Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek
I like to think because it is not a scolding. As SA Ma'am pointed out, the right-wing--at least in America--has spent a long time claiming that the queer movement (and the Left generally) has no morals or thinks that there's no such thing as morals. We have, as she points out, delivered ourselves into their hands. This is not to say that the word isn't going to taste strange on our tongues. It will for a while. It will because we ceded space that we did not need to. At the time, the reasons seemed like good ones. The laboratory of the real world, I think, shows that it wasn't. At the end of the day, theory (we should avoid using moral language) was not in agreement with experiment (human beings use moral language and need to do so).
I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.
I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it. Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.
We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.
Cheers
Aj
|
Yes.
And I think of morality as strictly about doing right by each other as human beings. To me, singling out people and excluding them and harassing them with finger wagging because they are different from you is immoral behavior. Favoring policies that keep the rich richer and the poor poorer is an immoral stance. Anything that creates a strata of civil rights where some have more and some have less is immoral. Racism is immoral. Sexism and homophobia and transphobia and ageism are immoral. Those are all immoral things because they are unfair and harm people in some really significant ways.
I agree with you Aj, that this is a different way of thinking of morality than the religious right seems to. The whole, "the bible says it, I believe it and that settles it!" kind of thinking isn't what I consider moral. I think it's more like using religion to justify one's prejudices and bigotry. That kind of hypocrisy makes me mad because there is no reasoning with people like that. But those people don't have the market cornered on morality; in reality they are lacking it in the most fundamental ways.