Morality, Religion & Philosophy: August 2005 Archives

Jay Tea at Wizbang! uses the Muslim community of Lodi, California, as an example to argue that snitching is good.

Over the weekend, I picked up on this story (courtesy Mike Pechar of The Jawa Report), about the militant Islamists awaiting trial in Lodi, California.

It turns out that most of the evidence against the father and son accused of being part of Al Qaeda is tape-recorded conversations, and the local community says that a man who had made himself an integral part of them has now vanished. The locals say that he must have been the FBI informant.

This is exactly why so many people -- myself included -- tend to be suspicious of the average Muslim. Here we have pretty clear evidence of a couple of would-be terrorists in their midst, and they are far more concerned with who ratted them out than the fact that they had a member of Al Qaeda living among them.

It's very normal for groups to want to protect their members from outside punishment, either because they want to reserve the power of disapproval and punishment for their own group, or because don't respect the laws and morality of the greater community.

So when is it ok to snitch? We generally teach children that it isn't good to gossip or be a tattle-tale, but there are obviously many situations in which you'd want your kids to tell on each other, just as there are for adults. Is the seriousness seriousness of the offense the determining factor? Should groups generally be allowed to self-police until and unless they demonstrate inability or unwillingness?

The use of non-violent social pressure to police members of a group is typically very effective, as long as the culture of the group lines up with that of the larger society. Kids can't self-police because their naive culture is barbaric and kids as individuals are incompetent. But adults aren't as limited, which is why when kids break the law their parents are often given a chance to correct the matter, with society only stepping in if the parents are ineffective.

What we see in the case of the Muslims in Lodi is that they didn't exert social pressure to prevent the potential terrorists in their midst from acting in furtherance of their destructive goals. If the local Muslim community had confronted these men and condemned them privately, it's unlikely that they would have continued along the path that brought them to the attention of the FBI. We know they had the power to stop the terrorists, and most likely the knowledge, but they decided not to. Did they agree with the terrorists' goals? Who knows. What we do know is that, as Mr. Tea points out, whoever snitched on them was a hero, not a traitor.

Is the rightness of snitching purely in the eye of the beholder, or can some more objective criteria be established?

I just read, and can hardly believe, that the Nation of Islam believes that "Allah" is an acronym that stands for... Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head. That's... awesome.

Clayton Cramer gives a touching account of his father-in-law's death-bed conversion upon the realization that most of the things he held dear in life were wasted and worthless.

My father-in-law, like a lot of his generation, had never been a churchgoer. His pride prevented him from acknowledging that there was anything more important than himself. A couple of weeks before he died, my wife was visiting with him, and he said, "You know, I've never made fun of your religion, although I never had much need for it. But now I'm confronting the unknown, and I'm really scared." They prayed for a personal relationship with God--and a few days later, his stepson Brad did likewise with Richard.

By the time Richard died at age 74, he had lost everything in which he took pride: his independence; his athletic prowess; his illusion of being charge of his life. Only in the last few weeks, as everything was stripped away from Richard--his dignity, even the ability to get himself a drink of water--did he start to see that he was going to leave the world as he came into it, completely helpless, dependent on others.

There's a popular Christian song right now that talks about how some day, every knee shall bow before the Lord--but the greatest reward is for those who worship him now. Richard could have had a vastly more rewarding and satisfying life--but his pride got in the way. What a waste.

Jesus Christ's life and death were the ultimate expression of humility, and God promises that ironically, despite human pride, no one will ever be exalted above his Son.

Philippians 2:5-11

5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Verse 6 is particularly stirring: it was originally, and still is, man's desire to be like God that creates the most treacherous stumbling block that hinders our relationship with our Creator.

In 2003 I wrote a post denouncing the idea that Christians and Muslims worship the "same" God, and at the time I wasn't even aware that it's apparently the Catholic Church's official position that the opposite is true. In 1965, Pope Paul IV issued Declaration Nostra Aetate in which he taught:

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Fascinating, and terribly misguided. As I wrote two years ago,

It's true that as a monotheist I believe there is only one God, but it doesn't follow that anyone else who is also a monotheist worships the same God I do; the alternative is that they don't worship God at all, but rather a construct of their own imagination. For example, someone who woships a rock or a tree and claims it is the one and only "god" may also be a monotheist, but the characteristics of their "god" are entirely different from the characteristics of mine; we may both be monotheists, but at least one of us is wrong in believing that our god is the one and only.

Similarly with Muslims and Christians. Both are monotheists, but the two concepts of "god" are so completely divergent that they cannot both be true, and both "gods" cannot exist as conceived. At least one of the religions is wrong (and both think it's the other guys', whereas unbelievers think it's both).

Typically, only unbelievers (and functional unbelievers) are willing to make the claim that Jehovah and Allah are "the same". Why? Because they don't believe in either, and it's convenient and "enlightened" to lump everyone together. Why quibble about differences between two imaginary beings?

I've got a lot of Catholic readers, what say you? Am I missing something?

(HT: Belmont Club.)

I've heard people criticize the Bible for not taking a harder line against slavery. The general defense that Christians make (and it's a good one) is that slavery was a fact of life in Biblical times; the Bible isn't a political treatise intended to reform temporal governments, but rather a spiritual treatise intended to bring all men and women into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Critics say that passages that mention slavery appear neutral towards the institution at best:

1 Corinthians 7:17-24

Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

As the passage makes clear, the point is that we should keep God's commands rather than worry so much about our earthly situation. Nevertheless, if a slave can gain freedom -- or a totalitarian dictatorship can gain democracy -- he should do it.

However, last week while preparing for my small group at church I did find one passage that explicitly condemns slavery:

1 Timothy 1:8-11

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

So here's a list of evil acts (a common thing to find in Paul's writings) with a member that isn't found elsewhere: slave trading, which presumably inclues slave owning.

For the libertarians out there, does the government have any business regulating when parents are allowed to select the gender of their children? I'm not that familiar with the techniques, but let's set the morality of abortion aside and assume that gender selection doesn't -- by anyone's definition -- kill any babies of the undesired gender. Since I don't know how gender selection techniques work, it may in fact be the case that no fertilized eggs are harmed in the process. If I had to guess, I'd say the most likely way to select the gender of a baby is to separate X and Y sperms and then discard the undesired flavor. No harm done.

So, from that perspective, does society as a whole (and thus the government) have an interest in limiting gender selection? Does society have an interest in preserving a particular gender ratio (probably 50/50)? If so, should we empower the government to limit gender selection? The debate is already taking place in the UK:

Sex selection is allowed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in order to avoid babies being born with sex links disorders such as haemophilia. But its use for family balancing was opposed by the fertility watchdog after a public consultation.

Now the Government has raised the issue again in its wide-ranging consultation on fertility legislation, which has not been updated for 15 years.

The consultation also asks if sex selection were more widely available, how many children of one gender should a couple already have before they are allowed to use screening techniques to try for a child of another gender.

Allowing gender selection for medical reasons seems to be a no-brainer to me, but what about for purely aesthetic considerations? I myself would like to have at least one child of each gender, so I can understand "family balancing" motivations. And if you allow family balancing (an arbitrary aesthetic) can you logically disallow parents with other reasons for preferring one gender over the other? If balancing is ok, why not economic concerns? Perhaps a poor family would prefer to have boys because they think boys are cheaper to raise. Perhaps another family wants girls to enter into those ridiculous child beauty pageants. Perhaps another family wants to alternate boy-girl-boy-girl, or whatever. The only way to allow some and not others is if society has some sort of gender-based interest, but does it? And if it does, do we want to officially recognize it?

In an earlier post I noted skewed gender ratios in Arab countries, and the CIA World Fack Book lists the following male:female ratios:

- 1.13:1 in Brunei
- 1.14:1 in Jordan
- 1.42:1 in Bahrain
- 1.51:1 in Oman
- 1.65:1 in the United Arab Emirates (!)
- 1.77:1 in Kuwait (!)
- 2.36:1 in Qatar (!!)

In those cultures male babies are valued more highly than female babies, who are often purposefully killed or allowed to die through neglect. The effect on their civilization of millions of adult men who have no potential to ever get married can only be imagined. As I wrote back then, no wonder they're so grumpy.

Some of the most amusing comments I get are the ones like the last one on this page by "endO":

As a Christian myself, I CANNOT see how any true Christian can justify or support war (particularly an illegal one!)

I assume endO is talking about the Global War on Terror, or perhaps the liberation of Iraq more specifically. If he, or anyone, is actually interested in how and why I justify and support America's involvement in these conflicts, he should simply read through the numerous posts I've written on the topic.

The only reason I can think of for him to preface his position with "as a Christian myself" is that he wants to bypass and ignore all my written arguments on the matter -- which he probably hasn't bothered to read -- and morph the issue into a question of being a "true Christian". He himself is naturally a "true Christian", and since he "CANNOT see" any way to justify the war that I support, I must not be a "true Christian".

As for myself, I can see plenty of reasons why people I would consider to be true Christians would not support the Global War on Terror -- after all, there are plenty of stupid Christians. Just kidding. Anyway, even if it were the case that "true Christianity" compelled a person to take a certain position on the GWoT, I don't think that argument would be useful for convincing anyone to change their mind. All such an argument does is obscure the real area of disagreement: what characteristics of the GWoT compel such a belief? I think very few pairs of people could agree about all the characteristics of the GWoT and then come to different conclusions as to whether or not to support it. Why? Because in the vast majority of cases the decision to support or denounce the GWoT preceded an understanding of the evidence, and the decision actually determines which evidence will be accepted and which evidence will be rejected.

Interestingly, most people make decisions about spiritual matters the same way: first they decide, then they look at evidence, then they adjust the evidence to fit their decision.

I've long wondered if rules against cheating were devised to protect physically powerful people from mentally powerful people. Competition rules generally restrict mental action rather than physical -- although there are exceptions, such as the rule against grabbing a face mask in football. I suppose the purpose of condemning cheaters is that there's a consensus that competing in a certain way is more fun than having a free-for-all, and players decide beforehand which skills are going to be allowed to be used in the given game.

Once winning becomes more important than the enjoyment gained from competing in a certain way, then the game changes from one of cleverly working within the rules to one of deviously breaking the rules without getting caught. If players wanted to follow the rules, then referees wouldn't be necessary; since they are necessary, we can infer that most players want to break the rules and are only constrained by a fear of getting caught. Ergo, even though most players would denounce a discovered cheat, the denouncement would be a show designed to maximize the penalty imposed on their opponent and not based on actual outrage.

The only moral consideration involved with obeying game rules is the supposition that each player has agreed to abide by the rules -- and it's morally incumbent upon a person to keep his agreements. There's nothing inherently immoral about traveling in basketball, unless you've agreed not to. However, since we've already decided that most players are looking for ways to cheat without getting caught, it isn't much of a leap to suggest that the supposition that all the players have agreed to play by the rules is false. If all the players haven't agreed to play by the rules, then it isn't morally abhorrent to break the rules since there's no consensus.

In a sense, then, the mere presence of a referee probably prompts players to break the rules more than they otherwise might. After all, the ref is there to sort things out, and whatever he doesn't see doesn't count as cheating. On the other hand, playing without a ref might incline players to focus more on the competitive fun rather than winning at any socially acceptable cost (such as cheating and not getting caught).

Note that we're talking about game rules here, in which there are no absolute rights and wrongs; the same logic is obviously inapplicable to other moral contexts in which right and wrong are not determined by human consensus.

Montgomery Burns said it well:

Burns: Tell me, Simpson. If an opportunity arose for taking a small shortcut, you wouldn't be adverse to taking it, would you?

Homer: Uhh, not as such.

Burns: Neither would I. I've always felt that there's far too much hysteria these days about so-called cheating.

Homer: Yes, a lot of -- hysteria. [worried look]

Burns: Mm-hmm. If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!

Homer: Mr. Burns, I insist that we cheat.

Burns: Excellent.

-- "Mountain of Madness"