|
Justice III: The Personal Dimension
Reverend Brian J. Kiely,
Unitarian Church of Edmonton, November 25, 2000
In this series we have considered the Canadian justice system
and even the larger global question of justice. Today we conclude
the
series by looking at the personal dimension of this complex topic.
It’s easy for us to feel overwhelmed by the idea of justice
when we think on an national or international scale, but the fact
is, it is also a very intimate and personal topic. "How do I
treat a child or spouse fairly?" is a question of justice. “How
do I respond when co-workers tell racist jokes?” is a question
of justice. Even, "What do I do with my left wing beliefs when
a right wing politician makes a good point?" is a question of
justice.
Rebecca Parker, a prominent Unitarian thinker believes that these
questions arise out of our experience of the good and the beautiful.
They arise when we notice the beauty is missing.
This question challenges me more than any other in life. How do
I live in a way that keeps faith with beauty — with the beauty I
have known, the beauty of all people everywhere, the beauty of the
earth? How do I resist the violence that tears us one from another
and from the earth? When the violence goes deep into the core of
the human soul, as it has mine, how is the heart restored?
The current election has many of us thinking hard. The predominant
though not exclusive philosophy held by Unitarians is social liberalism,
but that philosophy has not dominated the election debates. Tomorrow,
do we vote conscience? Do we vote for the lesser of two evils? Do
we vote strategically? Do we vote for change? Many of us are finding
the decisions difficult, even in the face of what many see as forgone
electoral results in Alberta. The political climate is changing.
So the question becomes, "In a world of changing values, what
resources do we have to make just and responsible decisions?"
I have to back up one step. There are a prior questions that require
some thought: What is an justice question? Why should I bother with
it?
In one sense a justice problem is any question that causes us to
pause before acting to satisfy our own desires, our own whims. I
have $1,000 to invest. My own desire is to have the greatest return
possible. The question arises when I learn that the best rate of
return comes from the weapons industry. Were I only concerned with
satisfying my desires, I would go ahead and invest, but armaments
are controversial. In the end, I may invest or not invest, but the
nature of the industry should give me pause as I ask, "Can I
live with this kind of investment? Will the satisfaction of my desires
cause others to suffer unnecessarily?"
Justice questions remind us that we are part of a larger community.
They are admissions that we are not alone and cannot simply do as
we please. They are the first and ultimate of the human "I-Thou" questions
in that by the very act of posing them, we admit the existence and
the rights of the 'Thous"...of other beings deserving of our
consideration. By asking the questions, we allow that there are points
of view that may be good and worthy, even if they are different from
ours. We must take those views into account.
This may seem self-evident. Since we are part of a community, and
would have others act morally and responsibly towards us, we, then
must honour our responsibilities towards them. Furthermore, according
to former UUA President Bill Schulz we must be careful how we act
and use our resources, for it speaks volumes about us as people.
He writes:
...Every decision, whether tacit or explicit, about
the use of our ...resources, our power, is a political decision
and a
reflection of what we value.... Every act, including the tacit
choice to remain passive, is a political statement with implications
for
the public realm. (from Schulz, Wm. Finding Time (Beacon, 1992)
p. 11
We Unitarians affirm the interdependent web of existence, that invisible
network of relationship that binds us directly and indirectly to
every other being and creature and rock and tree on the planet. Our
actions, our decisions will, by definition, have some kind of impact
on that web of life. Because we are moral people, we wish that impact
to be positive, and that means we must think carefully before we
act for fear of unwittingly doing harm. This is why we must bother
with justice questions.
Well, okay, we're moral and we want to do the right thing.
What in heavens name is the right thing? There is no easy certainty.
Think of an issue, something near and dear to your hearts...something
about healthcare, or the environment, or the deficit. Pick any issue
you like on which you have a point of view.
Are you absolutely and unequivocally sure you are 100% right? I
used to think I was 100% right 15 years ago when heeding the call
of the conservation movement I insisted on paper grocery bags. That
was before we realized it would speed up the cutting of trees.
Few of us are 100% sure of anything. I think that's a good thing.
Those who are 100% certain of their views are seldom open to other
opinions. Their self-interest lies in being right. Such close-minded
zealots seldom live ethically responsible lives, for their self-absorption
blinds them to their responsibilities towards others.
Well, now I have made two assumptions: that we wish to live just
and moral lives; and that few of us are absolutely certain about
our views. If these are true, then we come back to: How do we make
up our minds?
Phillip Hewett, Emeritus Minister of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver
suggests we have several tools to use on the tough questions.
Reason is the most obvious tool, the dispassionate weighing of alternatives.
We look at whatever hard data there might be and listen to the voices
of experts on all sides, carefully judging the merits and faults
of their arguments. Reason can lead us to an intellectual recommendation.
Intuition is an equally useful tool, although sometimes maligned
as an emotional act of imagination. It's not. Rather intuition is
the voice of our inner processors, if you will. They review all that
we have learned in whatever way we have learned it. At an unconscious
level intuition looks at feelings, yes, but also at moral training,
previous experience with related situations and even the dictates
of the 'spirit'. Intuition evaluates all these factors and then makes
its recommendation.
Faith speaks to that part of ourselves that is willing to form or
adopt a set of beliefs. There will be times when reason will not
have enough information. In those times we will have to rely on the
beliefs and values we have developed. Parents have to make lots of
leaps of faith in deciding how to raise their children. Counsellors
have to make leaps of faith in deciding how to treat their clients.
Faith is the bridge between what we know to be true and what we hope
can be true. This desire to make what is into what will be often
generates its own recommendations.
Conscience is the still small moral voice inside us. Of all these
tools, conscience is the one devoted exclusively to sorting out moral
issues. An examination of conscience is review of our actions or
our plans in terms of a personal moral code. This is where we ask
ourselves, as honestly as we can, if we are living up to our values.
From this answer comes yet another recommendation.
Conscience is a useful tool, but it is only a reflection of the
values we hold, and some values taught to us can be quite demeaning
and even destructive. One need only think of the Oklahoma City bombing
as an act of conscience to realize how skewed values can diminish
the effectiveness of this tool.
Let me add one more thing to Phillip's list: the wisdom of others.
There are few issues which other people have not thought through
or experienced. Their answers may differ from each other, but collectively
they have at least mapped the territory for us, have raised the questions.
In giving serious consideration to the wise ones, we can test our
values against a kind of reality. Sometimes this just gets us more
confused, as we deal with conflicting views, but there is no choice
but to try.
Well, there you have a list of sorts of some of the tools we use
for making decisions. It is an incomplete list, to be sure. There
are more items to be added such as social codes and religious teachings,
but even if the list was complete, there would still be something
missing. Phillip referred to it himself when after giving a few examples
from his list he added,
— but it is important never to forget that these (tools) are
simply names given to various aspects of what should in practice
be the
harmonious functioning of the total personality, in the interaction
with the whole of the environment without which it would not be what
it is. —Phillip Hewett The Unitarian Way (CUC, 1985) p.
11
As beings we are not a compartmentalized list. As beings we are
a totality, and even an interdependent web within ourselves of thoughts,
feelings, memories s, physical urges and so on. To try and base our
life decisions on the recommendation from any one part of the list
alone is to be false to the totality of everything that is us.
We are also likely to be disappointed if we try to consistently
base our justice decisions on any system worked out by someone else
be it philosophical, political or religious. The philosopher Donald
Kalish suggests:
There is no system of philosophy to spin out. There are no ethical
truths; there are just clarifications of particular ethical problems.
Take advantage of these clarifications and work out your own existence.
You are mistaken to think that anyone ever had the answers. There
are no answers. Be brave and face up to it.
So is there any place we can turn for guidance? Stephen Covey, the
acclaimed author of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People argues
the value of the 'moral compass' which can direct us to the 'true
north principles'.
Covey's distinguishes between values and principles. He argues that
values, however carefully worked out, are somewhat time-dated. Values
belong to a particular culture that exists in a certain time and
place. When the culture changes, as it seems to be doing, so too,
do the values change. What social liberal even 20 years ago thought
universal healthcare would be in danger? How many of us were concerned
with the deficit back then?.
Covey argues that the true north moral principles change much more
slowly, perhaps not at all. In an ethical dilemma we must look back
to those slow moving tried and true principles and from them carefully
build our response piece by piece.
In this, Covey says nothing new. In fact it was said brilliantly
by one of my Unitarian heroes about 170 years ago. Theodore Parker
was a minister in Boston. In one of the most famous sermons in our
history he spoke of the "Transient and Permanent in Christianity".
In a manner similar to Covey, Parker argued that some of what was
in the Gospels was transient...it would pass away, like values. In
that he included the miracles and other of the more fantastic narrative
aspects. What was permanent, Parker claimed, were the basic moral
teachings: Love God, love your neighbour, love yourself.
Covey claims that these aphorisms can be found in some form in every
major religious tradition in the world, and he is right. Doesn't
that say something? There are very few things that everyone can agree
on in this world, and even if we agree on basic principles, we will
argue about their interpretation, but Covey's message is clear. The
starting place for working out our justice questions is a reconsideration
of these basic 'true north' principles.
An just life can not be built in an instant. It takes time and experience
and the testing of many dilemmas to help us hone our decision-making
skills. I can promise you many errors along the way, many wrong turnings.
But if we go back to the very foundational beliefs of human culture,
if we think hard and try to live up to the true north principles
that survive from age to age, we will not likely get too far off
course. We simply must remember to look at the moral compass and
judge all the recommendations from our various tools against it.
Back to Sermon Archive
|
