Liberal Morality

Meet Karen Johnson, a 19-year-old woman struggling to live off a minimum-wage job from a welfare-to-work program. She has a baby from a boyfriend who used to beat her up whenever he drank too much. She’s been trying to put her life back together as far away from him as possible. But Karen feels the pressure from her church and from government programs, both of which seem to be telling her that marriage is the solution to her problems. So she wonders if maybe she’d better go back to her boyfriend after all and marry him.

Now meet Kayla Jordan, a 26-year-old lesbian woman with a good job and a social work degree. She’s been in a loving relationship for several years. Kayla and her partner would love to get married and adopt a child, but her state government has told her that they will not be allowed to do either of these things. She also is not welcome with her partner at the church where she grew up.

What’s wrong with this picture?

In both cases, the problem flows from a conservative vision of morality that places more weight on ideological categories of right and wrong than on a genuine assessment of what does good or harm in real people’s lives. The conservative wing of our society has tried to claim the high ground on morality for a long time, proclaiming it from pulpits, on the radio, and in TV talking points, repeatedly blaming liberals for a moral decline in our culture.

Well, I don’t buy it.

Liberal morality, especially as it flows from our liberal religious principles, is not a weak or corrupted version of conservative morality. Properly understood, liberal morality is better, stronger, and ultimately, more moral.

Now, I know that the real picture is more complex than just liberal versus conservative morality. Look at morality through Buddhist or libertarian or Sufi eyes, and the liberal-conservative duality begins to break down. But there is a broad cultural divide in our nation that is probably best described in liberal and conservative terms. There are many differences among the people on both sides of this divide, and there are sure to be liberals and conservatives who would say that my descriptions don’t fit them. But the overall contrast is sharp enough that it is fair to make some generalizations.

One linguistic generalization worth noting is that liberals tend to prefer the word “ethics,” which has more of an abstract and reasoned sound, focused more on producing good within society, while conservatives have laid claim to the word “morality,” which hits more at the gut, and which implies a stronger judgment of right or wrong personal behavior. I could just as easily talk about liberal ethics, but frankly, I’m tired of the accusations of liberal immorality, especially hypocritical accusations coming from an increasingly corrupt right-wing political culture. I’ve chosen instead to speak about liberal morality to help clarify the full strength of the liberal vision for personal behavior as well as for social good.Three of the key strengths of liberal morality are: first, its emphasis on the worth and dignity of every person; second, its focus on truth-seeking and honesty; and third, its awareness of our interconnectedness. I’ll come back to these points, which you may recognize from our Unitarian Universalist principles. Liberal morality acknowledges the human capacity for good, not only for evil; it calls for justice and compassion; it accepts complexity and is willing to learn and evolve. It knows that people are never just means to an end, so it allows no justification for evils such as torture, even in the name of fighting terrorism. And despite conservative rhetoric, liberal morality makes a much stronger demand that we take personal responsibility for our choices and beliefs, not abdicating that responsibility to an external authority.

Conservative morality typically begins with a source of external authority, describing moral behavior primarily in terms of following the rules generated by that authority. Our predicament, according to the conservative vision, is that we are sinful by nature and don’t want to follow the rules, so if society is to function well, the punishment for breaking the rules needs to be severe enough that people will fear that punishment and obey the rules.

Now, the conservative vision is not entirely wrong. We do have a capacity to do evil as well as good, and there are many situations where rules and appeals to authority are helpful or necessary. You can’t play sports without rules, and we can’t afford to let psychopathic killers roam free. But conservatives often overestimate the extent to which people can be punished or frightened into good behavior, forgetting how these approaches can backfire, and overlooking the potential for developing and nurturing human good. Conservatism also has a tendency to take fallible human authorities, or rules and writings generated in a specific context, and to lift them up as infallible, divine and absolute for all contexts. This is a form of idolatry that liberalism seeks to avoid.

Some conservatives claim that there can be no morality unless moral rules are absolute, a-priori, or divinely given. They may appeal to the philosophical proposition which says that an ‘is’ can never imply an ‘ought,’ or that moral rules cannot be generated from facts and circumstances. In other words, the fact that people are suffering doesn’t prove we ought to help them, so we need God to tell us to help them.

Now, it may be true that we can’t logically prove that we ought to do anything, but there’s no logical proof for the basic premises of conservative morality, either. Most people accept that some actions are better than others, but if we accept that there is anything good at all, how can we get more specific about morality without understanding what is? For example, if we didn’t know the difference between people and fish, we might drown or suffocate both while trying to save them. If we don’t observe the world and learn, we can’t know what to do.

One of the most basic observations we can make about the world is that we are not alone–that there are other people quite similar to ourselves. This leads us to the first basis of liberal morality, which is a belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Not necessarily the unalloyed goodness of every person, but the reality and importance of every person. If we didn’t at least accept the basic fact that other people are real, then many moral truths that are held to be obvious or a-priori, such as the immorality of murder, would lose their force. The reality of other people may seem obvious or trivial, but deeply knowing and feeling that the pains and joys and thoughts of other people are just as real and important as our own is one of the great challenges of life. Babies are not born understanding the separate identities of other people, and even now, if I cut my hand, I feel the pain, but if you cut your hand, I don’t directly feel it, even if I believe you do. We have to learn to believe in each other.

Now, I’ve never known people, liberal or conservative, who seriously claimed that only they were real and other people were not, but practically speaking, we often act as if we believed that. We develop foreign policy as if what happens to people who are not Americans doesn’t matter. Our domestic polices often assume that people who are poor don’t matter. Or individually, we may imagine that our prayers or our lucky Broncos hat could override the prayers or superstitions of millions of other people, as if they were all less real or important than we are. Truly acting on the reality and value of all people isn’t easy.

One of the problems with conservatism is that it has a long history of contributing to the denial of rights or dehumanization of whole groups of people, whether foreigners or gays or women or blacks or Jews or atheists or criminals or even liberals. Liberals do not have a perfect record in this regard, but our principles call us to affirm the worth of all people, even when they are different from us, not only in their similarities. Valid morality must take into account these differences. Even the golden rule doesn’t always go far enough, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Sometimes we need to say, “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.”

Now, this raises one of the big bugaboos of conservatism: the dreaded liberal trait of “moral relativism”. Relativism is really a red herring, because it is popularly misunderstood as meaning, “Anything goes,” or “Whatever anyone thinks is moral is OK.” In fact, ethical or moral behavior often is relative to a context, but that doesn’t mean it is arbitrary. Quickly, which side of the road are we supposed to drive on? Is that an absolute rule? If you think so, I hope you never drive in England. There are other exceptions, too, such as passing or one-way roads. Even this simple example reminds us that often, what may be seen as moral relativism or a lack of morality is really just taking into account the complexity of the world. Context does matter, but liberal morality does not claim it’s OK to do whatever you please.

Life is complex, but conservatives often seem to want the world to be more simple than it is. This is part of the problem with the marriage issue. It would be nice if marriage could reliably lift people out of poverty, and maybe some aspects of social policy would be easier if all people were heterosexual, but that just isn’t reality. Conservatives rightly point out the importance of families for raising children, but they define ‘family’ too narrowly. They often oversimplify issues such as abortion, equating a fertilized egg with a conscious, fully-developed person, and ignoring the complex, very difficult circumstances behind many abortions. Sometimes, they avoid the implications of difficult realities such as mental illness. Too often, conservatives describe the world as a cartoon-like battle of pure good vs. pure evil, ignoring human complexity, and sometimes ignoring their own fascination with pure power. They may not want to face the reality that traditional male-dominated marriages have triple the rate of spousal abuse compared to more liberal, egalitarian marriages. And when they call for official school prayers or proclaim America to be a Christian nation, conservatives seem to want to will away the rich religious pluralism which is one of the strengths of this country.

Religious liberals know that honestly facing the complexity and difficulties of life is a requirement for sound moral formation. This is part of the second basis for liberal morality, which is a commitment to truth-seeking and honesty. We may not always live up to that standard, but liberalism calls us to practice it. Conservatism does not advocate dishonesty, but truthfulness is typically further down the list of conservative values than traits such as obedience and loyalty. I was an Eagle Scout in my teenage years, and I liked the Scouts, but even then I remember noticing that ‘truth’ or ‘honesty’ do not appear anywhere in the Scout Oath or in the twelve words of the Scout Law. The closest word is ‘trustworthy,’ but a person can be trusted to keep secrets or follow the party line, whether truthful or not. Today, gays or atheists can be accepted as good Scouts, as long as they are willing to lie. Again, I am not claiming that conservatives, or the Scouts, advocate lying. But a commitment to truthfulness often means asking questions or speaking truths that an authority-based morality may not like. As our whole nation is discovering, when political loyalty is valued more than truth-seeking and truth-telling, the results can be dangerous, even deadly.

Honesty and truth-seeking are not easy to practice, and they often begin with an awareness that we are not always honest or truthful. I believe that an ever-renewing commitment to honesty within ourselves is a far more powerful force for morality and redemption than is the fear of hell. A commitment to truthfulness means being willing to learn and grow and change. It means admitting when others, including conservatives, are right about something. And it means being honest about everything from our own abilities and limitations to the complexity and interconnectedness of the world in which we live.

Which brings us to the third basis for liberal morality: an awareness and acceptance of our interconnectedness with other people and the universe around us. All life is real and important, not only human life. We ignore our interconnectedness with nature at our own peril. What we do has consequences around the globe, and what happens elsewhere affects us. Our relationships matter, and we need each other. We are not the autonomous economic units that capitalism assumes, and pursuing selfish economic interests will not magically produce sufficient good for all. Difficult issues such as levels and methods of taxation should be decided by what is best for the common good, but anti-tax conservatives undermine civic responsibility and deny our interconnectedness when they argue against taxes on the grounds that “we earned it” and “it’s our dough.” We never earn money by ourselves, of course. We all depend upon and have a responsibility to the common good—economically, socially and environmentally.

This may all sound like ethics again more than personal morality, and rightly so, because the liberal vision of morality does point us toward broad ethical principles of justice and equity and the common good. But what about the real stronghold of conservative morality?

What about sex?

Sometimes conservative morality does seem to be about nothing but sex, mostly against it. I am reminded of the definition of a Puritan as someone who lies awake at night with the suspicion that someone, somewhere is having fun. That’s a caricature, of course, but it does amaze me how often some conservatives seem to find the mere sight of the human body obscene even when they don’t find economic exploitation or violence or war to be obscene.

Now, as for liberal morality, I am aware that if the decorations hadn’t been taken down from the auction last night, I’d have a can can dancer floating over my head right now, right about there. It would certainly put an interesting twist on this sermon. But after all, liberal morality does seek to celebrate life, with all the beauty and adventure and pleasure and joy that it can offer, and that includes sex. Liberal morality also places a high value on personal freedom.

So does that mean anything goes with regard to sex? Of course not. Because we affirm the worth and dignity of every person, rape or any other form of coercive sex is always wrong, even within marriage, and sex should never be used to harm another person or to use or abuse children. Because of our interconnectedness, we can’t pretend that the effects of our actions are isolated, or that our roles and power relationships don’t matter, so appropriate boundaries need to be held, such as those between therapists and clients or ministers and their congregations. And truthfulness demands that we think before we act and look honestly at the potential consequences of our actions, from the risk of unwanted pregnancy or the spread of disease to patterns of deception, sexual obsession or addiction in our lives. What is usually most wrong about extra-marital affairs, for example, is not primarily the sex itself. It’s the lying, deception, and betrayal of relationship that is most wrong.

Truthfulness about our sexuality, even or especially to ourselves, can be difficult to practice. But it matters. It matters much more than externally-imposed categories of sexual morality that condemn people for who they are, for loving mutual relationships or for a healthy acceptance of our bodies. What we need is the practice of a liberal morality which emphasizes healthy, fun, respectful, and honest relationships. Unitarian Universalists are in the forefront of responsible education about sexuality with the Our Whole Lives curriculum. Even in the area of sex, liberal morality is a stronger and better morality.

Of course, practicing our morality is the hard part. We don’t always live up to our own principles. Liberal morality teaches us that we are personally responsible for our beliefs and for our moral choices. We can’t simply abdicate our beliefs and choices to others, even if they claim to be speaking for divine authority. Living our morality means thinking deeply about our principles, listening to tradition and experience, learning from each other in an ongoing dialogue, and nurturing morality in ourselves and our children. It means acting with gentleness and kindness as well as with courage in our personal lives, and then engaging with the wider world, where morality expands into broader ethics and social justice.

Liberalism does generate rules and can generate social policies, but these rules and policies must remain open to growth and change, never based on assumptions that we have cornered divine authority. Some rules may be truly universal, such as the immorality of rape or torture, but it is because of our shared humanity, not just because a higher authority tells us so. The rules of morality should flow naturally from our principles of truth-seeking and honesty, interconnectedness, and the value of all people.

Ideally, we should seek to practice liberal morality not out of fear or guilt, even liberal guilt, but out of love. Love for life, for other people, for ourselves, for truth, and for whatever may be divine. If we are loving and honest with ourselves about our limitations and failures or addictions, it can begin a profound process of personal redemption and moral renewal. And practicing liberal morality in the world can begin a transformation toward justice, so that the Karen Johnsons, the Kayla Jordans, and all the rest of us can live lives of deeper meaning, freedom and hope.

May it be so.

© 2005 Nathan Woodliff-Stanley. Members and friends of Jefferson Unitarian Church are welcome to copy this sermon for personal use or to share with family or friends, but the contents of this sermon remain copyrighted, and may not be republished, preached, used without attribution or used for commercial purposes without the express consent of the author.