Moral Imperatives for Today's World

Rev. Amy Russell - 2008-11-02

In this exciting and historic election, we hear echoes in the campaign rhetoric about issues that some would define as moral imperatives. The question I would ask, to us as religious liberals, is “What are our moral imperatives?” How do we examine our faith and decide what values affect our political decisions? Does our religious tradition define moral values in a way that would affect our vote? And should it?

Jim Wallis, an author who has examined the way that the right and the left frame moral questions in politics, says this about using one’s morality in public life:
"But really, we all suffer when there is no vision, no guiding moral compass that steers our public life. We become bereft of meaning and purpose in our social relationships, we lose all sense of the common good or our shared humanity, and the bonds of society themselves become so frayed that each individual feels forced to just fend for themselves."

While many of us are beginning to understand that we as religious liberals have moral values that shape our political views, sometimes we don’t know how to articulate this well.

George Lakoff, a political consultant who has written about the inability of the liberal left to enunciate clear moral values, writes about the difference between what he calls “virtue ethics” and “moral law”. He says that virtue ethics was first described by Artistotle who spoke about the essence of a person and the need for individual growth and development during one’s lifetime. He thought that people could develop these personal “virtues” through their life experience, but that each of us had different natures and would develop different virtues.

Aristotle also talked about virtues that were social in nature and were required to create a “good society”. In turn, a “good society” was one that allowed the personal development of individuals in order to fulfill their own potential. This philosophy describes the beginning of progressive thought, in which the governing bodies were designed to assist individuals in fulfilling their own individual missions as well as the common good.

Lakoff describes “moral law”, on the other hand, as an outlook in which certain actions are defined as right and others as absolutely wrong. In a society that follows moral law, there are long lists of rules that everyone must follow with no exceptions. This kind of morality is defined in absolutes, not shaped by certain situations or certain individuals.

An example of virtue ethics would be an abortion law that allows for freedom of choice for individuals in making their own decision about abortion depending on their own life situation. It does not condemn people for the decisions that they must make to control their own life. A moral law society makes one law that would prevent anyone from having an abortion based on one set of absolute moral values.

Morality seems to be defined by some in this election as adherence to certain moral laws such as laws about marriage, laws about conception and birth. In addition to laws, there are values that seem to be defined by a “moral law” kind of system. Values about strict definitions of family, values about what patriotism means, values about the rugged individual being able to stand alone without any support or help from a governmental system.

When you think about this kind of moral values, you hear fear within them. Fear about chaos or a lack of control over people’s personal lives. And fear is often used to create divisiveness. When people fear something or are told someone else is different from them, then they tend to stick together, to create a wall to keep the fear out. This creates a nation that is polarized.

I believe that the moral imperatives that stand out in this election are about hope and harmony, not about fear and divisiveness. Within the economic crisis we are facing, there is a lot of fear. We must look for the hope that a nation working together can calm the troubled waters that rock us today. A nation that believes it can solve these problems by finding new ethical ways for businesses to work - will overcome this crisis.

As Unitarian Universalists, how do we define what is a moral value and what is not? Our acceptance of theological diversity certainly carries over to acceptance of different views on morality. But do we have common values that we share that shape our view on moral imperatives? Certainly our principles give us a world view that shapes how we think about moral issues.

Looking at our seven principles, I see some basic patterns that form a world view. Inclusivity, which means we recognize everyone’s worth and right to participate in civil endeavors is an underlying value. Respect for diversity as defined by the acceptance of each other and encouragement toward spiritual growth is another basic shared value. Striving toward justice and equity is another focus of our movement. And our principle about the shared web of existence articulates our view that whatever actions we take individually affect the world as a whole. Our moral values seem to focus on acceptance of diversity, inclusivity, and striving toward justice and equity together with other nations.

Given these values what issues in today’s world are imperative?

There is fear that we will never solve the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear that our troops will still be trying to stop a civil war in Iraq 2-3 years from now. We need hope that when our country’s leaders begin reaching out to other world leaders, creating a multi-lateral solution to these problems that we will no longer be a country that tries to decide the fate of other nations. Creating a world community that faces global conflicts together is a moral imperative in today’s shrinking world. We can no longer pretend that we are the superpower in charge of deciding the fate of others.

One of the most urgent moral imperative facing the world today should be the climate change that we see globally. This is the issue that should unite the nations of the world, knowing that there is no solution alone, only solutions working together. The hope that we could combine the world’s best scientists and technologists to work toward better energy solutions means that the nations of the world could work in harmony with a shared goal.

The moral imperative of solving world hunger is also a focus that needs to be addressed globally. If people are hungry, they are not concerned about what kind of government rules them, they just need food. Working to solve these problems worldwide should also pull our nation together instead of our simply worrying about our own bank accounts.

The moral imperative of providing national health care is an urgent problem. Health care is a human right and we must be working on finding ways that people can obtain care without becoming bankrupt, or not receiving care at all because they can’t afford it.

And of course, we believe that all people should be given equal rights. That includes not only rights for equal housing and jobs for GLBT people, but also the right for gay and lesbian people to marry. We believe that this is a moral imperative.

Fear and divisiveness has been a tool in political campaigning too long. We must rise above this and teach others to rise above it. Differences in the candidates’ religion, race, or gender should not affect someone’s vote. These things should not polarize our nation, but bring about an awareness and appreciation of the diversity of our nation.

This week we received in our office here a mailing from an organization called “The Judeo-Christian View”. Inside the envelope the mailing contained two DVD’s. One was the DVD entitled: Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West. And the other DVD was entitled: On Same-Sex Unions and Child Sacrifice. Many of you have heard about the first DVD. This is the one created by a company called CLARION. This DVD was included as a paid advertisement in the newspapers in all the swing states. While it does open with a statement that not all Muslims are terrorists, it goes on to describe an outrageous, fearful campaign that is going on by Muslims against the West. It’s clear that this was mailed at a strategic time in the weeks before the election to spread fear that the candidate whose name sounds like a Muslim might somehow be connected to terrorism.

The letter addressed to congregational leaders begins like this:

Our nation faces a fork, a divergence between the high road and the low road- and you and your congregation could very well determine the direction we take. The high road upholds traditional marriage between one man and one woman, and the sanctity of innocent human life that springs from such unions. The low road favors homosexual “marriage” and child sacrifice.

It also says:
The low road marches us toward militant secular-paganism, militant Islam, or both.

The other DVD outlines the biblical prescription against same sex marriage and against abortion.

I think we should answer this letter with one of our own, outlining our moral values for inclusivity, respect for all kinds of diversity, and an objection toward using one religion’s moral prescription’s to shape our nation’s laws. This group says that our congregation could very well influence the direction this nation takes. I certainly hope that is the case.

This is an historic election. We will all be making a choice for our nation. I hope we will be choosing hope above fear, harmony above divisiveness. Our moral values have created for us a definition of what we consider moral imperatives. Let us consider these moral imperatives when we make our choice for our nations leaders. Our tradition demands a choice for inclusivity, respect for the diversity of other’s religion, race, and gender, sexual orientation and a striving toward justice and equity both in our nation and in our world.



Bibliography:
Jim Wallis, God’s Politics, Why the Right gets it Wrong, and the Left doesn’t get it
George Lakoff, Whose Freedom Anyway?