Category: Fresno Bee Religion and Ethics Columns

Posted on

Population Ethics: How Many Children are Enough?

Fresno Bee, August 18, 2024

Fewer people are having children. Some are warning ominously of an impending population collapse in Europe and North America, but the U.N. projects that the global population will continue to grow through this century to about 10 billion people.

The issue is polarizing and politicized. It is connected to J.D. Vance’s “childless cat ladies” remark, as well as concerns about global warming, women’s rights and reproductive healthcare. Young people are also confronting an epidemic of loneliness and fear for the future of the planet.

If human life is good, it’s good to have lots of children. Traditional religion says, “be fruitful and multiply.” If life is a gift of God, and God wants us to be fruitful, then we ought to multiply. But modern revolutions in agriculture and medicine have caused a population boom that archaic religions could not have imagined.

The ancient idea of fruitful multiplying is less salient in a hot, crowded world.

Ethical judgment often involves questions of quantity: How long is too long to live, or to serve in political office? How much wealth or freedom is the right amount? And what is the optimal number of people?

Quantitative questions quickly lead to questions of quality. In planning for retirement or thinking about healthcare at the end of life, the number of years of life is less important than the quality of those years. Something similar holds with regard to population: More is not always better when it comes to people. The ethical question is not merely how many people, but how to optimize the quality of life for children, parents and everyone else.

The question of optimal population is a concern for those who manage crowds. We understand this when we stand in line for a bathroom or a beverage at a stadium or look for a parking place in Yosemite National Park. At some point, the quantity of people ruins the quality of the experience for everyone. This is especially true under conditions of scarcity — basic carrying capacity can be altered with innovation and technology, but there are limits.

Stadiums could be built with more amenities, but there are costs and trade-offs. When the limit is reached, the crowds become unbearable. The natural world imposes objective limits. Yosemite Valley is a narrow valley bisected by a river. On busy weekends, traffic and parking are difficult. In response, Yosemite has imposed a system of reservations during the summer. Fewer people in the park preserves the quality of the experience for everyone.

In my own field of education, the quantitative issue concerns student-faculty ratios and class sizes. This depends on the quality of instruction, as well as the abilities and interests of the students. Kindergartens ought to be small. Private coaching is necessary for elite performers. But massive online courses can work well if the teaching is good and the students are motivated. This all depends on what we expect of the overall quality of education.

So, the more general population question is not merely quantitative, it is also qualitative. The snide remark about childless cat ladies is not about population size. Rather, it is about what counts as a good life. The question here is whether having children and raising a family are an essential part of the good life. For much of human history, this was taken for granted. But these days, there are alternative paradigms of human flourishing.

Other complex and contentious ethical questions involving optimizing quality of life emerge. Will there be adequate housing for 10 billion people? Should affluent countries with declining populations bring in immigrants from the developing world? How should we structure the economy to care for our elders? Do childless people have an obligation to pay taxes to support children? And how should we manage fragile ecosystems in a hot, crowded world?

The conversation about population and reproduction is ultimately about our basic conception of the good life, and deserves careful and critical thought. People will disagree about this topic, since it touches upon our deepest beliefs and commitments. But clearly polarization is not helpful. We need philosophers, theologians and political leaders to think carefully and critically about the quality of human life and the question of optimal population.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291087225.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Ethical Lessons From the Sierra Nevada

Fresno Bee, August 11, 2016

While this tumultuous summer unfolded, I was high in the Sierra Nevada. Former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt. Current President Joe Biden gave way to Vice President Kamala Harris. The stock market tumbled, but in the great mountains of California, the rocks and rivers took no notice.

The majestic indifference of the wild is humbling. In the backcountry, ethical wisdom teaches modesty, moderation, compassion, and courage.

The primary lesson is that nothing human lasts. We are temporary visitors on this planet. The mountains were here before our species evolved. They endured while wars and revolutions passed. They will remain when we are extinct.

Wild nature mocks our hopes and dreams. The ice that carved Yosemite over millions of years was a thousand feet deep. The planets move in a cycle that lasts 26,000 years. But human civilizations only appeared 6,000 years ago. And every human being we know will be dead in 100 years.

The scale of the wild can overwhelm. But in being overwhelmed, we can also find freedom and inspiration. Nature transcends the buzzing clamor of political life. In the human world, each moment appears as a crisis. The news assails us with tales of mayhem and wickedness. Our screens flash and whine. And we find ourselves seized by anxiety and seduced by passion.

But the rhythm of the seasons is steady and true. The melting ice flows down familiar channels every summer. And the snow returns in the fall. Human-generated climate change may impact this relentless cycle. But even if the waters dry up, the granite will endure.

The wild reminds us that everything human is shallow and fleeting. Only when we acknowledge the vast indifference of things can we think clearly about what counts as living well.

Out on the trail, an ethic emerges. Its first commandment is humble self-reliance. Once you leave the trailhead, you must be self-sufficient. Every choice you make is your responsibility. No one will save you if you fall. You must understand your limitations. Be prepared. And keep your wits about you.

You carry your means of life on your back. What you can’t carry, you must leave behind. And so, simplicity emerges as a commandment. Our closets and minds brim with unnecessary stuff. But on the trail, spare socks are a luxury. And cold, clear water is as good as wine. What do you really need?

There is also friendship on the trail. One of the great joys of hiking is the camaraderie of those who walk together. And the strangers you meet in the outback are almost always kind and joyful. Compassion emerges easily in the backcountry.

But this friendly sociality also respects solitude. Be kind. But mind your own business. Keep your voice down and leave others alone. If someone is lost or in trouble, help them. But don’t insist. Everyone hikes at their own pace.

Remarkably, those who are hiking the farthest appear to be the happiest. In my relatively short trips this summer, I met a handful of hardy souls walking the entirety of the Pacific Crest and John Muir Trails. They were almost always smiling. When the rain and lightning come, they laugh. Good humor is as much of a necessity in the mountains as are courage and fortitude. Without a smile and the will to endure, the trail is punishing and a tent becomes a prison cell.

Finally, as every backpacker knows, you should leave no trace. Humans tend to want to leave a mark. Civilization is a kind of graffiti that has slashed and burned across the planet. The wild places are special because they remain unmarked. Don’t cut the switchbacks. And leave the campsite better than you found it. The next group of hikers, and next generation, will appreciate your moderation and self-restraint.

These same lessons apply in the city and everyday life. Seek to understand the bigger picture. Be humble and self-reliant. Simplify your needs. Be friendly and kind. But also mind your own business. Be courageous and quick to laugh. As you wander this planet, try not to leave a mark. And do your best to leave this world better than you found it.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article290916454.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Ten Commandments and the First Amendment

Fresno Bee, July 7, 2024

The Ten Commandments have long been controversial. So, it’s not surprising that Christians in Louisiana have resurrected this controversy with a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools. Oklahoma and Texas are following suit. Donald Trump recently posted, in all caps, “I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.”

This appears to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits state entities from propounding religious doctrine. This does not mean, however, that schools and teachers cannot address the controversy.

At best, the text known as the Ten Commandments invites deeper conversations about religion, ethics, and political life. At worst, it becomes a meaningless idol, posted on the wall without thought.

Scholars refer to this text as The Decalogue, which means “ten sayings.” In the Bible, these sayings are not numbered and occur in slightly different forms in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The text has been interpreted in diverse ways. This includes a difference in numbering the commandments. Catholics think the sixth commandment is against adultery, while Protestants count that as number seven. For Catholics, the commandment against murder is number five. Protestants count that as number six.

Beyond the textual details is the deep question of whether morality must be grounded in religion. The first several commandments are religious, which may suggest that faith is before ethics. Does this mean that atheists cannot be ethical?

Another significant question is whether morality is negative, focused only on a few “you shall not” prohibitions. Should we donate to the poor, forgive our enemies, or give special consideration to the disabled?

The Decalogue is silent on these questions. It does not mention abortion, the death penalty, or war. Nor does it celebrate democracy or liberty. The Decalogue has always been the subject of interpretive disputes. When asked about these ancient laws, Jesus offered a succinct interpretation, suggesting that there are only two laws: love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Of course, this did not settle the matter. Benjamin Franklin suggested the existence of twelve commandments, with the first being “to increase and multiply” and the twelfth demanding us “to love one another.” John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the matter in letters the two ex-presidents exchanged about a German book of Biblical criticism. Adams suggested that the book showed that the Ten Commandments were “not written by the finger of God on tables.” Jefferson expressed doubt about the authenticity of the Decalogue since, as he put it, the history of these texts is “defective and doubtful.”

There are lots of interesting questions here for student research and reflection. Consider the third or fourth commandment—depending on your tradition—which focuses on keeping the sabbath day holy. Does this mean that businesses must close or that it would be wrong to watch football on Sunday? Students might also ask whether Sunday is actually the sabbath. Most Christians think so. But Seventh-Day Adventists maintain that Sunday was imposed on Christians by the Romans. They follow Jewish tradition and view Saturday as the Sabbath.

Critical discussions of the Decalogue should eventually lead to a conversation about the value of the First Amendment as a response to religious diversity. When a state authority picks sides in religious and moral controversies, it ends up violating the Establishment Clause. There is no doubt that the Decalogue is controversial. But does posting the text amount to promoting a religious viewpoint?

If the text were posted alongside similar texts such as Hammurabi’s Code, Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths, or the Five Pillars of Islam, it would be more obviously a stimulus for critical thought and lessons about history. Context matters. As does the intention of those who post such texts.

Christian culture warriors do not seem to engage in critical thinking about the Bible. Here is the irony: If the text isn’t used to spur critical conversations, it appears to violate the First Amendment. But once we engage in a critical conversation about the Decalogue, it becomes obvious that the text is controversial and that the Establishment Clause ought to prohibit it from being posted as an idol in classrooms.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article289743274.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Social Media Warnings and Education

Fresno Bee, June 23, 2024

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s recent call for warning labels on social media is a good idea. He notes that children who spend significant time on social media are at risk for mental illness. Murthy concludes, “The moral test of any society is how well it protects its children.”

But how best should we protect kids? Murthy recognizes that a warning label is a simple solution to a complex problem. Last year, his office issued a more detailed report noting that schools, parents, policymakers, and technology companies have a role to play in protecting kids. And long-term solutions depend upon education.

There is probably also a role for prohibitions. Smartphones have been banned in schools in Fresno and recently in Los Angeles. This week, Governor Newsom called for a statewide smartphone ban in California schools. Social media and smartphones are not the same thing. However, a school ban on smartphones is effectively a ban on social media during school time.

Tools and technologies can be employed in good or bad ways. A hammer can be used to build or to destroy. Prohibitions are justifiable when the risks are obvious and severe, and when the purported benefits of a tool are unclear. And with kids, their relative immaturity matters. A ban on social media access for kids might be justifiable and there is some wisdom in prohibiting smartphones at school. But at this point, a ban on these technologies is akin to closing the proverbial barn door once the horse has already galloped off.

People disagree about the risks and benefits of various technologies. One might argue against these bans by claiming that these technologies are more beneficial than dangerous. These tools help us stay connected, access the news, and conduct business. Of course, these tools also provide instant access to cyberbullying, exploitation, scams, and disinformation. But there is some truth to the claim that with smartphones and social media, it’s not the tool that is to blame, but how it is used.

Some technophobes are opposed to any innovative tool. Calculators were once viewed with skepticism, as was the Internet. These days technophobes are worried about artificial intelligence. But skeptics often adapt to new technologies, when their safety and usefulness are proven.

Hard-core libertarians resist every effort at prohibition. The recent Supreme Court case allowing “bump stock” weapons is worth mentioning here. The decision depends upon a technical matter involving trigger mechanisms. But the bigger question, not decided in this case, is whether there should be limits on dangerous weapons or whether individuals have a right to own even very dangerous weapons.

Social media and smartphones do not seem as dangerous as machine guns. So, it is easy to imagine a libertarian argument against Newsom’s proposed ban. Furthermore, social media is useful for kids. It’s how they socialize, organize clubs and teams, and how they communicate with each other and even with their parents. Smartphones can be useful in education when used properly to access information.

An outright ban may take away useful tools. And a school ban will have no impact on after-school usage. But there is no doubt that education is part of the solution. Teenagers must take driver’s ed and pass a licensing test to drive. Perhaps a similar training course and qualifying exam could be created for social media and smartphones.

Kids need critical lessons about cyberbullying, peer pressure, the bandwagon effect, and the power of misinformation and exploitative algorithms. They also need frank examples of the dangers of social media and smartphone addiction. They would benefit from a training course that includes lessons in “digital citizenship,” “ethical A.I.,” and “virtuous virtual reality” that encourage best practices online and good moral habits in cyberspace.

A Surgeon General’s warning is only a starting point for a broader conversation. We need to continue this conversation. A ban at school might help. But the social media and smartphone horse is already out of the barn. Kids need to be taught the skills and virtues that are required to ride that horse without getting hurt.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article289421636.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Revenge is wrong

Fresno Bee, June 16, 2024

Donald Trump recently said, “Sometimes revenge can be justified.” He was responding to a prompt from Dr. Phil, who had quoted Pope Francis on the importance of forgiveness and overcoming resentment. Despite this prompting, Trump opted for revenge.

Some Trumpians may agree that Trump would be justified in seeking revenge against his enemies. And of course, there is an open question about what Trump’s vengeance would look like. In the Dr. Phil interview, Trump said he was hoping for “revenge through success.” Maybe he merely means that electoral victory would be a kind of revenge.

But left-wing pundits have pounced on Trump’s remarks, warning that Trumpism has devolved into a cult of personal vendettas. And in fact, revenge has long been essential to the Trump brand. Long before he ran for president, Trump said, “Always get even. When somebody screws you, you screw them back in spades.”

This idea is immoral. Most adults agree that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” The world’s religious and philosophical traditions counsel against revenge. And many agree with the Pope’s plea for forgiveness and love.

Some go so far as to agree with Jesus about the need to evolve beyond retribution and vengeance. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

The retributive idea of eye for eye, tooth for tooth, may appear to have something in common with revenge. But revenge is wildly emotional and often exceeds the limits of retaliation. Retributive justice imposes strict limits on what can be done in return for wrongdoing. Only one eye for one eye—and no more.

The excessiveness of revenge is one of the reasons that criminal justice has nothing to do with it. Criminal justice is not meant to carry out personal vendettas. Rather, it is enacted by legitimate public authorities by due process. Punishments established by law are not intended to satisfy a victim’s desire for vengeance. Rather, these punishments are limited, rational, and calmly and deliberately imposed.

These limits are essential for overcoming cycles of violence and revenge. Revenge is emotional and often disproportionate. The desire for revenge quickly escalates violence. And let’s admit it, revenge fantasies can be fun. The Greek poet Homer said that the desire for revenge was like honey for the soul. This is why revenge may also be addictive, as Dr. Phil said in his interview with Trump. Resentful people seem to enjoy brooding over their injuries and plotting vengeance.

The unreasonable and emotionally excessive nature of revenge leads most philosophers to condemn it. Plato distinguished justice from the “unreasoning vengeance of a wild beast.” Four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon described revenge in similar terms as “wild justice.” He thought civilized law ought to “weed out” revenge.

Among the arguments against revenge is the idea that revenge harms those who seek it. This is the meaning of an old proverb that says, “When you seek revenge, dig two graves.” The Dalai Lama has said something similar, “Indulgence in resentment and vengeance will only further and increase miseries for oneself and others.”

The idea that revenge rebounds and hurts the one seeking it is a common theme in literature. Captain Ahab’s desire for revenge against Moby Dick leads to his doom. And Hamlet ends up dead at the end of his mad quest for revenge.

Another problem is that the spirit of revenge dwells on the pain of the wrongful deed. Bacon said, “A man that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal.” Revenge broods over the past wrong. It prevents us from healing, reconciling, and moving forward.

Forgiveness and love work otherwise. Martin Luther King explained, “Man must evolve a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.” This does not mean that we give up on justice. Wrongs must be redressed. But enlightenment is found beyond the noxious spirit of vengeance and the idea that revenge can be justified.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article289246125.html#storylink=cpy