Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong? 541.1
On many issues of morality we are deeply divided.
The volume and virulence of disagreement on issues like stem cell research, abortion, and gay unions is testimony to the undeniable reality that millions of Americans are lined up on opposite sides of a chasm, appalled at the ethical poverty of those with whom they disagree.
According to a May 2005 Gallup poll, about one-third of Americans think it’s morally wrong to test animals for medical research (30 percent), to buy and use animal fur (32 percent), to gamble (32 percent), to conduct stem cell research (33 percent), and for unmarried men and women to have sex (39 percent). At the same time, a very large majority believe such conduct is morally acceptable. One-third may be a small minority, but it’s a lot of people.
On the most socially contentious issues, the nation is almost equally divided -- with about 50 percent believing that doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and homosexual relations are morally reprehensible.
On each issue, believers are sincere and passionate. No amount of discussion is likely to change their minds.
So what are we to do? As to what our laws will permit or prohibit, the majority rules, but the legal solution often intensifies rather than resolves the controversy. After all, morality is not simply a matter of voting.
But who’s really right and who’s wrong?
Although I have strong personal convictions on all these matters, I can’t honestly say I know. I only know what I believe. While it’s hard for me to accept contrary views, I can’t claim superiority in either intelligence or integrity -- lots of people I disagree with are smart people of good character. Is the opposite of a moral truth a moral lie?
Ideological intolerance evolves into self-righteousness, condemnation, and ultimately persecution -- and I know that’s wrong.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
I happen to believe in the moral code this country and others were founded on, that being found in the bible. Remember that book we were taught as youngsters at school to love one another. The 10 commandments tell us how to live. If you are not sure, go to the bible and check it out for yourself. Proverbs is a good place to start! Have a blessed day!
Posted by: Wendy Allan | November 22, 2007 6:22 AM
I often hear Christians make the comment that Wendy Allan made ... that "... this country and others were founded on ... the bible." Somehow I have missed that part of American history. It is my understanding that the people that landed in America left England in search of developing a new land based upon one having individualfreedom of choice in worship (or not). That was how things were to be set up once the land was stolen from the Indians. Did I miss something in history? Was the new America to have Christianity hold a monopoly on religious dictates? Good character may require the absence of ones religion making their beliefs right at the expense of making the other wrong.
Posted by: Jerry Young | November 23, 2007 2:44 PM
Dear Michael:
Thank you for your column titled What's Right and What's Wrong. I would like to recommend to you the work of Clare Graves, Don Beck, Christopher Cooke and Steve McIntosh in human evolutionary development and the field of Spiral Dynamics Integral. (You may google anyone of them.) It may provide some answers and context to one of the essential and perplexing questions that confronts humanity...who is right and who is wrong when it comes to these great moral questions. Spiral Dynamics Integral looks at how value systems, which are the emerging patterned responses to new life conditions, evolved in the first place, the root of the "isms" and why conflicts exist across the sphere of human expression. You may be surprised at the new view this fairly new work will give you. It was first instituted by Don Beck at the request of deKlerk and Mandela in the transition from apartheid in South Africa. As you know, South Africa didn't explode into civil war as expected...like most people I never really asked why? I am grateful for the new learning.
I appreciate your columns. Thank you very much.
Michael Powell
City of Avondale, AZ
Graduate of your certification program for public officials
Posted by: Michael Powell | November 26, 2007 8:47 AM
Mr. Josephson,
I’m sure you have heard this all before but please suffer me this one more time. After reading the often caustic, biased and even virulent commentary of so-called journalists, it is refreshing to read such upbuilding words as you bring to the fore.
Your column today was especially enjoyable because of the vociferous ranting that various religious and nationalistic camps carry on shamelessly, claiming that they are God’s reps or are “under God.”
I don’t consider myself a philosophical fellow, but I do enjoy reading unbiased historians’ accounts that lead me back in time to where the roots of all the contemporary religious, cultural and governmental systems developed in the moist soil of humanity.
At some point in the distant past, there must have been a time of simple enjoyment of being a human being and enjoying our wondrous world without the complex hierarchy of inhumanity that plagues our world today.
The simplicity of your commentary in appealing to the makeup of man’s mind and heart – as spoken of in the Bible- “God’s image” – without the callousness of orthodoxy, is what draws me to search each day for the thoughts you have to share.
Please accept my humble thanks for your fine column and please continue sharing these thoughts with us.
Posted by: Monty Murray | November 26, 2007 12:47 PM
I do not know why I feel bad to have found this wonderful content repeated in your number 524.4. Is it customary for your commentary to be rewritten and then given out again?
Posted by: Eva | April 15, 2008 10:55 PM
Dear Eva,
Yes, Michael does rerun, rewrite, and/or update commentaries from time to time.
We include a note at the end of each week's commentaries on our e-newsletter that explains the occasional necessity to do so: "From time to time, commentaries are repeated because of workload, timeliness of the material, or opportunities to introduce new readers/listeners to favorite oldies. We thank you for your understanding."
Thank you for writing and your interest in the Institute.
John
Senior Editor
Josephson Institute
Posted by: John Wood | April 16, 2008 10:33 AM
The point is exactly that claiming superiority in either intelligence or integrity. When one side or the other seeks to impose their will claiming either, the moral high ground is lost.
Posted by: Russell Kicklighter | September 12, 2008 8:51 PM