Solidarity as a Moral Value

Fresno Bee, September 19, 2021

Solidarity is an important focal point of morality. Solidarity involves empathy and emotional connection. But it is not merely a feeling. It is also the understanding that social problems require cooperative solutions. These days many of us feel fragile and insecure. Solidarity offers something solid and enduring in benevolence, justice, and concern for the common good.

The United Nations just published a report described as a “wake up call” for global solidarity. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns that people are turning their backs on trust, cooperation, and multilateralism. He says, “Humanity’s welfare depends on solidarity and working together as a global family to achieve common goals.” Solidarity arises when we understand that “no one is safe until everyone is safe.”

This echoes the teaching of Pope Francis, who published an encyclical last fall, “Fratelli Tutti,” which basically means that we are all brothers (and sisters). Some want to build walls and retreat into isolation. Francis encourages us to do the opposite. Instead of withdrawing, we should reach out. The pope says that the path to peace and flourishing requires a “global ethic of solidarity and cooperation shaped by interdependence and shared responsibility in the whole human family.”

The COVID-19 pandemic reminds us of our interconnectedness. The virus spread globally. New variants emerge among the unvaccinated. As long as some remain vulnerable, we all remain vulnerable.

The war on terrorism provides another example. Terrorists hiding out in Afghanistan masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks were a response to American interventions in the Middle East in prior decades. The war on terrorism extends across the globe, involving many allies. It has had far-reaching impacts. We still stand in irritating security lines at the airport. And now we must welcome refugees fleeing Afghanistan.

Or consider climate change. As individuals, we go about our own business, burning fossil fuels. But those individual choices heat up the atmosphere. The result is fire and smoke in California, horrific hurricanes, and rising sea levels that will swamp island nations.

Our struggle with racism provides yet another example. The repercussions of slavery and Jim Crow continue to ripple across our social and political landscape. Historical injustices give birth to contemporary dysfunction. Police brutality in some American cities sparked a global movement against racial injustice.

These examples show that each is connected to the other. If you pull one thread of the social fabric, it changes the whole cloth. We are networked and interdependent. Global and historical interconnections define who we are and what we can become.

Now some people do not like to admit this. They refuse to accept our interconnectedness and insist on living in stubborn isolation. The lonely hermit is a symbol of this kind of refusal. Others draw lines of solidarity that are narrow and exclusive. Some focus on solidarity within their families or within a neighborhood. Others focus on racial solidarity or national solidarity.

Most religious and moral traditions imagine a broader circle of solidarity. Calls for brotherly love spread globally. The parable of the good Samaritan is not only about solidarity with a suffering neighbor. It is also a call to view the world as our neighborhood.

There are remaining difficulties. Solidarity gives us an orientation. But it does not tell us exactly where to go or how to get there. The issues of climate change, racism, terrorism, and the pandemic are complex. Solutions are also complex and evolving. But any viable solution must bear witness to suffering wherever it is found and grow networks of cooperation that are large and inclusive.

When we affirm solidarity we acknowledge that solutions for social problems cannot focus on “us” in opposition to “them.” Any long-term and stable solution to our problems must move beyond “us” and “them.” In solidarity, each of us comes to see that we are responsible for the other. In an interconnected world, what happens to the other impacts me. And my choices and behaviors have ripple effects that extend beyond me.

These ripples fortify us in the face of our common fragility. Life is precarious. But we do not suffer alone. There are problems to be solved. We solve them by opening our doors and reaching out our hands.

August 2, 2020August 2, 2020

Nuclear war remains immoral, 75 years after Hiroshima

Fresno Bee, August 2, 2020

The unique immorality of nuclear weapons remains apparent 75 years after they were first used in war. On Aug. 6, 1945, Hiroshima was destroyed by a single bomb. Nagasaki was incinerated three days later. 150,000 died in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki. Most were noncombatants.

Nuclear weapons have such a terrible moral stigma that they have never been used again. But nuclear deterrent strategy rests upon a sinister paradox. Deterrence means we threaten to use these immoral weapons in hope of preventing their use.

Ethicists have routinely criticized this devil’s bargain, often condemning the mere possession of nukes. In a speech in Hiroshima last year, Pope Francis said, “The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possession of atomic weapons is immoral.”

The immorality of nuclear weapons transcends the question of who is right or wrong in a war. Japan was at fault in attacking the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. But the laws of war provide noncombatants with immunity from deliberate attack.

Today, we possess nuclear weapons that are many times more powerful than“Fat Man” or “Little Boy,” the bombs used against Japan. Typical American nuclear weapons such as the B83 bomb are 80 times more powerful.

As destructive power increased, people saw the moral madness of nuclear war. In the 1940s, Albert Einstein urged America to get the bomb before Germany. But in 1955, he signed a manifesto opposing nuclear war, which asked, “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” In a speech at the UN in 1961, President Kennedy said something similar. “Mankind must put an end to war — or war will put an end to mankind.”

Attempts have been made to ban nuclear weapons. The UN recently sponsored a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed by more than 80 nations. But the U.S. and other nuclear states have not signed on.

Critics claim the treaty is a pipe dream lacking effective enforcement and monitoring mechanisms. Critics seem to suggest that there is no practical solution other than deterrence.

At one point it seemed that deterrence could coexist with deescalation. After the Cold War ended, there was hope for slow disarmament. But the Trump administration has reversed course, accusing nations such as Russia, North Korea and Iran of nuclear malfeasance. The U.S. now plans to modernize its nuclear arsenal and resume nuclear testing. The last U.S. nuclear test was conducted in 1992. 40 years after the end of the Cold War, a new nuclear arms race seems about to unfold.

The madness of all of this is found in the Cold War phrase “mutually assured destruction.” People have forgotten what this means. But it captures the point of deterrence. To deter a nuclear attack, you threaten to annihilate the enemy in retaliation. The enemy will, of course, threaten the same thing. If the nuclear fuse is ever lit, a chain reaction unfolds, and we all end up dead.

This perverse strategy has worked so far. Nuclear-armed nations have not used their weapons. But the moral logic of the strategy is deeply troubling. It depends upon our willingness to deliberately kill tens of millions of innocent people.

Deterrence also depends upon the rationality, competence and goodwill of those who control the nuclear buttons. But rationality is often in short supply. During the past 75 years, we have witnessed profound failures of leadership and morally suspect uses of force.

In his 1961 speech, President Kennedy warned that nuclear weapons are like the sword of Damocles, hanging over our heads on a slender thread. The fragility of that thread becomes apparent when we consider the extent to which policy is guided by instinct, resentment and wishful thinking rather than by rational calculation.

I have no idea how we might disentangle the vicious web of deterrence or blunt the nuclear sword. But the first step is sober moral reflection. We might begin by reflecting on the horror of Hiroshima as Pope Francis did last year when he said, “Never again war, never again the clash of arms, never again so much suffering.”

MEMORIAL TREE PLANTING

There will be a ceremonial tree planting in the Fresno State Peace Garden to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, cosponsored by the Human Rights Coalition of the Central Valley, Fresno State’s Ethics Center and the Japanese American Citizens League. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the event on Aug. 6 at 8 a.m. is invitation-only but will be streamed on Facebook at FresnoEthicsCenter.

September 24, 2016October 16, 2016

Death penalty ethics

To kill or not to kill? Death penalty debate weighs heavy on us all

Fresno Bee, September 24, 2016

Two rival death penalty initiatives are on the November ballot. Proposition 62 seeks to abolish the death penalty. Proposition 66 intends to make it more efficient. The moral questions raised are complex.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that killing is always wrong. Defenders of capital punishment believe that some criminals deserve death. Between these two positions there is little common ground.

BEFORE VOTING IN NOVEMBER, TAKE TIME TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE. AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DECENT PEOPLE WILL DISAGREE ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AS WE DO ABOUT OTHER VEXING MORAL QUESTIONS.

Death penalty defenders often understand punishment as retribution. Retributive justice is intuitively appealing. The scales of justice are balanced by restitution and retaliation. Thieves should pay back what they’ve stolen. And if you take a life, you owe a life.

Critics worry that retributivism is too closely linked to revenge. Revenge seems to provide emotional catharsis. There is pleasure and power in hurting those who harm us.

Donald Trump tapped into this emotional element this week when he called for “just and very harsh punishment” for a recently captured terrorist. Someone in the crowd yelled, “hang him.”

Death penalty opponents reject vengeful calls for harsh punishment. At the 6th World Congress Against the Death Penalty this year, Pope Francis argued that the death penalty “does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance.” He continued, “The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ has absolute value and applies both to the innocent and to the guilty.”

Modern executions don’t satisfy vengeful emotions. Lethal injection kills without spilling blood. The modern trend is toward more humane and less cruel punishments. A possible place for common ground is found in the idea that cruel bloodlust is wrong and that suffering should be minimized.

We certainly don’t behead or crucify people – and we condemn other cultures that do. We don’t hold public executions. Crowds no longer mock the condemned on the gallows.

But a more public and bloody execution system might work as a deterrent for crime. Our sanitized, secretive and infrequent executions don’t scare anyone.

If the death penalty worked as a deterrent, it might be justified as socially beneficial. However, research on the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive. And the death penalty is applied so infrequently in California that any deterrent effect is lost.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Violent criminals seem to accept violence. Armed bandits understand that they may be shot while committing a crime. The threat of execution will not deter suicidal terrorists.

Further reflection points toward political questions. For example, some fear expansive and corrupt government power. In a debate about capital punishment with Hillary Clinton,Bernie Sanders said, “I just don’t believe that government itself should be part of the killing.”

Libertarians tend to agree with Sanders about limiting the state’s power to kill. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson opposes the death penalty because he worries that innocent people may be executed. He has reportedly said, “I don’t want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty.”

Concern about the chance of executing an innocent person is connected to larger concerns about fairness in the justice system. Racial and class-based issues should be considered here. Abolitionists think that the justice system will not fairly apply the ultimate punishment. Reformers want to make sure that the system is fair and just.

In her debate with Sanders, Clinton asserted her trust in the federal court system. She defended the use of the death penalty for heinous crimes and said that she has “confidence in the federal system.”

It may be surprising that Clinton agrees with Trump about the justification of the death penalty. It is not surprising that Trump goes further than Clinton in supporting aggressive policing – and even torture – as necessary for maintaining social order.

Beyond the politics, we should consider higher moral goods. Death penalty opponents extol peaceful virtues such as mercy, gentleness, and forgiveness. But death penalty advocates see retributive justice as required by the ancient law of eye for eye, life for life.

Serious and good people have disagreed about this for millennia. There are compelling arguments on each side. Before voting in November, take time to discuss the issue. And acknowledge that decent people will disagree about capital punishment, as we do about other vexing moral questions.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article103665217.html#storylink=cpy

June 25, 2016June 26, 2016

Assisted Suicide, Living, and Dying Well

Assisted suicide and the ethics of living and dying well

Fresno Bee, June 25, 2016

Assisted suicide law prompts legal challenge
Suicide points toward important religious and philosophical disagreement
The meaning of life includes thinking about dying well

California’s End of Life Option law went into effect June 9. The law permits a physician to prescribe lethal medication to a patient with a terminal illness.

The law defines a terminal illness as “an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months.”

For some, this is a welcome expansion of the right to die with dignity. For others, it is a sign of a “culture of death.” In any case, the new law invites reflection on the meaning of dying and living well.

As the law went into effect, a lawsuit was filed aiming to block it. The plaintiffs include the American Academy of Medical Ethics, a conservative group that also is opposed to abortion and homosexuality.

The lawsuit contends terminal diagnoses often are not reliable. It states, “The business of prognosticating a patient’s future lifespan is inherently limited, if not altogether flawed.”

The lawsuit also worries that interested parties may coerce people into taking the suicide medication. Health care facilities or legal heirs may have a vested interest in seeing people die.

But the law makes it a felony to force someone to take the lethal medication. And it stipulates only one of the two mandatory witnesses can be an interested party.

The lawsuit views suicide as a mental health problem, connected to depression. From this perspective, suicide is irrational and people requesting it need psychological help, not access to deadly medicines.

This may explain why the California law maintains that the end of life option is not suicide. The law states, “Self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug is not suicide.” It explains, “Action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide.”

The word “suicide” is laden with moral, emotional and legal significance. It remains illegal in California to abet a “suicide,” though the new law allows a doctor to prescribe “end of life” medication.

The euphemistic language of the legislation is unfortunate. It avoids the main ethical question, which is whether suicide is ever rational and morally permissible.

Some think suicide is always immoral. The Catholic tradition teaches that suicide is as wrong as murder. It rejects God’s sovereignty and refuses the commandment of self-love. Pope Francis recently argued that physician-assisted suicide was part of a “throwaway culture” linked to the “triumph of selfishness.”

Others disagree. A variety of traditions connect suicide to self-respect and rational autonomy. The Japanese code of the samurai – the bushido code – included ritual suicide in the face of dishonor. The ancient Roman Stoics had a similar idea.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca advised against clinging to life. He said, “The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can.” He concluded, “ It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill.”

There is no middle position in this conflict of morals. Some believe death should be freely chosen and that it is better to die well than to live poorly. Others view suicide as inherently sinful. On the one hand, we have rational autonomy and the attempt to die with dignity. On the other, we have an obligation to respect God’s will.

There is space for some agreement. Several of the points discussed above should be a concern even for advocates of assisted suicide. Coercion is a danger. Misdiagnoses are a problem. Suffering people need palliative care. And the dying need spiritual support.

We will continue to disagree about assisted suicide. But each of us only has one life to live and one death to endure. Regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute, everyone ought to think about the morality of suicide.

This issue opens deep questions about life, the universe, and everything. Is life a right or an obligation? Is life always worth living? Are you entitled to make decisions about the time and manner of your own death?

Those are not easy questions. A meaningful life involves struggling with them. A good death comes only after we’ve made peace with the question of what makes life worth living and what counts as living and dying well.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article85829697.html#storylink=cpy

May 28, 2016June 5, 2016

Celebrating the Virtue of Secularism

Is secularism a danger or an opportunity?

Fresno Bee, May 28, 2016

Secularism allows religious and nonreligious people to coexist
Science, reason and secularism foster innovation and technology
Secularism and godless communism are not the same thing

Nonbelievers are coming out of the closet. The number of admitted atheists and agnostics in the U.S. has nearly doubled in recent years – from 4 percent of the population in 2007 to 7 percent in 2014. Roughly one-fourth of Americans do not have a religious affiliation. In England, non-religious folk now outnumber Christians.

This is seen as a sign of a robust secular system in which nonbelievers are free to express themselves. But some view secularism as a danger. The Rev. Franklin Graham recently complained, “Secularism and communism are one and the same. Secularism is godless. Secularism is taking over our country.” Pope Francis has warned that secularism “has produced a growing deterioration of ethics, a weakening of the sense of personal and collective sin, and a steady increase in relativism.”

Secularism is not relativism. Secularism is a political system grounded on basic principles of liberty and toleration. These principles allow for a free choice of religious belief – or disbelief. But secular principles are not weak or relative. Secular political life rests upon fundamental claims about the human right to freedom of conscience.

Graham is right that secularism has taken over our country. Secularism became the law of the land when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791. In the subsequent two centuries, we have worked out the details of a political system in which the law states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Graham is wrong to suggest that secularism is necessarily godless or to equate it with communism. Communist governments sought to eradicate religion. But our secular system protects the freedom to worship God, so long as religion does not become entangled with political power.

SECULARISM … CELEBRATES THE FACT THAT IN A FREE SOCIETY
THE FAITHFUL AND THE FAITHLESS CAN WORK TOGETHER.

God-fearing people should support secularism, since secularism allows them to pursue their faith in their own way. Public religious power is curtailed in our system. But individual citizens are free to practice any faith they want – or no faith at all.

Robust secularism does allow non-religious people to be more vocal. Rationalists and agnostics are finding their voices. One example was the recent call for a “National Day of Reason” on May 5. The Day of Reason idea was initiated by a congressman from Silicon Valley, Rep. Mike Honda, as a response to the National Day of Prayer. In defense of the idea, Honda explained that the success of Silicon Valley was based on “the scientific method and the application of reason.”

Honda has a point. The innovative spirit and technological prowess of Silicon Valley is related to our secular system. Many of the scientists and engineers in Silicon Valley are immigrants who come from diverse religious traditions but who share the common language of science. It is difficult to imagine the same sort of entrepreneurial efflorescence and technological prowess developing in non-secular nations such as Saudi Arabia.

Atheists are more vocal under robust secularism. They are displaying growing social power. An atheist donor gave the University of Miami a $2.2 million endowment for the study of atheism, humanism and secular ethics. The donor, Louis J. Appignani, stated that he wanted to “eliminate discrimination against atheists.”

OUR SECULAR SYSTEM PROTECTS THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP GOD,
SO LONG AS RELIGION DOES NOT BECOME ENTANGLED WITH POLITICAL POWER.

That’s an important cause in a country where several states have constitutional language preventing atheists from holding office. For example, the Constitution of Tennessee stipulates, “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishment, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” Laws like this remain on the books in Tennessee and seven other states, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled over 50 years ago that such laws violate the secular spirit of the Constitution.

Atheists obviously benefit from an inclusive secular society. But the same is true for a wide variety of faiths that have been discriminated against in the past and which suffer discrimination today.

Secularism is opposed to discrimination. It allows for the peaceful coexistence of diverse religious and non-religious people. The fear that secularism is relativist or communistic is misplaced. Secularism rests on the bedrock of liberty. It permits religion and non-religion to flourish. And it celebrates the fact that in a free society the faithful and the faithless can work together, as they do in places like Silicon Valley.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article80280257.html#storylink=cpy