How to Be a Christian Lawyer Amidst Western Imperialism

In class today, we discussed how Western consumerism and secular cultural has become somewhat of an imperial power on the global scale. We then analyzed the relationship Baylor sees between Christ and culture and its mission for its students. Since I see Baylor as having taken primarily a synthetic approach to the Christ-culture dynamic, this leaves me with the questions - How can I take my education and I apply it to my vocation, and what can I do today to make that start happening? As a conclusion to this semester and this blog, I'd like to use my knowledge of Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory to develop a way to exercise acceptance towards alternative secular viewpoints while still accepting my own as ethically right, and I'd like to use this approach in the present-day to achieve my ultimate goal of becoming a public interest attorney.

First, to analyze the Baylor's synthetic approach to Christ and culture, I'd like to touch on a point that was brought up in class today. Dr. Whitlark asked us students, "Is there a difference between accepting and respecting another person's viewpoint?" I agree that there is a difference, but I would like to communicate that I believe that there was a definitional miscommunication in class today between he definition of acceptance. In one sense, acceptance can mean exercising tolerance toward another person. This is practicing acceptance. The other definition of accepting is to physically accept something to be true. One can practice acceptance without necessarily accepting someone's belief. I believe that the students in class today meant the former definition.

I also agree with this former definition of being the correct way to live one's life and the correct way Christians can and should live their lives. Haidt's moral foundations support this view in that they are meant to show people with different moral matrices and ideological realities that every person has some similar common values, and though one doesn't have to agree with another person's value, the moral foundations assign definitions to these values to encourage a logical discourse between different worldviews. This discourse is not meant to make people accept other views but simply help them practice acceptance (synonymous with toleration) in understanding the reasoning behind ideas different from their own.

Further, the way I am exercising this acceptance right now is that I have been working through Student Senate with faculty of the religion department to incorporate teaching of world religions into all Baylor Christian Heritage courses. I have worked closely with Blake Burleson, and we hope to finish this project by sometime early next semester. In this way, I hope to incorporate more acceptance of other cultures to the Baylor student body.

In the future, I hope to exercise acceptance in other ways through my vocation as a public interest attorney. I cannot predict exactly what ways I hope to fulfill this goal, but I know that as things arise, I will remember Haidt's foundations and the synthetic approach of Christ to culture that I learned at Baylor, specifically in this course, so thank you.

Haidt, Abortion, and My Vocation

In class we've been reading a lot about the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the abortion debate. Studying Roe v. Wade and other Constitutional Law issues in my high school government class, issues like these undoubtedly inspired me to pursue law and have an interest in being a public interest lawyer.

But how can Haidt's moral foundations be applied to the abortion issue, and how can this application apply to my vocation today?

First, Haidt's moral foundations easily apply to different perspectives regarding this controversial issue.
Absolutist pro-life advocates rest their perspectives solely on the sanctity/degradation foundation, while staunch pro-choice advocates rest their points of view only on the fairness/equality foundation of liberty/equality moral foundation (the 6th moral foundation that Haidt develops further after publishing The Righteous Mind.) Reconciling these two views is a different task, but recognizing the individual merits of both arguments and moral foundations of those arguments is at least a generous starting point to cracking the code.
Hays's argument in his chapter on abortion, however, asserts that the "Christian" thing to do is recognize fairness/equality above sanctity/degradation when the issue extends beyond the community of the church. Having a high regard for the law and law that extends beyond a faith-based conception, I agree with Hays but think as a Christian, it's also necessary to recognize his view in governing one's individual life.

Putting this learning into my vocational calling, if I am to settle any public interest disputes or constitutional issues, I will place the fairness/equality foundation above Christian notions of sanctity/degradation, but I think a personal regard for the sanctity of life and recognition of the strong merits of the Christian pro-life argument is necessary to make judicious rulings on the issues.

The Moral Foundations, The Bible, & Consumerism

As a quick review of Haidt's Moral Foundations theory, we've got:

1. Care/harm

2. Fairness/cheating

3. Loyalty/betrayal

4. Authority/subversion

5. Sanctity/degradation

(and, not directly in this book, but after writing it, he later adds)

6. Liberty/oppression

So, according to Haidt, all of our human actions are based off of these evolutionary response mechanisms.

But are these all we have?

I feel that if someone were to live with these moral foundations completely in-check, they may still not be living a moral life. And why is this? It seems that even if you addressed all of these moral foundations, you still could be living without humility, a virtue that's completely unaccounted for in Haidt's version of virtue ethics. 

The Bible's proposition of the virtue of humility shows that morality rests in something greater than simply an individual set of ethics but also one that addresses and prioritizes others. 

Thus, through Haidt's moral foundations, I can't find a way to deem the excessively consumerist culture we live in today "wrong," in my own sense of morality, it still certainly feels uniquely wrong, and Biblical ethics provide a more thorough explanation for this.

As the Bible calls us to defer to a higher power (that of God,) Haidt's "authority/subversion" fails to take into account any omnipotent being(s) but instead refers to more Confucian-type of subversive relationships. Even though humility can be present in Haidt's authoritative relationships, the Bible provides a more rich definition of humility by assuming that all people should humble themselves before a divine creator.

The consumerist mindset we see in America today certainly does not embody this Biblical perspective on the value of humility, and it could therefore have unforeseen negative implications in our society. 

Celebrity Instagrams are an interesting case study on this phenomena:

http://instagram.com/kendalljenner

http://instagram.com/taylorswift

http://instagram.com/caradelevingne

Though not every image is bad per se, taking the media message presented here as an aggregate and watching how Instagram has evolved over the past three years of having it has been a unique testament to the power these celebrities have in spurring "Instagram trends" and leading virtually every girl my age to copy them in their blatant promotion of an overly consumerist ideal.

I am not sure how exactly to tie this into my vocation, but I do think it's something important to take into consideration when deciding between employment in a public or private sector of the legal field. Although I find some parts of private law alluring and see public law as much less glamorous (especially because I work for the DA's office and see how underfunded the whole project truly is,) I think that there is something to be said for the quality of your drive to work hard for the public good on a much smaller salary than you could be making if you chose to do something less rewarding.

Regardless, humility is a deeply undervalued virtue in our society today, and the Bible provides a better explanation than the Moral Foundations theory for the immoral consequences of heavy-handed consumerism.

How to Solve the Problem of Homosexuality Using The Bible & Moral Foundations Theory

As we are currently studying homosexuality in class, and this happens to be an issue I'm particularly passionate about, I'd like to apply Biblical ethics and the Moral Foundations Theory to the various political perspectives on this topic. 

First, to establish what the Bible says about homosexuality... Whether one agrees with a basic reading of the narrative that homosexuality holistically is wrong and homosexuals cannot be accepted into the church, or one takes Hays's stance that homosexual actions are immoral but homosexual orientation completely acceptable (provided only celibacy is practiced,) most all Christians would agree that the Bible discourages homosexual practices.

Viewing this perspective through the lens of MFT, one can see the moral foundations operating here -- specifically, the Sanctity/Degradation foundation communicated throughout the Bible, such as in Leviticus 18:22, explaining the impurity of gay sexual conduct. In fact, it seems that throughout the Bible, all claims against homosexual actions are made based off of the sanctity/degradation moral foundation, asserting that homosexual practices are an impure threat to God's original intention for human design. 

The PMBC account, however, appeals to the harm/care and justice/fairness moral foundations to justify monogamous, healthy homosexual relationships. This makes sense, as the PMBC often uses Jesus's teaching as the supreme scriptural ethical norm, and in his own teachings, Jesus intentionally placed the harm/care and justice/fairness foundations above the sanctity/degradation one (for example, He instructed his disciples not to wash their hands before eating to make the point that some sanctity/degradation purity laws of the Old Testament had become outdated or secondary in importance to His message.) 

The issue, then, that we touched on in class was the idea that the PMBC account does not deal enough with the sanctity/degradation moral foundational element of homosexuality addressed in the Old Testament of the Bible. I would argue, however, that it does through its sole promotion of healthy, exclusive, monogamous relationships for both sexes. 

In class, we were told that the PMBC counsel only sees the "corruption" in our society's perception of sexuality as the marginalization of homosexuals as second-class citizens of society. This account isn't accurate, though, since the PMBC only sees this as one element of society's corruption. Since PMBC only advocates healthy, exclusive, monogamous relationships period, it is implicit that the PMBC sees relationships that are not healthy, exclusive, or monogamous as equally corrupt and fallen as does Hays. The only difference between the two schools of thought is that the PMBC does not see healthy, exclusive, and monogamous homosexual relationships as corrupt, since it takes the stance that the creation narrative cannot be read as strictly specified to the relationship between a man and a woman. 

Although Hays argues that his interpretation, the traditionally held one, of the creation narrative exclusively depicts a relationship between a male and a female, I assert that his view hypocritically overemphasizes human sexuality, a concept that he claims to be against. The PMBC interpretation, however, places less emphasis on the sexual identities or actions of Adam and Eve and more emphasis on their spiritual and emotional personas, so it therefore represents a perspective more aligned with the Consummation mountain peak of the Biblical text that acknowledges humans by their metaphysical qualities as opposed to their earthly sexualities. 

Coming to this conclusion, I've ironically titled this post "How to Solve the Problem of Homosexuality Using The Bible & Moral Foundations Theory" because I feel that the true answer to the problem that is homosexuality is to realize that it isn't a problem, but any relationship, homosexual or heterosexual, that isn't healthy, exclusive, or monogamous should take the blame instead. 

Essentially, I think that looking at the Moral Foundations, PMBC was right to credit Jesus's ethical teachings above Biblically sanctity/degradation-appealing outcries against homosexuality, since often these outcries were targeted at homosexual actions that were not within the context of healthy, exclusive, or monogamous relationships.

To tie this into my vocation, I'd like to add that gay rights are extremely important to me. In middle school, I met my best friend in 7th grade reading class and bonded with him over our love for Ralph Lauren. I knew he was gay immediately, but he didn't come out to me until less than a month ago. I have always known and accepted that aspect of his being but never pressed the issue with him because I felt that there was so much more to him than simply his sexuality. That being said, the amount that I know he wrestled with his identity and the courage I know it took for him to accept it does not compare to the pain I feel for him that many people still will not accept his orientation as a natural, inborn, and perfectly healthy part of him, and it pains me to read Hays's account that all people born with such an orientation should remain celibate, since this option oppresses their personalities and potentials for the everyday human happinesses heterosexuals in Hays's world take for granted. If you told a Christian, heterosexual person living in Hays's world at birth that they could not find their soul mates, or they could never raise a family simply because you believed them to possess a sinful nature, I think that this person would 1.) feel deeply saddened and ashamed and 2.) head for the hills and leave the church behind them. I therefore see this (celibacy) as a joke of an alternative for homosexual people. Having followed gay rights court cases since middle school, I see that our society has shifted into a more progressive mindset regarding this issue because it has been brought into the public sphere, and more people are beginning to accept homosexuality as a genetic quality and not a learned, environmental retardation of "intended" sexuality. It is only by accepting healthy, consenting, mutually exclusive homosexual relationships in which homosexual actions may take place that we can truly accept a person's sexual orientation and respect his or her humanity. Anything less is a degradation.

If the synopsis wasn't enough for you...

http://moralmatricesandideologicalrealities.blogspot.com/p/supplemental-links.html

Final Synopsis Take-Aways from Haidt's "The Righteous Mind"

*Realize I may not be getting credit for this blog post but nonetheless find it important*

Haidt's final chapter, "Can't We All Disagree More Constructively?" presents a few final quips of wisdom and some intriguing visual diagrams of major ideological moral matrices.

The underlying "most sacred values" Haidt presents for the three major ideologies are particularly poignant:

1. The Liberal Moral Matrix values "care for victims of oppression" most.

2. The Libertarian Moral Matrix regards "individual liberty" the highest.

3. The Social Conservative Moral Matrix prizes preservation of "the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community."

Underhandedly promoting Conservatism above the other two ideologies, Haidt still asserts that all three ideologies are meant to evolutionarily coexist. With this, he provides readers with the advice to have a "suspicion of moral monists" because "human societies are complex" and though this does not warrant ethical relativism, morality cannot be determined based solely off of one moral matrix. Referring back to the words of Rodney King in his introduction, Haidt concludes with his follow up of the question "Can we all get along?" with the response "We're all stuck here for a while, so let's try to work it out."


This conclusion offers a powerful close to his heavy and lengthy work, but in ending my synopsis, I'd like to refer back to one of Haidt's lines from "The Hive Switch:"

Asking, 'does happiness come from within or without?,' Haidt decides --
"Happiness comes from between. It comes from getting the right relationships between yourself and others, yourself and your work, and yourself and something larger than yourself… Once you understand our dual nature, including our groupish overlay, you can see why happiness comes from between…"

In the rest of my blog, I'd like to investigate this quote as a few others to develop my application of Haidt's theory to the happiness I hope to find in my vocation.

"Morality Binds and Blinds" -- Delving Into Haidt's Thesis

In his chapter "The Conservative Advantage," Haidt tries to convince readers through some compelling statistical evidence that political conservatives place greater emphasis on all of the moral foundations than do liberals, who focus only on the "care/harm" and "fairness/justice" foundations. Though his conclusion is compelling, however, I tend to disagree because his data does not seem to be based on a normative mean. Basically, it looks to me like he assumes correlation implies causation for his experiments, but the steps he has to take to get there seem too numerous and far-reaching for his conclusion to be sound. Or perhaps his work is just orienteered specifically to a liberal audience in defense of conservatism. Either way, for this reason, I have difficulty applying this part of the book to my vocation. The subsequent chapters of the book also posed this problem because I think that Haidt extrapolates on his numerical findings too much.

Moving forward, though, Haidt proceeds to discuss how evolutionary processes have given humans a tendency to act altruistically in groups. He then explains how "group-think" and groupish-ness promote close-minded self-righteousness not just on an individual level but also when people associate themselves with organizations, parties, or more historically -- tribally. To give humans a little more credit, though, Haidt develops something called a "hive-switch," a state that Haidt believes people go into about 10% of the time to transcend their selfish mental states and aid others for no personal benefit.

Applying these group notions to politics, Haidt elucidates how politically, each party is "partially right and partially wrong," but when logical agreement no longer seems attainable, we should cater to the emotion of the riders to find cooperation and understanding across party lines.

Applying these group notions to religion, Haidt rebukes his atheistic worldview to pronounce that the human "extraordinary ability to care about things beyond ourselves" and "circle around those things with other people" is "what religion is all about."

By illuminating the ability of morality to work in tandem with humanity's groupishness in "binding" and "blinding," Haidt develops the brunt of his thesis -- that psychologically, people should work to trigger the "hive switch" in others in order to bring about a greater sense of shared intentionality with fellow humans. This, he believes, will bring a more tolerant and truly righteous earth.