1. Making a show of being morally superior to other people.
There’s almost nothing worse than someone, particularly evangelical preachers (although politicians are a close second), talking about the sin of others and their own piety. Conversely, there’s almost nothing better than watching some phony get his comeuppance when it comes out that he has a love-child, or has been having an affair, or is caught trying to pick up another man in an airport bathroom stall – and that is in no way an indictment of being gay – but when the guy who gets caught has been railing about the immorality of homosexuality publicly, the moment of schadenfreude is almost sublime. (For those not in the know, schadenfreude is the German word for that secret, guilty pleasure we occasionally get at someone else’s misery. Think of it like being a Red Sox fan and checking the score every night to see how the Yankees did – and delighting when their starting pitcher gets shelled, for example.) In fact, watching incidents like Eliot Spitzer – (a former prosecutor of organized crime and state attorney general) – get caught as governor for (drum roll please….) using the services of a high-priced federal prostitution ring, has almost replaced baseball as the national pastime. My personal favorite was the Jim Bakker-Jessica Hahn scandal: there’s nothing quite like some guy lecturing about all of the evils of the flesh (that the rest of were condemned to because we hadn’t found Jesus, like Jim had) and then getting caught with, literally, his pants down around his ankles. Douchebag. (Note: Bakker also literally “paid his debt” to society with a prison term for accounting fraud and other charges and was released in 1994.)
I bring this up in light of some of my recent posts about the need for having a personal ethic and giving some thought to moral judgments that you may have – whether it be about abortion, or premarital sex, legalization of marijuana, justifiable homicide, the death penalty, or just whether it’s okay to lie to your friend to avoid having to go to his kid’s birthday party. I thought that my last post, about ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – upon re-read – might come across as, well, ‘sanctimonious’. Not my intent at all and I wanted to ensure that my point was clear – it’s an issue that is not bright-line, by any stretch. I just know where I come out on it and why. I’m well aware of the justifications for “taking the gloves off” in the War on Terror. I’ve been there, done that, and got the commemorative Zippo lighter, challenge coin, and tee-shirt to prove it.
As I pondered this, I started thinking about the larger issue of making moral judgments, people’s general unwillingness to do so any more, and I was reminded of the Biblical injunction about not judging “lest ye be judged.” And I wondered how to reconcile that (and the parable of the adulteress who is about to be stoned) with my claim that having some moral philosophy is well-nigh a necessity for leading an ethical (and in some ways, satisfying) existence during our short stay on this planet. So, what gives? And is this in part the origin of our almost complete unwillingness to judge – and publicly declare – some things “right” and others “wrong”? I think it probably is and so I decided that I needed to reconcile this, or at least explain why I think we have to make moral judgments (for ourselves), whether we’re using the Bible, Kant, Aristotle, Rand, or some other authority as an overarching guide to our actions and choices.
If one takes that Bible passage literally – then no one should ever “judge” the actions of any other person, lest they “also be judged”- that would make jury duty more than just a pain in the ass, but also a ticket to eternal damnation. That doesn’t seem quite right. In fact, there are many, many long, and seemingly explicit passages that discuss “judging” in general terms and how it will eventually condemn the “judge” to damnation, etc. (See, e.g., Romans 2, particularly – “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” KJ Bible. American KJ: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are that judge: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you that judge do the same things.”)
In context, one has to understand that the orator in Romans was making a case against hypocrisy – the exact sanctimony of which I am speaking – and not necessarily against all forms of moral judgment – else wise we might as well ignore the Commandments or any form of moral authority. Murder would go unpunished because “who are we to judge?” This is ridiculous and logically self-contradictory. This was a diatribe arguing against the Jews who had condemned Gentiles merely for being Gentiles – while committing the same sins themselves (as a nation). This isn’t made explicit until later passages in Romans, but it starts out arguing from general principles – and using “Man” as the broadest category, and then bringing the issue to its point – in essentially arguing that the Jewish people could not condemn Gentiles on the grounds they were using, because they were guilty of the same offenses – and had the claim of being versed in ‘the Law’ (of God) and therefore should have known even better. i.e. They were sanctimonious hypocrites (the original Jim Bakkers of the world, as it were). One famous Biblical commentator explains Romans this way: “‘Whosoever thou art that judgest’ – The word ‘judgest’ (κρίνεις krineis) here is used in the sense of condemning… It implies … that they were accustomed to express themselves freely and severely of the character and doom of the Gentiles… from their own writings, there can be no doubt that such was the fact; that they regarded the entire Gentile world with abhorrence, considered them as shut out from the favor of God, and applied to them terms expressive of the utmost contempt.”*
So, this brings me back to my point about making moral judgments. It’s not that we can’t or shouldn’t make judgments about what is right or wrong, or how we’re going to handle the inevitable conflicts between competing moral principles, it’s that we shouldn’t be sanctimonious about it. Or (if we want to take the Biblical approach), we ought to be forgiving of the failings of others. So, while my disagreement with John Yoo is both serious and principled, I am not – like some people who have written angry screeds about Yoo’s “torture” memos, or George Bush’s Guantanamo Policies, or decried the CIA’s renditions program (and even called for criminal charges) – ready to declare that Yoo or Bush are going to hell or that either should be condemned, nor am I particularly 100% certain that as a matter of military or political expediency that they aren’t correct. I’m asserting that as a matter of moral judgment, it’s wrong. Both for our nation ethically, and for the good people we put in the position of carrying out those national policies. I can’t imagine that there is anything that blackens the soul of a person worse than intentionally – professionally – inflicting suffering upon another. It requires dehumanizing that person, debasing them to lower than an animal – to the level of an insect – that their suffering becomes nothing more than noise. Yet I am also well aware of our capacity for vengeance and the emotional wellspring from whence it comes – and it may be now why I find myself in the law, rather than plopping hellfire missiles and 20mm rounds on targets… maybe something else I need to think (and write) about…
*Albert Barnes graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary, in 1823. He was ordained pastor of the Presbyterian church in Morristown, NJ, in 1825, and was later pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, 1830-67, where he resigned and was made pastor emeritus. Barnes broke from strict Calvinism and was a leader in the “New School” branch of the Presbyterian church. His commentary on the entire New Testament and on portions of the Old (Notes: Explanatory and Practical, 1832-72), designed originally for his congregation in Philadelphia, sold more than one million copies before his death. They’re published in 14 volumes and still widely read and regarded.