I am a caring and compassionate man with deep concerns about humanity.\u00a0 Of utmost importance to me is the issue of human flourishing, which roughly translated, incorporates wellness, happiness, success, and adaptive functioning not only for the individual, but for society in general.\u00a0 Individual flourishing necessitates societal flourishing and vice versa.\u00a0 One does not rise at the expense of the other.\u00a0 Promoting human flourishing has been my life\u2019s work.<\/p>\n
I see around me much acrimony, the source of which often ascends from moral inclinations from diverse ideological perspectives.\u00a0 This confuses me and leads me to question whether morality and human flourishing can be linked.\u00a0 Should morality instill virtue and wellness for all?\u00a0 Unfortunately, the moral teachings of the world\u2019s major religions pitch one belief against another.\u00a0 And it does not take much effort to see that virtually all ideologically based moral systems actually inhibit human flourishing for many.<\/p>\n
At the core of these issues are several human inclinations that feed and sustain many of the perpetual conflicts that consume our blood and treasure and in other ways gravely harm our brothers and sisters.\u00a0 Deeper still, at the root of many erroneous human inclinations, is a flawed brain that makes us vulnerable to ideology and thus thinking that is likely to sustain beliefs without good reason.<\/p>\n
Our brains sustain vestigial mechanisms that render us prone to all sorts of cognitive errors and illusions.\u00a0 As a major consequence,\u00a0we are inclined to hold on to belief systems regardless of substantive evidence to suggest that we just might be wrong.\u00a0\u00a0 This Cognitive Conservatism is a universal human attribute, and it plays out as we disregard, devalue, discredit, and\/or out-write ignore evidence that contradicts previously held beliefs.\u00a0 At the same time, we gladly take in evidence that confirms our beliefs.\u00a0 This is an undeniable truth about the human condition.<\/p>\n
Suffice it to say that our brains are belief engines leaving us vulnerable to mysticism and disinclined to accept aggregated evidence.\u00a0 As such, our moral guidance has been historically guided by intuition (how things seem) as opposed to reason (how things actually are).\u00a0 As a result, our intuitions in modern times are often wrong.\u00a0 We tend to be compelled by anecdotes and stories rather than data.\u00a0 We have relied on intuition and apparent correlations to guide us, and only recently has the scientific method entered our consciousness (circa 1400).<\/p>\n
Another problematic inclination stems from our tribal tendencies.\u00a0 Because of this we have developed a wide variety of diverse and often incompatible moral doctrines.\u00a0 We have for fear of cultural insensitivity and accusation of bias, been pressured to accept as “moral” such atrocities as genital mutilation, genocide, and the demonization of homosexuality.\u00a0 Although we might not view such acts as moral, the perpetrators certainly do.\u00a0 This Moral Relativism, I believe is a grave error, particularly when you look at the subsequent consequences relative to human flourishing.<\/p>\n
In some cultures it is acceptable to engage in honor killing.\u00a0 For example, to torture, mutilate, or kill a female family member who has been a victim of rape is considered honorable.\u00a0 Or consider martyrdom.\u00a0 Suicide bombers fully believe that they are serving their God by killing infidels.\u00a0 They further believe that they and 70 of their closest family and friends will be granted eternal bliss in the afterlife for doing God’s benevolent work. \u00a0 Can we rightfully accept that either of these acts advances human flourishing?\u00a0 Is it truly acceptable to condone either act because it is believed to be morally acceptable by their culture?\u00a0 Is disapproving of these acts culturally insensitive or indicative of bias?<\/p>\n
Using the same logic, is it acceptable to limit the expression of romantic love to only those that happen to be from the opposite sex?\u00a0 Does rendering homosexuality illegal or immoral, promote or hinder human flourishing?\u00a0 I suggest that it hinders flourishing.\u00a0 And are not the origins of the beliefs that render homosexuality wrong, wrought from the same belief mechanisms that encourage martyrdom or honor killings?<\/p>\n
If I am driven to use evidence to guide decisions regarding what promotes or diminishes human flourishing, one has to ask the question: “Is science biased?”\u00a0 I recently read articles by morality guru Jonathon Haidt who suggested that indeed this may be the case.\u00a0 He didn’t really argue that the data rendered by Social Psychologists was flawed.\u00a0 He simply argued that the scientists themselves (in the field of social psychology) are heavily skewed to the liberal left.\u00a0 The problem I have with his argument is that scientists use evidence to guide their beliefs, and as such, end up sharing liberal inclinations.\u00a0 Does that render them biased? \u00a0 I believe not.\u00a0 There is a substantial difference between those that base their beliefs on evidence and those that base their beliefs on ideology.\u00a0 It is more true to say that ideologues are biased because their beliefs that are unprovable and generally devoid of any real evidence.\u00a0 This kind of ideological thinking, I believe, is far more dubious.<\/p>\n
Speaking of bias, I recently read an article written by a Roman Catholic Priest that derided National Public Radio (NPR) as being biased on par with right wing conservative media outlets.\u00a0 The context of the argument was NPR’s inclination to cover the issue of homosexuality in a way that condoned it.\u00a0 Because the author holds the belief that homosexuality is immoral, and NPR comes off as pro gay marriage (as well as taking other pro “liberal” positions), the author suggests that NPR, as an institution, is biased.\u00a0 I could not disagree more with this notion.\u00a0 NPR may have a liberal slant, but this does not automatically imply that it is biased.\u00a0 I would argue that at NPR there is a stronger inclination to use evidence-based, rather than ideologically-based reason to guide its reporting.\u00a0 Isn’t that what reporters are supposed to do?\u00a0 Somehow, because the evidence does not support the moral inclinations of the church, or those of social conservatives, it is biased?\u00a0 I think not!<\/p>\n
This accusation of bias is wrong at a profoundly deep level!\u00a0 Even if 90% of scientists are secular liberals, that does not render the facts that they expose as biased.\u00a0 There is only one truth – and if the truth does not fit one’s beliefs, that doesn’t render it less truthful.\u00a0 Moral relativism opens the door to multiple truths and renders evidence meaningless.\u00a0 If we condone such thinking, then who are we to judge those who brought down the World Trade Center towers as “evil doers?”<\/p>\n
Likewise, who are we to diminish the quality of life of a small but no less significant portion of our population because they happen to be born gay, lesbian, or bisexual?\u00a0 Within consenting relationships, does gender really matter?\u00a0 Can it be argued that making same sex intimacy illicit, diminishes human flourishing?\u00a0 Yes it can, and it most definitely does!<\/p>\n