There have been a lot of debates recently, particularly on the issues of homosexual marriage but also in a number of other fields—recent articles regarding Thomas Nagel's book Mind and Cosmos come to mind. All of these debates seem to me to have something major in common: The opposite sides can't come to agreement, and can't even understand each other, because they argue from completely different premises. And I don't just mean, for example, the Christian view vs. the non-Christian view, the premise that God exists, or the like, though these are related.
C. S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity, notes that, when we are observing something from outside, all we can say about it is what is. Rocks fall downward. Ought they to? Well, we can't really answer that question. We just know that they do, because of this unseen force we call gravity. Ice is cold. Ought it to be? We don't know. It just is, because it has a lower temperature than our bodies do.
When we come to humanity, all that we can tell by observing it, in a sense, from outside, is what we do, what we are; not what we ought to be, if there is such a thing. Recently, I saw a friend of a friend talking on Facebook about how there are more than two genders, how not every man is an XY and not every woman is an XX, etc. More broadly (no longer in that one post), how some people experience same-sex attraction. More broadly still, how some people naturally want to do things that the majority of people do not, or are something that the majority of people are not. This is very true. This is the case. But ought it to be?
Christianity tells us not only what we are, but what we ought to be and to do. On the other hand, many people seem to be arguing only from what is. The problem is, there is no way we can logically get from "is" to "ought." I cannot say, "The sun is bright, therefore it ought to be," or, "The sun is bright, but it ought to be dark." That makes no sense. And yet this is how we tend to encounter each other over these divisive issues. One side says, "The Bible says we ought to be this way, so you're wrong," while the other side is busy saying, "This is the way we are, so you're wrong." But we aren't arguing from the same premises. One side assumes a second premise which the other side doesn't: that the way we are is not the way we ought to be. But until we agree on our premises, we cannot discuss the conclusion.
I think the way we are is not the way we ought to be. I think there are signs pointing to that all over the place. It is not right that I yell at video games when I'm frustrated and disturb the people around me, yet I still do it. The is is one thing, and the ought is another. Going a step farther, as a (fallen) heterosexual man, I have a positive desire (in the existential sense, not the moral sense) to look at naked women. It is not something I always do, and yet it is a "natural" desire in me. But most people in the world would agree that this is not what I ought to desire (and it is something I would get rid of entirely if I could, at least outside of a marriage).
So ought and is are two different things; but we cannot argue, logically, from one to the other. We first need a standard by which to measure the is, and this standard is exactly what one side denies. One side says, "Yes, some people have same-sex attraction, but they ought not to"; the other side says, "Yes, some people have same-sex attraction, therefore there's nothing wrong with it simply because that's the way it is."
What then? I think this second premise, the standard by which to measure the is, is what we're really arguing over, but we never quite get that out in the open. I hope I have. The next time you see someone who disagrees with your views, think about where you're really disagreeing. Maybe we can have real discussions about things, and not talk past each other as much. Because until we agree with regard to that standard, any discussing will be fruitless.
No comments:
Post a Comment