John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Rocker in his Concord home: Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.
We hear a lot about being a nation administrated under the rule of law. However, we seldom examine the role of law. This lack of understanding weakens our democracy and divides the nation.
According to the Judicial Learning Center, “laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself… Laws give direction to all people living in a community; they exist at the federal, state, and local levels.”
In America, we should expect that the role of legislation is to enact laws that contribute to community safety and prevent abuses from people, organizations, and the government. Today, this function of the law is being distorted by attempts to legislate moral imperatives.
Attempts to codify morality raises passions, creates resistance, and invites indignation. There are strong emotional reactions expressed over being on the “right side” of debates over gun rights, abortion, historical narratives, literature, gender, immigration, and the role of the military. The “Make America Great Again” motto is an example of calling upon a particular “right” cultural morality for everyone; insisting on unexamined habits, social conventions, or self-interest.
Santa Clara University Center for Applied Ethics explains that morality is often inherited from family, community, or culture. “Usually the process is unconscious. There’s a challenge here: if we inherit a ready-made answer to the question of how we should live, it’s possible to apply it to our lives without ever assessing whether the answer is satisfactory.” Morality is binary, either something is good or it’s bad — my way or no way.
The emotional content in moral imperatives asserts a powerful influence on debates. We see it operating in Congress and in state legislatures. Compromise is painful for a person who stands on a position as the only morally right choice. There is very little room for flexibility or change. “It’s rare for somebody to ‘shop around’ for the morality that most closely fits their personal beliefs.”
An alternative to claiming a particular moral imperative as a foundational belief, is to participate in an ethical process of reflection upon “what should I do?” Rather than insisting upon a morally right position, ethics are shaped by a person’s values, principles and purpose. Ethics are reasoned and responsive to the times and situation. Some people defend a set of morals, others seek ethical actions.
An option to a personal moral conviction is to apply ethics to the process of decision making. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that aims to answer the basic question, “What should I do?” Moral imperatives involve a ridged conviction. Ethics is a continuing process. Because “everyone in society is governed by the same set of laws. They (morality and ethics) can be easy to conflate.”
The thing about living in a democracy is that the laws change over time. The laws needed in 1789 when the Constitution was born, and in 1890, 1950, or 1990, are different from the laws needed today. The legislative branch of government must seek to update laws as needed, and the judicial branch has to interpret the laws so that they apply fairly to society at the time. The way to be free from the burden of only one morally right way for all citizens, based on tradition and imperatives, is to participate in an ethical approach to the emotionally charged issues of our time.
Ethics seeks standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves —as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, professionals, and so on. It requires knowledge, skills, and habits. Therefore, our legislative debates should focus upon the role of law, seeking specific actions that give more freedom for citizens as long as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others or the welfare of others.
This approach is not always as easy as declaring a particular moral imperative. However, it may open up free discussions leading to new unanticipated solutions to the conflicting questions of our times, solutions that do not exclude a segment of citizenry. The rule of law and the role of law will mesh into a truly democratic legal system where there is peace and justice for all.