If the source is polluted
Anthony Grayling on sin and pollution – always very interesting ideas.
Much of the traditional idea of sin persists in our contemporary attitudes to moral failure. We somehow export the idea of a stain, an enduring flaw of character, to the case of people who do not live up to ideals, especially those they themselves proclaim…[I]n a sin culture even the suspicion of hypocrisy in the messenger is enough to harm the message: if the source of the claim is polluted, the claim itself must be questionable…Throughout history earnest moralisers have stood in the way of the good by accepting nothing less than the utmost. Human beings are a mixed alloy: the same person is capable of being good and terribly bad at different times or in different respects.
Yeh. I’m very interested in ideas of purity and stain, sin and pollution – how both compelling and dangerous they can be.
Was it Grayling who reminded us of the classical Greek and stoic Roamn attitudes to this: “Must try harder to do better, or not so badly next time”.
A much healtheir attitude, perhaps.
But what does one do about really vile criminals, like child-rapists, nad slavers, and mass murderers?
Or is that another question?
The problem is that the two examples he uses — Prince Charles and Al Gore — are poor illustrations for the case he is trying to make.
First, Prince Charles getting stuck into Maccas (where we will be dining tonight) does seem to be more about social snobbery than anything else. Charlie’s organic foods and alternative medicine ideas are demonstrably NOT BETTER for people than the things he is criticising.
Second, Al Gore’s statements about global warming have been criticised as excessively alarmist even by people who believe there is a problem.
Charles has no business criticising Maccas when the stuff sold by his own company is worse. And if Al Gore really believes that we should all take personal responsibility for greenhouse gases, then he should be starting (his carbon offsets have been demonstrated to be of questionable value at best).
Grayling states: “Both men are obviously well meaning, and their campaigns for environmentally sensitive alternatives to consumerist depredations on the planet are important and timely.”
Who cares if they are well meaning? Are they RIGHT? Prince Charles isn’t: most of his ideas are patently ridiculous. The case is perhaps less clear for Al Gore but millionaires can afford to do things that the rest of us can’t.
Grayling: “if the source of the claim is polluted, the claim itself must be questionable…”
But sometimes, if the source is polluted, the claim IS questionable.
Yes, sin, well meaning activism, moral stain…
Been there, felt resentful for that. The self-privilege of perceived moral rightness, gives rise to self-righteousness of the most obnoxious sort.
As someone who likes to catch his own rabbit (spanish style with prunes and capers, mmm)it seems I was indelibly morally stained over shooting massacres. Being white, male and owning a firearm apparently meant it was my fault.
Now we see scientists receiving hate mail, including death threats, from the activists of the green sort, for questioning the Goreacle!
“Now we see scientists receiving hate mail, including death threats, from the activists of the green sort, for questioning the Goreacle!”
Which means nothing more than that there are a lot of loonies out there.
I don’t know if AG is right about the influence of a sin culture here. Of an orthodoxy culture perhaps – even dissenters think it is a crime to dissent from them…
I blame the interweb – everyone who thinks they’re right, no matter how big a nutter they are, has their own platform now. Things were so much easier in the 12th century…
I think this is the fastest that a B&W thread has moved away from the philosophical issues and into partisan politics. There’s no mileage to be had from debating the scientific foundations for AGW here – take that to Prometheus or RealClimate, eh?
Has the thread been killed already?
Dave said ….
“Which means nothing more than that there are a lot of loonies out there.”
Well, if you can take some really dangerous loonies, try:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/
Seriously insane!
I really suggest that people here should join in, as their heads might explode!
And, as Ophelia says, that could be fun…
PZM has cross-referenced this article.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/spirituality_another_word_for.php#comments
You’ll be getting more traffic – I also suggest people go to the PZ link above, as well ….
I think GT put that post in the wrong thread.
Well, yeah, about P. Charles, which is why I didn’t talk about that part of the article. I found the comment about sin and pollution as a stand-alone idea, but I think the fact that P. Charles has an unearned platform is precisely why he should shut up, or at the very least be extremely cautious about what he promotes.
On hypocrisy the founder of Christianity put it this way:- Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? i.e. that you should be harder on yourself for your own short-comings than on other people for theirs. Many people resent thinking that other people may be more virtuous than them as they resent them being better looking or cleverer. And medieval Christianity had that classified as Envy, one of the seven deadly sins. That had in one of its aspects back-biting – the sin of tabloid journalists.
Evolutionary biologists might say that human beings have a desire for a higher ranking in the pecking order and this includes in virtue, but it is of course easier to growl that someone doesn’t live up to their own standards than improve your own, thus lowering their status in relation to your own status.
But of course if I go to the doctor and he tells me I should eat and tipple less as my health is suffering I’d be a fool not to take his advice because he’s a bit of a fat lush himself.
“Is the thread dead yet?”
Hitler! Hitler!
Its not dead yet? Should I try the Blasphemy Challenge combined with a wooden stake, a silver bullet and singing in blackface?
Actually, moral stain is interesting. Personally, I feel indelibly stained by my character flaws. Maybe projection is a good way to deal with it; it certainly feels better if I am dealing with the speck in my neighbour’s eye!
KB Player: “Many people resent thinking that other people may be more virtuous than them as they resent them being better looking or cleverer.”
Or is it that, sometimes, we resent being told that we have to do difficult (or expensive) things by people who are able (like Charles and AL) to opt out themselves?
KB Player: “But of course if I go to the doctor and he tells me I should eat and tipple less as my health is suffering I’d be a fool not to take his advice because he’s a bit of a fat lush himself.”
But wouldn’t you wonder why, if the issue is so serious, why he wasn’t doing something about it himself? And if he had his reasons for not doing anything, you might have your own perfectly good reasons for not going anything either?
“Or is it that, sometimes, we resent being told that we have to do difficult (or expensive) things by people who are able (like Charles and AL) to opt out themselves?”
I note the sometimes. I lug my bottles down to the recycling place about half a mile away. And should I refrain from doing this because Al Gore and Charles no doubt send the hired help/footman to perform this task? Surely you examine each idea on its own merits. And resentment (one of the sub-sets of Envy) is an ignoble vice.
“[I]n a sin culture even the suspicion of hypocrisy in the messenger is enough to harm the message: if the source of the claim is polluted, the claim itself must be questionable…”
I disagree with this over-generalisation. Grayling also reveals an ignorance of the meaning of sin for Christians. After all, the fundamentalist Christian stance against homosexuality was not lessened by the hypocrisy of Ted Haggard. No fundamentalist Christian found the claim that homosexuality is sinful to be questionable just because Haggard did not practice what he preached. On the contrary, the Protestant view that we are all sinners comes into play here. Hypocrisy in this light does not pollute moral claims, but rather confirms those claims precisely when we introduce the concept of sin. Hypocrisy confirms that we are all sinners and that redemption through Christ is the only answer, since we cannot redeem ourselves. (I am not endorsing this theology, only reporting it.)
But did Grayling perhaps mean a sin culture as opposed to a Christian culture? I took him to mean a kind of hangover from Xianity, which could be a generalized misunderstanding of sin. I don’t know – but I didn’t take him to be claiming it was an orthodox Christian view – more of a meme descended from a Christian view.
I’ve often noticed, for instance, that many Protestants have no clue what justification by faith is – if questioned they’ll give a good orthodox Catholic view on the value of works over faith. It’s quite amusing. Luther would be furious.
OB:
Re. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy: The idea that faith (right belief=orthodoxy) in the claims of the bible and creeds provides the sole way to salvation is at least part of the reason why many Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) consider atheism to be far worse than, say, having sex with a gay prostitute. In the U.S. especially we do live in a culture of sin, where the only unforgivable sin is not to admit you are a sinner who needs redemption.