What Is Truth?
I’ve noticed a recurring pattern among some of my fellow travellers on the spiritual path: an extreme reluctance to make a definite moral statement. I understand that in this postmodern age there is (supposedly) no such thing as absolute truth. And I can understand why many (especially in the GLBT community) are reluctant to make any definite moral statements: many of us have been abused or alienated by those who have used such “absolute” statements as weapons against us.
But it seems to me that if we never stand up for what is true – if we never speak our truth with conviction – we slip into a kind of moral vacuum, where every viewpoint is given equal weight, no matter how harmful the consequences of those viewpoints may be to others.
An example from the current news: Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. As good liberal postmodernists who value tolerance and dialogue between those of differing paths, are we supposed to consider Pat Robertson’s viewpoint a valid one? Are we intolerant if we refuse to tolerate an intolerant viewpoint? Is it OK to call Pat Robertson (or at least his words) vile and loathsome, or are we judgmental and absolutist ourselves if we do so?
I have no answers, just concerns. I welcome your feedback.
Darrell
www.WildFaith.com
But it seems to me that if we never stand up for what is true – if we never speak our truth with conviction – we slip into a kind of moral vacuum, where every viewpoint is given equal weight, no matter how harmful the consequences of those viewpoints may be to others.
An example from the current news: Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. As good liberal postmodernists who value tolerance and dialogue between those of differing paths, are we supposed to consider Pat Robertson’s viewpoint a valid one? Are we intolerant if we refuse to tolerate an intolerant viewpoint? Is it OK to call Pat Robertson (or at least his words) vile and loathsome, or are we judgmental and absolutist ourselves if we do so?
I have no answers, just concerns. I welcome your feedback.
Darrell
www.WildFaith.com
posted by Darrell Grizzle | 11:30 AM
6 Comments:
Because of his functional roles and his multiple realms of power, I feel pretty strongly that Pat Robertson was wrong to say what he did. I also feel that it is hypocritical because of his own interest in power and the natural resources of other countries. It is also a strange reaction considering the dictators we will support against democratically-elected leaders who take socialist/communist positions on sharing wealth.
The most benevolent reading of his statement that I can think of would be that Robertson had been wrestling with the idea of which was worse - for one person to be immorally killed or for a whole country to be invaded. In this case, such benevolent reading would be difficult to justify - but may still lead to some interesting and helpful debate.
Meanwhile - I'm a contextual ethicist, and I have no problem making a judgment.
Here's a link for armchair activists to make a statement that will be published in Robertson's local paper:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/robertson
Thanks for the Democracy for America link, Heidi. I'm planning to go to a local Democracy for America meetup on Wed., Sept. 7th:
http://dfa.meetup.com/776/
Good post, and good points.
I have no trouble condemning Pat Robertson.
Hey, Darrell good points. Here in samsara, it is necessary to take a stand, if we care anything at all about change. Yet the power for real change comes from somewhere else...
I tend to remember what Gandhi said, "Make injustice visible". If we are holding to values such as tolerance and respect, this doesn't silence us from speaking out when we see injustice, which is the arena I would place his words into. Rather, it would seem to me that we have an obligation not to remain silent and by doing so, imply our agreement.
As a possibly good public servant I would place this in the context of good public policy with the devil hiding in the "guidelines".
Many many if not most people would espouse a public policy of love for others. Good stuff. But a lot of people think policy needs guidelines. Pat Robertson, like many others, clearly lives in the "guidelines" of his particular liking. His guidleines are clearly at odds with the prime policy.
For me then I can feel OK about saying hey Pat, what you are advocating is wrong, harmful and destructive of the prime policy, destructive of others and yourself.
Those who advocate that we need some absolute moral values are generally those who are stuck in their own culturally relative "guidelines". The absolute moralists tend to be the quintessential relativists.
:)
Darryl
Post a Comment
<< Home