I continue to read Michael Sandel and have become more than a little enamored with his approach. It's wonderful to show people they're philosophising without realising it.
As an homage to Professor Sandel, I thought I'd be a little cheeky and engage in the sincerest form of flattery.
I'd like to point you to last night's Question Time, which debated the issue of gay marriage. Inevitably, the debate strayed to the general issue at hand, which was: should the State recognise gay marriage? Now, the audience and panel were largely behind the notion, as I am. I won't bore you with my reasoning, it's largely cliché: it's none of the State's business who you love, marriage is historically not the union of one man and one woman but the property exchange thereof. None of that is particularly interesting now that it's a mainstream point of view.
What is interesting is the intervention at about 14 minutes in from the two religious people, especially the woman. She complains that her beliefs aren't being celebrated and that the Church must follow the rule of God rather than the State. She bemoans the situation as though her beliefs are wholly exogenous to her, as though she doesn't make a conscious effort to accept them. She rejects being called a homophobe, 'just because of her beliefs'. Now, my initial response is to say, 'No, you're called a homophobe because your beliefs are homophobic'. But it got me thinking. She argued effectively that she was absolved of the consequences of her beliefs because they accord with the word of God.
The question we can ask ourselves is this: what if God's views are wrong? Can God's views be wrong? Assume a God if you're not ecclesiastically spoken for.
She claims she can't be a bigot if she has views that please God.
If it pleases God, then it is good.
What then, is good? Is good that which God says is good, or does God know what is good and command us to do it?
That last line is Euthyphro's dilemma. If we accept that what God says is good, is good, then we can charge God with being arbitrary. We can then actually put God's views to the test to find inconsistencies or just plain disagree. If we do, God can't argue rationally with us, without appealing to a moral standard higher than himself, such as reason or whatever.
If, on the other hand, we say that God shows us the way to the good, we accept an authority higher than God which again, means we can challenge his conclusions. All of this upsets this notion of God being supreme and omniscient and infallible and so on.
So, for those of you who claim that Question Time is not intelligent debate... enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment