How did we
get to the point where journalists lose their jobs for opinions expressed on
social media, a pastor can be terminated from his job at the fire department
for writing a book that affirms Biblical morality, and disagreements over
political ideology routinely split families and destroy friendships?
We live in a
world of post-industrial plentitude that frees us from the dilemmas of scarcity
and the sins that paucity often drive us to. As a result we live in a society
that makes it easy for us to be kind—for example, if I don’t have to worry
about starving because of famine I will be less tempted to rob and pillage my
neighbors. Add to this the modern phenomenon of cheap, reliable birth control
and many former pressing questions of morality are now moot. As a host of moral
actions wane in importance, the importance of opinions waxes and this
development significantly affects public discourse.
While it is
a sure boon that we have been largely freed from external threats of violence, increased
safety reduces opportunities for clear expressions of courage. Yet there
remains in the human heart a need to be courageous. Since we cannot face down
mace-wielding barbarians, we face down ideas. Segregation, sexism, racism,
same-sex marriage, colonialism, xenophobia, etc.—there is always a battle to be
fought and these battles attract a number of our young who have no other outlet
to express courage. But when we reduce courage to taking a side in a social or
political controversy, it follows that opinions determine if a person is courageous;
that is to say opinions, not actions,
determine morality, determine whether one is a good or bad person.
When
opinions determine morality they take on disproportionate importance. It is
logical and natural to assign existential importance to issues where life,
death, or fundamental rights are at stake—issues like war, slavery, and
political liberty. But when opinions determine a person’s moral worth, run-of-the-mill
issues like taxes, immigration, or college admissions become imbibed with
existential importance. These issues are indeed important, but making them
absolutely paramount hinders the type of measured and rational debate that
non-tyrannical governments require.
To wit, a
number of my acquaintances have publically stated that they want all Trump
supporters to unfollow them and have promised to block anyone they find out
supports Trump. Why do this? Trump is a divisive, intolerant, prejudiced bigot.
In response to this they have divided
themselves from people with differing views, refused to tolerate even the expression of certain views, all because they have
pre-judged those holding opposing beliefs
to be bigots. This is not to say that criticism against President Trump is
unwarranted; a lot of it is just, albeit a bit hysterical, it is only to
demonstrate that if we oppose ideas the wrong way we can, without the slightest
bit of recognition, become and embody the very things we seek to oppose.
As long as
we continue to reduce morality to ideas we will overvalue opinion and oppose
differing views the wrong way. To cut ties with a person over a disagreement of
policy is to value an abstract idea over a living, concrete individual made in
the image of God. If we rightly value opinions we will value people above
principles; if we overvalue opinions and make them the ultimate test of
morality, we will think that people who differ from us are not only wrong, but
bad and we will devalue them as a result.
