Fabled Morality

An interesting console game came out recently. The game, called Fable II, has a simple but unusual premise - the morality of your choices shape who your character becomes. Each time you make a morally good choice, the purity of your character increases. Each morally bad choice makes your character more corrupt, to the point that you can eventually become a demon complete with horns and scars.

One of the problems with such a system should be pretty obvious - not everyone has the same perception of right and wrong. For example, eating meat in Fable's world causes you to become corrupt. Read a few reviews and you'll find that many people take issue with this. I think some people just don't like having to put up with slow healing to maintain their character's purity, but others are bothered by the implication that their real-world diet is immoral. To say there is a lack of universal consensus that eating meat is bad would be an understatement. In fact I once knew a family that considers vegetarianism to be immoral. I don't know how common that viewpoint is, but it's out there. I'm guessing people who feel that way would find Fable's morality engine to be corrupt.

But Fable is just a game, a creative work of fiction. The creators of the game can manipulate the game world and its rules however they want. But what about the real world? There are definitely benefits to a vegetarian diet. Would it be right to establish laws to impose a vegan lifestyle on the population at large? It certainly wouldn't be popular with most Americans, many would consider it an infringement of their rights, and some few would see it as a violation of their faith. Would the environmental and health benefits outweigh the resistance? Would it be right to take away people's right to believe and act as they choose if it benefits society and its citizens?

What if vegetarianism were not imposed by law but was promoted through other public means? What if it remained legal to eat meat, but schools were used to teach the "right" way to think about eating meat? Would it be ethical for our government to follow that path? Should schools teach the consequences of a meat-based diet and economy? Should schools go a step beyond that, teaching a specific stance on the morality of vegetarianism and the immorality of eating meat?

I belive that our schools are within their charter when they take on controversial topics, but as soon as they assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of anything but the most universally accepted principles they've crossed the line. Same goes for other government programs. Same goes for our laws and their interpretation. Non-government organizations are in a different boat - they can and should promote viewpoints on issues of all types. But our government and its extensions needs to carefully avoid establishing or promoting an official state doctrine.

The Meaning of Diversity and Tolerance

Current civil rights issues are almost always couched within the concepts of diversity and tolerance. These two terms are not consistently interpreted. I'd like to present my own interpretation of these two valuable notions.

Diversity is a recognition of the variety present in the world's societies, and within any collection of people. Diversity appears in all facets of humanity, including ideology, personality, gender, ambition, race, religion, morality, motivation, attraction, appearance, skill set, appetite, cultural identity, experience, etc, etc, etc. When spoken of in a societal context, the concept of diversity includes the recognition that differences bring advantages that a homogeneous world could never realize. For example, a detail-oriented person may never see the forest for the trees, while a high-level thinker may never see the details required to make the big vision a reality.

Now allow me to assert what diversity does not mean. Diversity is not a declaration that there is one right way to think. Diversity is not the adoption of a single "diversity-sanctioned" attitude toward social issues. Diversity is not mandatory agreement with other people's choices, actions, or attitudes. Diversity is not the belief that everything is acceptable. Diversity does not require the abandonment of one's beliefs.

Related to the concept of diversity is the concept of tolerance. Tolerance is the respectful treatment of people and ideas, even in the face of differences. It means that you don't ridicule people, even if you disagree with them. It means you don't create a hostile environment. It means you consider how your speech and actions will impact others. It means you resist taking offense when others violate your sensibilities. It means that no matter how completely you believe something, you leave room for the possibility that you are wrong. It means that you allow people to live their life without requiring your approval. It means compromise. It is an acknowledgement of diversity, and an appropriate response to it.

And what is tolerance not? Tolerance is not the belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Tolerance is not the belief that every idea is equally valid. Tolerance does not mean there are no rules. It is not a cry for unreasonable levels of political correctness. Tolerance does not mean you don't stand up for what you believe. Tolerance does not mean that you don't make people aware of the potential consequence of their choices. Tolerance doesn't mean you never disagree, nor does it mean you never challenge behaviors or ideologies.

To me, tolerance is primarily about how you react to that with which you don't agree. It is respect. It is flexibility. It is the opposite of selfishness. It is simultaneously the opposite of both belligerence and appeasement.

Feel free to disagree with my interpretation of these important concepts. After all, we live in a diverse world. :-)

Why I Don't Support Current Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

I believe that freedom to choose our own path in life is one of the most fundamental rights there is. I support the right to choose even if I don't agree with the choice made.

Among the most contentious issues voters will adress this year is whether to recognize same-sex marriages. In principle, I support the right to marry someone of your own gender. I do not, however, support legislation which explicitly grants legal status to such a marriage, at least not as they are written today. This sounds contradictory, and it partially is. But laws allowing same-sex marriage have been used to justify taking away other rights, and for that reason I cannot support such laws. Ironically, I oppose laws protecting gay marriage for exactly the same reason I oppose restrictions on gay marriage - because the alternative is to unduly restrict personal freedoms.

How can granting rights to one group take rights away from another group? It happens by extending the interpretation of the law to not only allow the right to marry, but the right to interject a particular moral stance into early public education, and the right to restrict how religious organizations serve the community. In effect, the right to marry has been used as justification to limit what one is allowed to believe. On those grounds, I cannot support granting the right to same-sex marriage unless there is a legal guarantee to separate that right from the broader implications of such a policy.

In other discussions of this topic, someone invariably asserts that the right to same-sex marriage does not lead to the effects I've described above. Unfortunately, real-world examples do not support that assertion. I'm sure you've heard most of the following examples from Massachussetts:

• Many Massachussetts school districts include discussions of homosexuality as an integral part of their curriculum, starting in kindergarten. Examples include in-class readings of "King and King" to kindergarteners and first graders, and a man invited to speak to a third grade class about his upcoming sex change operation. Parents are not given notice of these discussions, nor are they allowed to opt-out their children from such discussions. Furthermore, discussions go beyond promoting awareness and tolerance by asserting the moral acceptability of homosexuality.

  Courts have upheld school districts' policies and actions. The legal basis for the court's judgements has been the legal status of same-sex marriage.

  I have no intention of burying my kids' heads in the sand, but I have the right to introduce moral issues to my children at the time and in the context of my choosing. When schools take sides on moral issues, especially when teaching them at such an early age, they are taking away those parental rights.

  I am also strongly opposed to turning our schools into social engineering camps.

• Some churches have been sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The churches had to choose between performing marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, or no longer perform marriages of any kind. Some of these churches have chosen to close their doors to weddings rather than compromise their religious principles. Members of these churches are no longer allowed to be married in their own church.

• Similarly, church-sponsored adoption agencies have faced lawsuits for not placing children with gay couples. Again, the choice was to place children in families that violate their religious principles, or close their doors. Catholic Family Services, which used to place about 10 children a week, no longer provides adoption services in Massachussetts.

But I do think same-sex marriage should be legal. Marriage has been a huge strength to my relationship with my wife. Knowing that I have made a commitment makes a difference in my behavior. Knowing that our family is something I deliberately chose, rather than something I fell into, is a boost to help me make appropriate choices when challenges come up. I am convinced that I am happier as a married man than I would be if we were living together as an unmarried couple with children. The act of making a visible commitment has been a very good thing. I see no reason to prevent same-sex couples from making a similar visible commitment and gaining similar benefits.

So what would it take for me to support a same-sex marriage law? The law would have to include guarantees that it would not be used as the basis for additional rights. It would have to be legally and explicitly irrelevant to what is taught in schools, irrelevant to what a religious institution can do and for whom, and irrelevant to what an individual can do, say, or believe. It would have to neither grant nor deny any rights other than the right to same-sex marriage. Give me a law that meets those criteria and I'll vote for it.

Why I'm Blogging

There have been so many times I've wanted to reply to someone else's blog, but with a longer post than really ought to be put in a comment. I've thought about creating a blog for just this purpose for a while now, and today I finally got around to creating one. I intend to write responses to other blogs, things I read elsewhere online, as well as things happening in my "off-line" life. Considering how long I waited before I got around to setting this up, I'm guessing I won't be the most prolific blogger out there. We'll see...