On Jefferson

I am rather a fan of Thomas Jefferson, not just because every time I read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence my heart swells with pride at the promise of those ideas, but also because of his amazing curiosity about the world.  Jefferson always reflects a very human sense of what could (and should) be accomplished.  I respect that perspective.  I've read Notes on Virginia, of course, so I know that Jefferson also disappoints.  But I still admire him, warts and all.

In fact, I keep a Jefferson quote at the top of my writing journal; it's been there for years:  “No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." The idea is one part consolation; one part karmic justice coming down the track.

Recently, I read Annette Gordon Reed's amazing The Hemingses of Monticello and though the book is really a detailed accounting of the rather remarkable Hemings family, for very obvious reasons Thomas Jefferson also looms large in their story.  The book is full of impressive Jefferson quotations and quotes about him.  In particular, these gems:

William Short, speaking of Jefferson, said this, "Jefferson's greatest illusions in politics…proceeded from a most amiable error on his part; having too favorable opinion of the animal called Man."

Writing to his daughter Martha, when she was frustrated by the actions of her father-in-law, he advised, "Every human being, my dear, must thus be viewed according to what it is good for, for none of us, no not one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections this world would be a desert for our love."

Jefferson on his dislike of big cities, particularly New York City, "I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man."  Pestilence seems a rather strong a characterization, but it sure made me laugh.

Jefferson on his religious beliefs: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."  No doubt this will be news to those loons on the Texas Board of Education who yammered on about the Founders and their creation of a Christian nation.

The first few weeks of U.S. History and American Government, during which time we study the founding and talk about the Constitution, are upon me.  And with this time comes yet another opportunity for me to both appreciate Thomas Jefferson and share him with a new crop of students.  I wonder again what Jefferson would think of the nation we've become.  What would surprise him?  What would make him proud?  What would disappoint him?  I look forward to having these conversations with my students in the weeks ahead.

New and Improved Sin

Greed. Lust. Envy. Gluttony. Sloth. Anger. Pride.

The Seven Deadly sins. Serious business, these sins. According to the Catholic Church, commission of these sins will land your soul in mortal peril. That's hell, y'all, and I hear word that it's a rough neighborhood.

I note this because the Catholic Church is thinking of updating the Seven Deadly Sins. I heard a story about this on BBC World News and I must admit that it got me thinking. For one thing, the standard of the Seven Deadly Sins is pretty damned high. I think of myself as a fairly decent – dare I say, moral – person and I'm pretty sure that I commit one of these deadly sins on a weekly basis. Get your mind out of the gutter.........I'm speaking of anger, pride, and envy. I'd guess that most of us go down one of the seven deadly paths pretty regularly. So it strikes me that the update isn't necessarily a function of success as in, "Good news, folks. We've conquered the Seven Deadly Sins and it's time to up the ante." In other words, no one is making the argument that, having overcome the Seven Deadly Sins, we now require a new standard for good behavior. Thus the all-new, updated, Seven Deadly Sins.

But modern life demands progress and so......The new Seven Deadly sins are distinctly modern. In no particular order, they are:
- pollution
- obscene wealth
- drug abuse
- genetic modification
- experimentation on humans
- causing poverty
- causing social injustice

What is most striking about the updated Seven Deadly Sins is that they are thoroughly modern; sins not available in the 7th century world of the Seven Deadly v. 1. And whereas the original Seven Deadly Sins were largely about individual behavior, the updated sins are about community or group behavior. Because, unless I miss my mark, it's nearly impossible to cause poverty on your very own. Chances are good that no single one of us can be blamed for pollution, though we all likely contribute.

All day long as I thought about sin (and I wasn't alone.......what's the deal with Elliot Spitzer?), I wondered if the original 7 deadlies wouldn't be able to accommodate the new and improved sins. Isn't the sin of obscene wealth a function of greed, gluttony, and pride? At the same time, where does the good old-fashioned sin of lust fit in with the new list? Is lust no longer sinful?

Though I understand the impulse to update, I think that I'm just not persuaded that we need an all-new Seven Deadly sins. In fact, I think that the notion of sin may very well be the problem. So in my home we just use the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. It's timeless, covers the individual and the community, and I think that it does the trick quite nicely.

The Pope and Me: Secret Identity

Several years ago, in what often seems like a previous life, I was a college professor teaching moral philosophy to students enrolled in an open enrollment college in rural Nebraska. If it sounds like the premise of some Kafkaesque story, let me assure you that it often felt that way.

Teaching moral philosophy to students who could care less about philosophy is a challenge. And as we read our way through excerpts of Aristotle's Ethics, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, and the ideas of Vaclav Havel, it was sometimes more of a challenge then I expected.

In the rural Midwest, a place that can rarely be called open-minded, I found myself awash in students who were ethical relativists. Yes, they would agree, genital mutilation is wrong in America. But those folks in Africa should be permitted to engage in such practices, they would argue. "It's their culture," the students would inform me, as if that explained it all.

I came to believe that ethical relativism is the governing principle of most every moral discourse in the United States. My students would tell me again and again that there is no absolute right or wrong. It's all relative to the situation, they would say. I must confess that I found this surprising, though there was once a time when I would have agreed with such an argument. In many ways, ethical relativism promotes a greater tolerance for cultural diversity. I think that is vitally important. But the more I read and taught moral philosophy, the more I came to believe that there is a bright and universal demarcation between right and wrong. Some moral standards must exist; right and wrong cannot be relative positions.

I know this is an odd conclusion for a liberal, educated, feminist, lesbian to articulate. I was born in 1967, the child of liberal baby boomer Californians. If anyone has a right to be a relativist, it's me. I grew up in an open-minded world governed by tolerance. Who am I to suggest that that there are absolute standards in the moral universe?

And yet I believe that there are absolute standards of moral behavior. I'm not sure how I would define it all, but there are some principles to which I believe that we must all adhere. Children are due our protection and must never be hurt. Genital mutilation is wrong. Always. We have a moral imperative to make every effort to end violence where it exists, or at least to avoid contributing to the sum amount of it in the world. Are these ideals that cannot be achieved? I don't really know the answer to that. Must we try to achieve them? Absolutely.

The new pope, Pope Benedict, has lately argued that ethical relativism run amok leaves us with no moral foundation. In a homily delivered to his fellow cardinals after the death of Pope John Paul, Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) said, "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." I couldn't agree more. And while I am certain that he and I have very different notions of right and wrong, I believe that he's right that relativism is the slippery slope to moral bankruptcy.

So here I am, an avowed liberal with a secret identity as the anti-ethical relativist. Who knew?