Celebrating a marriage

Whenever I have conducted a wedding ceremony, as an ordained minister, I have celebrated the commitment of a couple to be faithful to one another. The mutual affirmation of committed love ”till death do us part” is what makes marriage so special.

As an ideal, marriage confirms a sense of love that is greater than physical attraction and deeper than the security of companionship. A marriage celebrates love as a gift of grace, a spiritual reality that transforms our material existence, a bond that expresses faith and hope as well as love.

I have not married two women, or two men, but I can see no reason why such a couple might not affirm the same understanding of their loving relationship as a man and a woman. Of course, the marriage of a gay couple might fall short of this ideal, but so do many marriages involving a man and a woman. Our inability to live up to our ideals is no reason not to celebrate our commitment to them, and to forgive one another when we fall short.

Rather than make it difficult for gay couples to marry, we should be grateful that many gay couples want to affirm the kind of committed love that we celebrate in a marriage ceremony.

With hope...Bob

Reasoning vs rationalizing

A reason is “a statement offered in explanation or justification” that expresses “a rational ground or motive” and “supports a conclusion or explains a fact.” As a verb, reason means “to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions.” Reasoning is thinking. Being rational refers to having a reason, being reasonable means “being in accord with reason.”

In moral philosophy arguing involves giving reasons for a conclusion. An argument, therefore, is not about opinions or beliefs, but about the reasons for our opinions or beliefs. In ethics, the goal of arguing is (or should be) not to win, but to clarify our reasoning.

This means unmasking rationalizations. In some disciplines of thought “rationalize” means “to bring into accord with reason,” but in ethics it means “to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives.” A reason is not a rationalization, in moral philosophy, because reasoning involves analyzing our motives. It is often difficult, however, to distinguish reasons from rationalizations.

For example, if I own land that I want to log to make a profit, but argue at a public hearing that logging should be allowed because it will bring jobs into the community, my public statement is a rationalization. If, however, I state publicly that I support logging because I will benefit from it and think that the community will also benefit, I am giving two reasons for my position. Self-interest is rational and is not a rationalization, unless self-interest is concealed or is the unconscious motivation for making an argument.

With hope...Bob

Predicting consequences

Moral reasoning involves predicting the consequences of an action before we act.  There are always consequences when we take the action we think is right, and when we try to be good persons, and usually these include unintended as well as intended outcomes. 

When the likely beneficial outcomes of acting on an ethical presumption seem to outweigh the likely adverse outcomes, then predicting consequences confirms our presumption. But when we predict that the adverse consequences will outweigh the beneficial consequences, even when we are obeying an ethical rule or following an inspiring story, then we should consider whether to make an exception to the rule or to look to a different story for guidance. 

We must remember, however, that before we act we can never know for certain what the consequences will be.Therefore, we should take care in predicting what will result from acting on an ethical presumption. 

With hope...Bob

Rules and stories

Ask yourself: "What stories tell me how to be a good person?"  Then call to mind the persons who care for you, and ask: "What have I learned from them about being good?"
  
Considering how to be a good person is different than thinking about the right action to take. These ways of reasoning are like our two eyes, which help us focus so we see clearly.  Asking, "What action should I take?" and "What kind of person should I be?" helps to clarify our ethical choice. 

We can’t make ethical decisions without considering rules and stories, but we all know that some stories involve characters who break "the rules" because they care deeply about doing what is right or for those who are in danger or suffering.  

Sojourner Truth, after she gained her own freedom, broke the rules that made slavery legal in the southern states of the US in order to lead many, who were enslaved, to freedom.  She put the biblical story of Moses leading the Israelites to freedom out of bondage in ancient Egypt above laws that asserted a duty to protect the property rights of those who owned slaves. 

Her story reminds us that making moral decisions involves taking our feelings into account in our reasoning.  We all understand what it means when a child says, “You hurt my feelings.”  Adults also have feelings about what is right and good, and a healthy person has empathy for others.  

Rules and stories reflect our feelings as well as our reasoning, but we are more likely to give reasons for rules and explain our feelings by telling stories.  

With hope...Bob

Green Faith

“Mostly I’m wondering,” my five year old grandson remarked. “Me, too,” I answered. When in our walk we came upon a spider web, he said: “Spider webs are magnificent.” Like all of nature, of course, spider webs are places of life and death, as well as beauty for those “with ears to hear and eyes to see.”

Green faith means accepting nature as it is — wondering about life amidst the cosmos, and being filled with wonder by life’s evolution and dynamic ecosystems. Wondering is a state of mind, a quest, a journey. Green faith is wonder-full.

For a brief meditation on “green faith” see http://christian-bible.com/Worship/Sermons/green.faith.htm.

Urban Ecology

For many the phrase “urban ecology” is an oxymoron, as urban development disrupts and destroys ecosystems. Yet, with more than half the world’s population living in cities, we must learn to live more ecologically in urban environments.  Solving urban problems begins with seeing each city, with its suburbs and surrounding countryside, “as a single, evolving system within nature.” This means that: “Nature in the city must be cultivated, like a garden, rather than ignored or subdued.”

Anne Whiston Spirn writes: "The city is a granite garden, composed of many smaller gardens, set in a garden world. Parts of the granite garden are cultivated intensively, but the greater part is unrecognized and neglected.  To the idle eye, trees and parks are the sole remnants of nature in the city. But nature in the city is far more than trees and gardens, and weeds in sidewalk cracks and vacant lots. It is the air we breathe, the earth we stand on, the water we drink and excrete, and the organisms with which we share our habitat. Nature in the city…is rain and the rushing sound of underground rivers buried in storm sewers. It is water from a faucet, delivered by pipes from some outlying river or reservoir, then used and washed away into the sewer, returned to the waters of river and sea. Nature in the city is an evening breeze, a corkscrew eddy swirling down the face of a building, the sun and the sky. Nature in the city is dogs and cats, rats in the basement, pigeons on the sidewalks, raccoons in culverts, and falcons crouched on skyscrapers. It is the consequence of a complex interaction between the multiple purposes and activities of human beings and other living creatures and of the natural processes that govern the transfer of energy, the movement of air, the erosion of the earth, and the hydrologic cycle."

Anne Whiston Spirn, “City and Nature,” in Stephen M. Wheeler and Timothy Beatley, eds., The Sustainable Urban Development Reader (London: Routledge, 2004), 115.

Comfort care

The AMA, the Catholic Church, and those who rely on utilitarian reasoning all support comfort care for those who are near death. The AMA sees it as reflecting a physician's duty to provide care in relieving pain even when there is no cure. The Catholic Church acknowledges that comfort care may hasten death, but points out that the intent is to reduce suffering and not to cause death. Utilitarians argue that comfort care will likely have more beneficial than adverse consequences for a patient and also for the patient's family than extraordinary efforts to sustain life. (And it will cost a lot less, too, which is relevant not only for utilitarian reasoning, but also for Catholic teaching, as cost is one of the factors that distinguishes extraordinary care, which is not a moral duty, from ordinary care, which is.)

Those who affirm a human right to health care would include the right to comfort care, but rights language is more commonly used to defend the right to die by declining life-support or the right to die with dignity by means of physician-assisted suicide (which is now legal in the states of Oregon and Washington). The Catholic Church defends the human right to health care, but opposed any notion of a right to die for it involves the intention to end life. But utilitarians might well support both the right to die and physician-assisted suicide, arguing that ensuring these rights is justified because more good consequences than not will likely be the result.

Love and marriage

Common sense about marriage may finally triumph. There is no evidence that same-sex couples are a danger to society. In fact, all those who believe marriage is a celebration not only of love but of fidelity should rejoice that couples in same-sex relationships share this commitment. For it is fidelity in love that sustains families and, through families, the bonds of community.

As for God, I'm sure She is smiling. How silly we humans are to think that we can confine the gift of love to heterosexual relationships. The grace of God is more abundant that we can imagine.

With hope...Bob