1. Are you a moral romantic, who believes in human goodness and the ability of the individual to discern good from evil based on their internal compass, or a moral realist, who relies on an understanding of humans as fundamentally flawed with a penchant for sin? Do you have to believe in one view or the other? Is there a middle ground, or another outlook?
I’m naturally drawn to what Brooks calls Moral Realism. It fits with some of the messages I received from the Evangelical Baptists of my youth and the strict Muslims of my teenage years. It works for me, and it feels right. I’ll admit I’m kinda stodgy.
But I like the way he says that while we are fundamentally flawed, we are also marvelously endowed. I enjoy a vision of all human beings as fundamentally deserving of respect. While I’m pro-choice, I appreciate the Catholic Church’s respect for the individual, regardless of ability or past misdeeds. A belief that everyone is worthy of God’s love – and of the love of their fellows. For no reason other than that we exist.
And at the same time, we are absolutely guaranteed to hurt one another, to hurt ourselves, and to participate in big evils and little evils, by our very nature, and from our earliest years. So, although I don’t believe in Original Sin, I do believe that humans have a penchant for sin that must be addressed on the individual level. That part of what determines our character is how we address our penchant for sin. Do we make amends when hurt others? Do we say, “I’m sorry,” when we commit a wrong? Do we own our mistakes and take responsibility for the problems we cause?
I’m not one for Moral Romanticism. I’m more inclined to think of human beings as inherently worthy of forgiveness, as opposed to not being in need of forgiveness. I’m skeptical of the idea that we can know, without input from individuals and institutions older and wiser than us, what is right, wrong, or best. Think of the original Star Trek episode where everyone dies when they reach puberty. Disaster ensues. It’s easy to see how children couldn’t manage a society, but I believe that adults who don’t take instruction from education, history, their elders, and greater forms of wisdom will also fall apart.
But is there a middle way of thinking about this? Or another viewpoint altogether? Brooks comes from a Judeo-Christian ethic, as do I, so this feels like a very obvious and natural philosophical split to me. I have a hard time even thinking outside of this box. I’m quite sure there are valid, working ethical systems that don’t resemble either one of these views, I’m just not aware of them.
At the bookclub discussion, several participants (there were twelve of us) pointed out that Brooks comes from one particular point of view, and that it is a very privileged one. While I acknowledge that, I don’t think it takes away from the very profound things he had to say about human nature.
Plum Librarian LLC 