Orson Scott Card, an Authoritarian
The SF author Orson Scott Card posted an essay to a Mormon website about why Mormonism is incompatible with being openly homosexual.
This may come as a surprise to him, but the argument on which Mr. Card bases his entire essay actually is ethical relativity. Let us take an example. Either raping a woman is wrong because of the suffering of the victim, or it is wrong just because god happened to arbitrarily roll some dice and decree it. Mr. Card is among the type who would say the latter. "Against thee and thee only have I sinned," wrote the Psalmist David addressing god. In other words the suffering of the victim is inconsequential. This is a form of ethical relativism. If wrong is only wrong because of the preferences of a deity, then that preference is arbitrary whim because there is no standard higher than god for a god to judge itself against. If instead, Mr. Card believes that god observes behavior and then conforms his own laws to the evidence based on the suffering of the victims, then he is holding his decisions to an exterior standard and is therefore not god. "Arbitrary" means "held to no exterior standard."
Mr. Card thinks god's will is loving, pure, just and good. This statement can have no meaning in a theistic framework, because what standard is he using to let himself stand as judge and jury over god to say that? Is god's will the standard against which god's will is measured? Then we have said nothing about god's goodness, but only that god's will is god's will. That becomes the arbitrary definition of "good." Then it's only immutable in the sense that it immutably defines morality by its whim from moment to moment. Every time it arbitrarily changes its mind, that change becomes the new definition of morality. If it stays the same forever, so what? It is held to one arbitrary roll of the dice, forever.
The Christian or LDS rules-based moral system cannot accomplish the objectivity which they claim they want from a moral system.
This is because it confuses mere rules with moral truths, and bases morality on a set of rules instead of the other way around. Objective moral truths do not change just because an authority changes a rule-- not even god. If Mr. Card believes they do, then he is a moral relativist, except even worse, because he extends it to a cosmic scale. Only rules are man-made or God-made. Objective morality, on the other hand, cannot be man-made or God-made, it's not made by anybody. 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't need to be decreed by royal fiat. Neither does the fact that unprovoked harm of another person is biased towards you and against them. Theism makes it impossible for moral truths to be objectively real. If there is a god, then, and only then, is morality subjective and relativistic.
However, Mr. Card is right about one thing:
"Those who are not willing or able to obey the rules should honestly admit the fact and withdraw from membership. ...the LDS church, which is founded on the idea that the word of God as revealed through his prophets should determine the behavior of the Saints, is under no obligation to protect some supposed "right" of those members who would like to persuade us that neither God nor the prophets has the authority to regulate them."
I would not stop to urinate on Mr. Card's supposed god and prophets if they were on fire. This is not specifically because I disagree with them on an issue, such as homosexuality, which is just one of many problematic issues with religion. It's because of authoritarianism. Just as we can't learn to do arithmetic by always looking it up on a chart, and refusing to countenance the idea that the chart is wrong -- so too we can't practice ethical reasoning by looking it up in a so-called holy book. Therefore there is nothing so evil in the holy books as the claim that we should unquestioningly get our rules for living from them, rather than from personal reason and observation. The specific errors such as the prohibition on harmless sexual quirks would be easily repaired if it weren't for their Stalinesque attitude toward authority.
Nevertheless, I can't help but agree with Mr. Card that there are no gay Mormons by definition. To claim that his view represents a mere misunderstanding of the book of Mormon, and that the book actually does not prohibit homosexuality, is as absurd as saying that chairman Mao really was a capitalist if you read between the lines, and therefore a capitalist can legitimately claim to be a Maoist.
It's time to draw the line in the sand and step firmly across to the ethical side. The Church of Latter-Day Saints, along with other scripture-following authoritarian religions, have abandoned their responsibilities to individually observe the data of lived experience with a mind to personally weigh the costs and benefits of behaviors.
Comments
rmeidaking on Mar. 17, 2005 4:41 PM
I both agree and disagree with OSC on this - and a bunch of other topics.
Fundamentally, Mormonism is what I think of as a Club-oriented religion; it's a variation on the clubs that small children often create, where everyone agrees to conform to a list of rules, and you're either "In" or "Out" based on your ability to conform to what the leader decrees.
Within this context, it makes a whole lot of sense to kick out anyone who isn't conforming to the club rules. If you don't like the club, go create one of your own. (Which, actually, is pretty much how Mormonism was created in the first place. Joseph Smith, et. al., were dissatisfied with the existing religious choices at the time, so they seized the opportunity and created a new cult, er, religion.)
I've been expecting for some time that a fundamentalist sect would arise, formed of primarily homosexual individuals, that behaved more or less like all of the other fundamentalists sects, but recognizing gay marriage. Once it had a few thousand members, it would be hard to ignore. However, this is a side issue.
The problem is that the Mormon Church (and other major denominations) are large entities. We may well need a Henry VIII-style restructuring of religions in this country (taking away their tax-exempt status, for instance; let them decide if they really want to pay property tax on those huge buildings on prime downtown real estate...). You get a lot of potential ancillary benefits from belonging to one. There are definite arguments in the line of them being less religious centers than social centers, since typically you find upon questioning that many of the members disagree on crucial points of theology and belief; they just like hanging out together, and are more a mutual-support society than anything else. In that light, the question of restricting a person from membership based on sexual orientation becomes nit-picky, as it certainly isn't in the core statement of belief of the organization. Gay rights are not brought up in the Ten Commandments; you have to really go digging in Leviticus to even get commentary by the Jewish elders on the subject.
So it boils down to Mr. Card - and others - being personally bothered by having people of multiple sexual orientations in their congregations, rather than any serious religious argument.
Of course, all of religion is about Belief with a capital B, and this is certainly in line with Mr. Card's Belief. I tend to think that, if a god exists (on which the jury is still out), He/She/It is probably more concerned with the good/evil character of each person's actions than who that person likes to kiss. Maybe I'm naive, but there it is. That falls under the category of My Belief. :-)
Having met Mr. Card, I personally think he's a nice guy, but I also think (note that I avoided using 'believe') that he and others like him are allowing a spirit of intolerance to grow in America, and this is very, very bad. Today we can be Intolerant of gays; tomorrow it will be Muslims; next week it will be anyone non-Judeo-Christian; then anyone non-Christian; and if we don't slow it down now, by about 2015, we'll be looking at a civil war between the Baptists, Mormons and Catholics.
We really need to stop intolerance NOW.
matt-arnold on Mar. 17, 2005 4:57 PM
How can "we" (by whom I presume you mean those who are already tolerant) "stop intolerance NOW"? By being intolerant of the beliefs of intolerant people? Those who oppose acceptance of homosexuality feel no less persecuted and oppressed. You can hear the voice of the victim in several paragraphs in Mr. Card's essay. Violence and legislation -- such as the legislation against gay marriage in America, or legislation censoring speech against homosexuals on the radio in Canada -- is persecution. We can be accepting of both in our laws for the sake of freedom, to keep government from regulating the hearts and thoughts of either side; but we can't be accepting of both in our consciences.
ericthemage on Mar. 17, 2005 6:08 PM
Let's stop intolerant legislation, and let private entities discriminate as they choose. I would rather not force any private entity to tolerate what they do not wish to. In return, I will not do business with any entity that discriminates, and will let them know why I am not doing business with them.
For example, Weyco Insurance in Michigan fired people for smoking or not taking a tobacco test. There has been so much negative publicity, and yet Michigan is considering passing a law stating that you cannot be fired for doing a legal activity in your own home. I disagree, I'd rather let the market take care of it. Weyco has probably taken a big hit because of all the negativity.
For religious intolerance, I say that as a private individual, if you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry a homosexual. Don't force your beliefs on me, and I won't force mine on you.
paranthropus on (None)
paranthropus on (None)
paranthropus on Mar. 17, 2005 5:44 PM
It seems that the purpose of religion is to grant the illusion of absolutism to the ethical problems of the day. Until, of course, the wind shifts. That's when the stage managers of organized religion quietly change the scenery. This is sometimes a painful process. Look at how the Anglican church is contorting itself, now that the American Episcopals have ordained an openly gay bishop. The curtain is rising, guys. Get your act together. In the modern era, our ethics are fundamentally Humanistic. We still maintain the need for religious faith, though. Most Americans find it comforting. Many sects, in the spirit of self-preservation, have conformed to this humanistic ethic. That's why most Christians reject the laws laid down in Leviticus and heretics and homosexuals are no longer stoned in the streets.
Mr Card is expressing an opinion that attempts to reconcile Christian judgment with Humanistic ethics: "What you guys (homosexuals) are doing is wrong, but Jesus told us to treat you with compassion. You will, of course, have to confess your sin. If you don't, we will be forced to call you bad names. At least we aren't beating your brains in (there's the influence of modern ethics). Now, aren't we the tolerant ones?". We need to go well beyond tolerance, in my opinion. What we need to reach for is a genuine understanding based on a respect for our mutual humanity. If there is any objective standard, it should be an ethical code that cuts across the tribal boundaries which typically confine religions. "But we can't tolerate sinful behavior! It's a slippery slope!". My point is that understanding and respect need to be paramount in the ideal ethical system, trumping even absolutes definitions of sin. Call me a flaky Liberal, I guess.
Your definition of objective ethics seems incomplete. You are sort of assuming that what is ethical is necessarily what benefits humanity and reduces human suffering. I certainly agree, but I would complete the definition so that we don't have another "objective" ethical standard hanging out there. When you talk about objective ethics aren't you really talking about Humanism?
matt-arnold on Mar. 17, 2005 6:08 PM
Yes, it's compatible with Humanism, but I'm careful not to create another authority out of it. You can't determine what is Secular Humanism in the same way you determine what is Christianity. With most of the religions of the world, you look up the teachings in a book that defines the official stance. The followers follow that set of teachings, so authority is invested in the original sources and goes from the top downward. Not so with individualistic movements, in which authority transmits from the bottom upward and the teachings of the past are usually considered inferior to the present and future. The "Affirmations of Humanism" or the "Humanist Manifesto" (and its revisions 2 and 3) are not scriptures to be obeyed, they are classification records of what certain individuals managed to broadly agree on. The way they are compiled is to notice that there is a large number of people who already have certain pre-existing beliefs in common, and then write it down and slap the label of "humanism" on that. Instead of serving to inform humanists what to believe, it serves only to inform non-secularists about a demographic category called "humanists." Secular Humanists will believe whatever they individually decide from their personal experience and reason, regardless of what the manifestos and affirmations say. That's why these documents have always changed with which humanists happen to be alive, and always should change, because no one looks to these documents for guidance. The text follows me and not the other way around.
phecda on Mar. 17, 2005 5:58 PM
Great discussion, folks. I, for one, am just glad to get insight into the origins of the current Something Positive arc. :-) I now return you to your discussion of the relative merits of the jello belt.
Leave a Comment