Let me explain.

Of course, it is absolutely wrong to berate people. Yet, what surely does not follow from this is that we should pretend that there are no differences between people in terms of abilities. It is certainly silly to cancel sports games or to cast aside keeping score in the name of eliminating the idea of winners and losers.

For one thing, the very idea of winning and losing is a wonderful metaphor for life itself, where we win some and we lose some. The idea, of course, is to keep on playing the game. So, there is an invaluable lesson of persistence that is learnt from the simple practice of games that involve winning and losing. Likewise, there is the lesson that life goes on; and that what seemed at the moment like the end of everything was not that all. These are, in fact, wonderful experiences to have.

Finally, in this vein there is the idea of learning what we are good at doing; and nothing contributes more to that insight than actually doing things where there is the possibility for genuine success and failure. This is because some things can be grasped only when they are experienced in real time, where there is the prospect of actual gains and losses.

When morality was taken seriously, everyone understood that moral character was one thing and abilities regarding intellect and sports were another. Thus, people had a vantage point from which to take themselves seriously that was independent from the abilities. Religion, too, accomplished this. And it is one of the very shortcomings on the part of Richard Dawkins that he gave this no thought at all.

The surprise, then, is that what may seem like none other than a relic of superstition is fundamentally important to us, simply because human beings need a way of affirming themselves that is fully independent of their abilities. Accordingly, morality and love operated in tandem, with morality standing as a kind of public equivalent of the intimate.

Precisely what we want is the theoretical machinery that undergirds the idea that differences in natural abilities do not make the difference in our humanity. The idea that we all have the same abilities is none other than a lesson in frustration. Moral objectivity has a much more fundamental place in our lives than we, with all of our cleverness, have been willing to acknowledge.

Peter Singer and Animals: Beastiality and Equality

Laurence Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:38:45 +0200

The very character of the moral asymmetry between human beings and apes insures the absence of moral equality between them. For it is human beings who have the charge of protecting apes—and not the other way around

Antisemitism in France and the Silence of Liberals

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:52:31 +0200

he persistence of antisemitism in France is very frightening. Particularly, disturbing is that antisemitism continues to express its in the form of sheer physical violence. Muslims throughout the world have asked that non-Muslims accept and be comfortable with Muslim women wearing the hajib in public. And that has indeed happened here in France. A Muslim wearing the hajib is much more akin these days to a woman simply wearing a headscarf. The hajib is adorned with flair throughout France—and not just in predominantly Muslim neighborhoods. The sense of alarm on the part of non-Muslims, if ever there was one, has all but disappeared. This holds for both Christians and Jews alike.

At this point in time, Jews in France simply hope that the day will come when they will be treated in a like manner when it comes to wearing a yarmulke. That is, the hope is that a Jew walking down the street wearing a yarmulke will attract no more attention than a Muslim woman walking down the street wearing the hajib. Not yet, however. Saturday night (21 June 2008), a Jew named Rudy Haddad who was wearing a yarmulke was attacked by a group of people of North African descent. And this sort of aggression against Jews has happened in the past. The case of Halimi in 2006 is the most poignant of these. By the way, does anyone think that these aggressors of North African descent were Christians or Hinduists?

Nowadays, it is not uncommon for a person to make an assessment as to how well a Muslim woman’s hajib fits the rest of her attire. Jews in France hope that one day, this is the only concern that a Jew wearing a yarmulke will have. What happened to Rudy Haddad is painful reminder that in France this hope is yet to be realized.

Of course, I understand that this sort of thing does not happen every day. However, I do not recall ever hearing of a story where a Muslim woman wearing a hajib was attacked by Jewish women or, for that matter, Jewish men.

I have spoken to a reality on the part of Muslims and a hope on the part of Jews. And therein lies the problem of what I shall refer to as the public square of social justice in France.

While the Jew and the Muslim are both equal before French law, there is another kind of equality with respect to which Muslims and Jews of France are not yet equal. This is what I call the equality of the public square of social justice.

I have an explanation for this disparity that may trouble some. Yet, it needs to be said.

The synagogue is a place of worship. It is not an environment where Jews fuel hostilities towards Muslims. Both in France and in the United States, I can think of very few times when a rabbi has had much to say about Muslims. The synagogue is simply not a place for recruiting Jews to be subjected to anti-Muslim indoctrination.

This could be purely a temporal matter. For the Torah does not have anything at all to say about either Muslims or, for that matter, Christians. In the Holy Quran, however, Jews are explicitly mentioned by their very name at least 21 times.

This brings me to what is most important. What we in fact know is that mosques have served as a very deep, deep source of antisemitism and that mosques have been used a recruiting ground for Muslims who will play a militant role in the demise of the Jewish people.

Therein lies the source of the disparity between French Muslims and French in the public square of social justice. There is a very powerful social institution, namely mosques, which continue to nurture antisemitism. Synagogues do not nurture anti-Islam sentiment.

Various social organizations have called upon the French government to concern itself with the recent hostilities against Jews in France. And to his credit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has denounced the recent act of aggression. If I am right, however, the problem lies not with the French government, but with a very different institution, namely mosques.

Once upon a time, it was “fashionable” for Catholics to be antisemitic. After all, everyone knew that “Those bastards, the Jews, had killed Christ”. Nothing has made more of a difference in how Catholics think about Jews than the very fact that the Catholic Church enormously distanced itself from this point of view. Indeed, Pope John Paul II referred to Jews as the “Elder brothers of Christians”. Jews may still be unhappy with various aspects of the Catholic doctrine. That said, what is absolutely undeniable is that the Catholic Church has changed mightily—and for the better—in its attitude towards Jews.

What we need is a like change on the part of Islam. Let me be clear here. I do not think for a moment that all Muslims are antisemitic. But, of course, in order to have racial hostility on the part of a group, it does not need to be the case that each and every member of the group embraces that hostility.

It is no longer a part of the public Catholic identity that blaming Jews for killing Christ is unacceptable. What we need is for it to become a part of the public Muslim identity that hostility towards Jews is unacceptable. Undoubtedly, there are some Muslims who think just that. Unfortunately, there are sufficiently many who think just the opposite. Accordingly, being hostile towards Jews remains a part of the public self-identity of Muslims taken as a group. Or so it is in France and much of Europe.

This, in the end, tells us what we all know, namely that justice at its best comes from the heart. And religious institutions have played a most fundamental role in cultivating the sentiments of the heart, and so the sentiments that prevail in the public square of social justice. By comparison to the United States, the number of Muslims in France is considerable, namely a fifth of the population. Accordingly, until Islam accepts the moral responsibility changing the hearts of its adherent, there will never be true equality in the public square of social justice between the Muslim and the Jew—at least not in France and perhaps Europe more generally.

It is, of course, important to call upon the government of France to concern itself with aggression of any kind. However, there are no laws more potent and efficacious than those written upon the hearts of human beings. And that, in the end, is France’s problem. There has been a steadfast—nay, defiant—refusal on the part of so many leaders of Islam to change the hearts of its adherents to accept Jews as moral equals.

In the attempt to exterminate the Jews, Hitler claimed to have been doing the work of the Lord. Now, Imams and other Islamist claim to be doing the work of Allah in their endeavor to annihilate Jews. There is no difference in what both claim to be dong. Accordingly, it is not possible for Christian claims of this sort to be evil and Muslim claims of this sort to be morally acceptable. We have refused to be unequivocally clear about this; and many in the Muslim world have masterfully exploited this ambivalence.

In their relentless open-mindedness towards the Muslim religious tradition at its most hostile level, liberals have been none others than harbingers of evil.

Virginity, Marriage, and Annulment: Wronging Muslim Women

Laurence Thomas — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:00:39 +0200

In their insistence on virginity, Muslim men are making things worse for both Muslim women and men alike. Here is why. Because hymnoplasty now makes it possible for Muslim women to live a lie, then the Muslim male insistence upon female virginity is contributing to the desecration of the very institution that both should regard as sacred; for the lie has been made more important the sacredness of the marriage and the commitment of the wife and husband to one another. Not a good start. Absolutely not. For it has already been conceded that the lie and the image are more important than the reality of truth.

Who Needs the Opposite Sex When the Difference is Nugatory?

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:29:25 +0200

here is very real sense in which those who argue for eliminating all differences between the sexes need to answer a very important question, namely: What reason is there to take heterosexuality seriously in the first place? There is a rather thought-provoking article in the New York Times entitled “When Mom and Dad Share It All”. This wife and husband, and mom and dad, do everything 50-50. The two of them are absolutely determined not to allow any gender bias to get in the way.

Of course, a question that arises at the outset is: What counts as a gender bias? Interestingly, the argument cannot be that we have a gender bias just in case the bias can be overcome with apt socialization. This is because a disposition or a pre-disposition is not non-biological merely because it can be overcome by socialization. For instance, it is known that a child can be born with a genetic pre-disposition towards violence or towards alcohol consumption. Yet, these dispositions can be overcome through adequate self-discipline. Arguably, certain fears that are rather natural to human beings have enormous survival value. Still, these fears can be overcome through sheer dent of will.

Now, are women and men exactly alike when it comes to their biological children? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it would be a phenomenal mistake if they were. This follows from what is known as parental investment theory (developed by Robert L. Trivers). In bringing a child into the world, a woman invests quite a bit more than a man. Accordingly, there is a difference between women and men in terms of attachment to children. The point here is that in terms of child attachment, we can get a difference between women and men that is not all about mere socialization, as some feminists would have it.

There is no question at all, however, that this difference between women and men can be socialized away. And perhaps it should. On the one hand, it is certainly true that from the fact that something has a biological basis, what surely does not follow is that we should hold onto that something. On the other, though, what is equally true is that from the fact that we can socialize a biologically based difference away it most certainly does not follow that we should.

What intrigues me regarding many feminist arguments is that they seem to entail that we should socialize away all biological differences between women and men—at least when it comes to feelings and sentiments.

And my question is a very simple one: Can we socialize away all biological differences between women and men while, at the same time, continuing to valorize heterosexuality? That strikes me as extremely difficult to do. After all, the differences between women and men are at the very basis of heterosexual attraction. There is, for instance, that cute little way in which a woman can pout; and I have no desire to see a man behave in that way. And I am rather sure that there is not a heterosexual man on the planet who would disagree with me. Again, that coy look of sexual admiration on the part of a woman makes any man feel like a man in ways that words cannot describe. Yet, again, there is not a heterosexual man in the world who is equally moved by such a look from another man.

Sexual arousal between heterosexuals is inextricably tied to women and men acting in different ways and having different sensibilities. So I do not see how to socialize away these differences and, at the same time, valorize heterosexuality itself.

What particularly astounds me is why feminism has not followed the idea of ethnic equality. No one, nowadays, thinks that ethnic equality means that all ethnic groups must behave in exactly the same way. Quite the contrary, the very idea seems to be that ethnic equality valorizes the differences between ethnicities rather seeks to eliminate them, precisely because the differences make for a much richer world.

If there is anything we know, we know that ethnic differences can only be explained by way of acculturation. There is nothing biological about any of it, although it is astounding how firm things become in such a short period of time. Accent is an excellent example. The point, though, is that in the case of ethnic differences we take acculturation and valorizes them mightily.

By contrast, when it comes to difference between women and men, there is a rush to insist that any difference between the two has to be none other than socialization from which it is then supposed to follow that the only just thing to do is get rid of those differences. But that cannot be quite right, given what we do with ethnic differences—differences which, by hypothesis, are known to have none other than socialization at their very source.

The article, “When Mom and Dad Share It All”, points to equality among homosexual couples as something of an ideal. And in a different New York Times article, “Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage”, the suggestion again is that the difference between women and men is none other than socialization. This is a fascinating claim given that it is claimed by many that there is a gene for homosexuality. So it is claimed that there is gene for a way of being that few claim to have any survival value. This is embraced by all sorts of people. Yet, the very idea of genetic differences that would differentiate between the way in which women and men behave is dismissed as so much nonsense.

We accept—nay, relish—a multitude of differences. Yet, we seem to be determined to banish the differences that are most central from an evolutionary perspective. To what end are these efforts? Alas, this is far from clear. And therein lies the problem for me. No one doubts for a moment that there has been sexism in the world. What hardly follows from this truth is that all differences between women and men should be eliminated. Nor, again, does it follow that we need to eliminate all difference between them in order to have genuine equality between women and men.

It may very well be true that for some married people it is a good thing that everything is 50-50. However, there is no reason on the face of this earth to suppose that such an arrangement should be held up as an ideal, any more than it shoudl be held up as an ideal that all ethnic groups should act in the same way.

Barack Obama: France vs the U.S. Faut-il touner la page en France?

Laurence Thomas — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:46:54 +0200

The French in their enthusiasm for Obama are failing to see that their point about significance of Obama being a black man heading the United States applies with equal force to France. A black or an Arabic president of France would also signal that “on a vraiment tourné la page ici en France”.

Technology and Evil: A Challenge to Ray Kurzweil

Laurence Thomas — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:03:32 +0200

Routines configure our lives. And the routine of being into “my-world”, with all of the portable technological devices now available, is bringing about transformation that radically favors evil—not because anyone has the thought of becoming an evil person but simply because being morally numb makes us a conduit for evil simply because we do not care about what is going on around us and simply because we become hostile if anyone should disturb us in “our-world”. This is why I know that Raymond Kurzweil’s optimism is more than a bit premature.

Is Barack Obama a Bitter Black Man?

Laurence Thomas — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:29:18 +0200

Is it even remotely possible that Obama sat in the Trinity United Church of Christ week after week for 20 years and not be a bitter person? It is rightly held that what we freely choose over time is a very deep indication of what we value. Barack Obama freely chose to attend a church whose mission would seem to be none other than inciting bitterness in the name of sustaining self-respect. Is it possible that Barack Obama did not find that line of thought immensely satisfying? The painful answer is: absolutely not. Sheer commonsense suggests that Obama ought to have departed from Trinity Church much, much earlier. For all the world, it looks as if what got in the way of commonsense was Obama’s appetite bitterness. So I ask: Is Barack Obama a bitter black man?

The Declaration of Independence. A Contemporary Re-Writing?

Laurence Thomas — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:26:23 +0200

t is a very good thing that The Declaration of Independence was written some 200 years ago. This is because it seems rather unlikely that such a fundamental document could be written nowadays. One of the most extraordinary lines of The Declaration reads” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . .” Now, how would a contemporary re-phrasing of that statement read? Well, to begin with, the word “men” would have to be stricken from the text and replaced by either “people” or “human beings” or “individuals”. That, alas, is not so bad.

The statement “All individuals are created equal” still sounds pretty lofty. But what is this talk about human beings being created? Certainly, not everyone holds that view. So, I suppose that what we would have to say is that “All individuals are born equal”. But wait a minute. Who on earth believes that? Clearly, we are not all born equal. Any fool can see that! Should we all have the same rights? The answer, surely, depends on what rights we are talking about.

This, in turn, raises the question of what is all this talk about truths, anyway. After all, while you may think there are moral truths, this hardly means that I must think that. Morals, some insists, are nothing more than a set of rules and precepts created by ~~men~~ — sorry: I mean human beings.

So where does this leave us? Perhaps with the following: “Some of us think that some people are born equal in certain respects”. Well, who can possibly disagree with that? No one. But then some people think all sorts of things. Thus, the assertion that “Some of us think that some people are born equal in certain respects” is hardly inspiring. One does not imagine that Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech would have been much animated by that line of thought. After all, the idea that “Some people are born equal to one another” is hardly an argument for claiming that blacks are entitled to equality. This holds all the more so, since we are only talking about an idea — and not an immutable moral truth. Besides, two people born equally poor and outcast are born equal to one another in a given respect.

Now, it should be most disconcerting that some 200 years later it is far from obvious that “We the People”, who take ourselves to be far more enlightened, would not be able to produce an equally inspiring re-writing of The Declaration of Independence in contemporary terms. In fact, this ought to be a downright embarrassment.

How can it be that we cannot state with even greater eloquence and moral force that which was asserted some 200 years ago by people who have been accused of all sorts of moral biases? How can this be, given that precisely what we claim to be true is that we have a much better grasp, both theoretically and experientially, of the very idea of equality than the authors of The Declaration of Independence could even have imaged. If it is true that we have a better grasp of equality both theoretically and experientially, then something is terribly amiss if, as it would seem, we cannot even get a contemporary statement The Declaration of Independence off the ground that is, at the very least, equally rhapsodic.

I mean nowadays talk about moral truths is already a stumbling block. Yet, where would society be without precisely that kind of talk in terms of equality?

If Mr. Jefferson captured something very right, but just used very poor language to express it — I am referring here to the talk about truths — one would think that we could come up with a rendering of what he should have said that is more than adequate.

Alas, not only is the very talk about moral truth problematic for us nowadays, we cannot even express the very content of that truth, namely that “All men are created equal”, with greater force and vivacity — to say nothing of eloquence. We might substitute “individuals” for “men”. That substitution, however, does not add to the majesty of the claim.

It is profoundly serendipitous that it is better to say that “All men are created equal” than it is to say that “All men are born equal”. The language of divinity does more justice to what we want to say than any language tied to the actual facts of the human existence. The reality is that life is fraught with a multitude of difference between human beings, across so-called ethnic differences and within such differences. These differences range from the beautiful to the homely and from the brilliant to the less than able. If we had to look to the actual reality of life for an unequivocal way of asserting that we are all equal, it would seem that our endeavor would meet with failure.

Precisely what we want to say is that beneath or in spite of all of our differences we share a commonality that has an inalienable moral force to it. And we want this to be a truth that is not just a matter of convenience. Nothing gives that idea more credence and power and majesty than the assertion that every human being has no more and no less of a claim than any other human being to having been created by God.

You will notice that I have only focused upon one sentence in The Declaration of Independence. Yet, it nonetheless one of the most powerful and inspirational sentences ever to have been written. It is humbling that for all our claims to grasp equality, both theoretically and experientially, we have not even come close to fashioning a more eloquent —nay, a more perfect— statement what equality should mean.

To not be mindful of this reality, and to not see and appreciate the depth of what has been handed to us, is to become arrogant and full of pride. And in this regard, there is an even more ancient saying that I recall. It is a Proverb that reads: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall”. How would a contemporary rendering of this Proverb go? That, of course, is another essay.