A. Scott Loveless J.D., Ph.D.

The family today, even the concept or idea of what family is or what it should be, lies at the center of some volatile social controversies.  Political rhetoric abounds on both sides.  The following statements, which most of us likely recognize, are paraphrased from innumerable drafts and resolutions in United Nations deliberations and from opinion columns, news articles, legal briefs, and law reviews.

Many in this audience are well acquainted with the nature of the political battles spawned by these drastically divergent viewpoints.  Often the political posturing and judicial strategizing seem like endless rounds in a fight designed to erase the natural family from the world stage.  How is it, we wonder, that influential people claiming rationality as the base of their ideas would reduce complex and vital social issues to simple legal proposals and formulas that often disregard millennia of human tradition and experience?  Why does “progress” elude both sides of these issues?  Why does compromise seem unlikely and insufficient?

Part of the answer becomes evident with a closer look at the statements I just read.  First of all, each statement from a given viewpoint is related to the other statements within that viewpoint; they do not represent five separate positions on five separate issues.  Yet, besides the fact that any action taken on these issues will greatly impact the family, what distinguishes one set of statements from the other?  It is not simply a difference of opinion.  Nor is the distinction based in politics or lifestyle or even religion.  I propose that the fundamental difference between these viewpoints lies in each side’s moral reasoning – the thinking each employs to define, perceive, and motivate action on discerning right from wrong. 

The moral reasoning behind each group of statements establishes a world view, a Weltanschauung, for its adherents.  Interestingly, in the above statements what one side defines as an ultimate moral good --  the should -- is precisely what the other defines as immoral and ultimately wrong – the should not.  On the question of abortion, for example, to say that life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception cannot be reconciled with a viewpoint that allows such life to be taken at the sole discretion of the pregnant woman who would be wronged if denied that “human right.”  In other words, the moral viewpoints represented on this issue are diametrically opposed.  What one side might consider a compromise, the other would consider an affront.  There is no middle ground.

In light of this, the purpose of my presentation today is twofold:  First, I will describe the moral reasoning behind each set of statements above and discuss the implications of supporting one viewpoint over the other in hopes of providing a new perspective from which to discern between and evaluate these irreconcilable paradigms, so ubiquitous in today’s political discussions.  Second, I will show how distinguishing between these moralities can aid each of us in our work to preserve the natural family.  Specifically, I will address what doing so means for parents, for concerned citizens, for social scientists, and for government officials.

Two Mutually Exclusive Moral Systems

In short, the critical thread that unites each set of statements above is their differing assumptions about the nature of the individual and how individuals should view and treat one another.  Allow me to explain each of these moralities in more detail.

Constructed/Relative Morality

The first group of statements (left column above) assumes that all people necessarily act out of self-interest.  Because it is impossible to know another person’s true thoughts and needs, no other possibility exists.  However, one’s self-interest should ideally take into account the human rights of others and should allow as many people as possible to live a satisfying life.  According to this morality, the most effective tool for doing so is rationality, that is, the human capacity to study an issue to discover the most reasonable course of action given the variables of the situation.  This viewpoint rejects the idea of “natural law” or a natural order with unavoidable consequences governing human choices.  Instead, it relies on human beings to come together in a spirit of reason and compromise to ensure social order.  Because the moral reasoning behind this viewpoint originates with the right of each person to autonomously pursue self-interest, it also must rely on the establishment of laws that prevent people from trampling one another in their various self-interested pursuits.  Rather narrow, specific values, such as equality, respect for diversity (tolerance), and/or privacy, thus become the means for people to enjoy equal opportunity for happiness, and the human choice between right and wrong involves a willingness to conform to these norms as adopted into law.  Under this view of morality, law becomes both the defining element of morality as well as the enforcement mechanism.  I will refer to this viewpoint as constructed/relative morality because it assumes the rightness of allowing an enlightened group of people to dictate a code of conduct which, due to its very nature, can change over time.  It tends to focus on society’s responsibility (rather than everyone’s personal responsibility), to ensure one’s right to some viewpoint or behavior. While it recognizes a duty to refrain from serious wrongs against others such as murder, theft, and mayhem, the current iteration tends not to perceive sexuality and related matters (such as marriage and childbirth in particular) as involving any wider sense of obligation or duty beyond the personal gratification involved.  Thus, they seek to create laws to define and create the good, desirable human society as they define it.

By contrast, the second group of statements (right-hand column) assumes that morality requires a sacrifice of oneself on behalf of other people.  It also assumes that doing so is the “natural” way to live the moral life, i.e. by living in compliance with a natural order that cannot be escaped.  In other words, when we treat another person as worthy of personal sacrifice, the consequences will ultimately be the building of trust, confidence, and harmony between people.  If, however, we treat another person as if they don’t matter, the consequences will ultimately take the form of mistrust, alienation and estrangement, and can sometimes become tragic.  The moral reasoning behind this viewpoint, then, suggests that choosing right over wrong involves a personal concern for others as if their well-being were part of one’s own well-being.  Hereafter I will refer to this viewpoint as natural/relational morality because it is grounded in human relationships within a natural order.

To further understand this moral stance, ponder how each of us has multiple roles in life.  I am an American citizen, a husband, a father to eight wonderful children, a grandfather, a son, a son-in-law, a lawyer, a trained social scientist, a teacher, a friend, an employee, a co-worker, and as of today, a speaker and visitor in Poland.  Whether we are aware of it or not, each of these roles represents at least one human relationship.  To some people, I will never be more than someone they passed on the highway.  To others, I will have frequent interactions for a period of time, only to have life take us in different directions – some never again to cross paths, a few to become lifelong friends.  To my mother and sisters, my early family life established permanent ties, and I still sometimes long to talk with my father, now deceased for more than 40 years.  To one person, my wife, I have committed everything I am or ever hope to be.  To our children, my wife and I have given life itself, as well as love, sustenance, security, comfort, and training in preparation for their own paths through life. 

It was not difficult to become a son and brother.  It happened with no effort on my part.  However, to become a devoted son and a loving brother required steadily increasing levels of commitment.  As I have matured I have noticed a direct, seemingly mathematical relationship between the closeness of a human relationship and the amount of effort involved in keeping it healthy – the closer the relationship, the more effort and sacrifice it seems to take.  To the person I pass on the highway, I can meet any obligation I may have by simply staying out of her way and obeying the traffic rules.  To my co-workers, I can maintain a friendly, cooperative relationship by fulfilling my responsibilities and assignments in a pleasant manner.  But maintaining happy family relationships has required a quantum leap in relational commitment and emotional work.  In other words, the closer the relationship, the greater is the level of personal responsibility required to maintain it in a healthy condition.

The full dimension of this relational quality is illustrated by the following story I read in a newspaper account some years ago.  A young Hispanic family had gone for a stroll together one evening on a walking path along a golf course adjacent to a swamp in Florida.  Suddenly, an alligator lunged from the tall grass at the side of the walkway, grabbed their 5-year-old son in its jaws, and began dragging him into the water.  Instantly, reflexively, the boy’s mother leaped onto the alligator, fought the animal’s mouth open, and released her son.  The alligator, probably in shock, fled into the swamp while the mother and son struggled back to dry ground.  The boy was injured, but safe.

Let’s look more closely at this mother’s stunningly courageous act.  The American alligator is a cousin to the South American caiman and the African crocodile, perhaps somewhat smaller than the largest Australian crocodiles.  It can break a person’s leg with one swipe of its powerful tail; its jaws and teeth can end a person’s life in a matter of seconds.  Why did this mother do what she did?  It was certainly not in her self-interest to throw herself at the alligator.

To my knowledge, no law has ever required anyone to risk life or limb to assist a person in peril when to do so would place oneself in danger.  That is, no law established by parliaments or legislatures.  This mother did not risk her life out of a feeling of duty or even of personal responsibility.  She took this action because she cared about her son, and not in an abstract way.  The attack on the boy was nothing less than an attack on her.  I strongly suspect that in her mind she experienced no clear moment of decision.  Rather, her action was instinctive, irresistible, because of the emotional bond of care and love that existed between her and her son.  At that moment, she and her son were “one.” 

Dorothy Lee, an anthropologist who studied numerous indigenous American and Polynesian cultures, contrasts the deep sense of the independent “self” found in our culture with a more “open” sense of self evident in many primitive cultures.  Within these cultures a oneness between people is a lived reality of daily life.  People live with a concept that assumes their relatedness to everyone else in their village.  “In such societies,” she writes, “though the self and the other are differentiated, they are not mutually exclusive.  The self contains some of the other, participates in the other, and is in part contained within the other.  By this I do not mean what usually goes under the name of empathy.  I mean rather that where such a concept of the self is operative, self-interest and other-interest are not clearly distinguished; so that what I do for my own good is necessarily also good for my unit, the surround, whether this is my family, my village, my tribe . . . .”[1]

In cultures where this conception of personhood is lived, the personal is not separate from other people in anything.  There is no genuinely “private behavior” because the effects of one’s actions on other people, even in relatively minor matters, is both assumed and valued.  Responsibility toward others is taught and highly prized, but more significantly, acting from a sense of responsibly toward others is seen as acting in one’s own best self-interest, because one is inherently part of those others.  Similarly, developing one’s own talents is emphasized, not to distinguish oneself from others, but to improve one’s contributions to the group.  Lee points out that entire societies and cultures can be premised on this foundational conception of social relatedness. 

This view of morality—that potentially all of our individual actions are undertaken in the unavoidable context of a larger web of human relationships, and that morality is a matter of accepting personal responsibility for one’s relationships with other people, close or remote, has an amazingly lengthy and successful history.  In fact, every major world religion, those on which successful, long-term cultures have been based, urge people toward a similar concept of morality.  Christianity teaches, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12), and also that each should “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 19:19), a teaching drawn from Judaism (Leviticus 19:18).  Confucianism teaches, “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others” (Analects of Confucius 15:23).  Islam teaches, “Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” (Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13). Jainism teaches, “Aman should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated” (Sutrakritanga 1.11.33).  Hinduism teaches, “This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517).  Judaism teaches, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a).  Buddhism teaches, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (Udanavarga 5:18).  Zoroastrianism teaches, “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self” (Dadistan-i Dinik 94:5).  Bahai teaches, “Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself” (Tablets of Baha’u’llah 71:26).  And Sikhism teaches, “Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone” (Guru Arjan Dev 259, Guru Granth Sahib).[2] 

In sum, those who see the world in terms of natural/relational morality begin with a premise of responsibility for their decisions and choices in their effects on other people, even to the point of living in a perceived oneness with others, doing no intentional harm to anyone, and beyond this and ideally, seeking to be of assistance and benefit to others.  This view assumes that there are objective ideals to strive for in life and that we can be held accountable for our choices.  It perceives these principles as being established by nature itself, and as having consequences to their violation.        

The Choice Between Two Opposing Moral Systems

It would be easy to assume, as much political discussion does, that natural/relational morality is “religious” at base and constructed/relative morality is not; in other words, that I am simply contrasting a religious point of view with a secular one.  I contest this point.  While most of the world’s religions do indeed espouse the ideas and ideals of natural/relational morality, so do many people who claim no religious faith or affiliation – people who sense that human beings share a kinship by virtue of their biological relatedness and their ability to reason and care about others.  As John Humphrey, for example, the first director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights noted, “There is something, which we have learned to call the Christian ethic . . . without which life is mean and egotistical. . . .  What we need is something like the Christian morality without the tommyrot.”[3]  James Q. Wilson,[4] to take but one more example, has noted that conscience, a sense of obligation and concern for others, is a natural part of our human heritage, a “sixth sense” quite literally, which at least moderates our baser inclinations and at best ennobles us. 

In my view, the first moral perspective of constructed/relative morality – that seeking good is premised on the express individuality of people rather than on their inherent connectedness – is its fundamental error, making arguments built upon it suspect.  Since adherents to this moral viewpoint see happiness as arising not from their responsible actions within their human relationships, but mainly in having their personal desires satisfied, they tend to redefine longstanding ideas of ideals like justice or fairness or tolerance in order to claim acceptance for desires that are historically recognized as dangerous to society.  In fact, they deny the existence of objective human ideals completely, relying instead on redefined ideas of equality (applying it to lifestyle and outcome rather than opportunity and responsibility) to demand equal respect before the law for their preferred activities.

Unlike natural/relational morality, which claims that right and wrong exist independently of law, this alternative view of the world perceives right and wrong as fluid or “socially constructed,” necessarily defined by humans as their skills and needs change (and supposedly develop).  This leads to another underlying assumption that eventually undermines the ability to maintain peace: that right and wrong are arbitrary because they can be whatever we decide to make them.  Instead of using law to establish a floor for negative behavior, advocates of constructed/relative morality rely on law both to create and then to enforce their vision of society.

While peace and respectful human interaction are still stated goals, even the talismanic idea of “human rights” is massaged and altered to fit their moral vision.  Human rights are not seen as existing independently in nature, but as being devised by people to create the kind of world they desire.  Thus, a third basic premise of this view of morality is that traditional morality, what I have called natural/relational morality, is morally corrupt because it elevates some lifestyles and calls others wrong or “sinful,” even actions that are entirely legal.  Such practices, they say, are “discriminatory,” even wrong, and should be eliminated in society.

Government and law can be fully consistent with natural/relational morality, but can never replace it.  Although such a government is powerless to force people to higher levels of natural/relational morality, such as the mother who saved her son from the alligator, it can and should preserve the conditions that enable religions and families to teach, adopt, and live such principles.  We should be skeptical of government as a solution to all human problems, recognizing that government is just people, fallible people, with a measure of power.

Moving Forward by Differentiating Between the Two Moralities

If my representation of the moral reasoning behind today’s political posturing is essentially correct, then being able to discern between these two moralities should provide a positive impetus in our work to support the natural family.  Let me briefly describe what it could mean to this work, and how various actors might cooperate to effect positive change.

What We Can Do as Parents

For parents, more is at stake than simply choosing a desirable method of childrearing.   The family is the first and the most natural training ground for natural/relational morality, and an enormous power for good can come from simply rearing the next generation to live by the principles of natural/relational morality.  Such a generation will strengthen the natural family wherever they live and work.  Giving children a conscious awareness of the daily choices they face and of the vital importance of making correct choices can both inform and protect them. 

Interestingly, my 32 years as a father have taught me that whatever else I attempt to teach my children, moral training is unavoidable.  It is the natural process, experienced by every new human being, of discovering how to discern or ignore the true feelings and needs of others.  Whether or not I am conscious of it, my guidance – or lack of guidance – will influence their choices between the two moralities.  For example, two different fathers may decide to teach their sons to help their mothers with chores.  One may do so by establishing strict rules about when chores are done and by inflicting punishment when the son forgets or avoids his work.  The other father may never do more than wash dishes with his son on a regular basis, making sure to mention from time to time how much work the boy’s mother does daily on behalf of the family and how every family member should feel a duty to share in the work that is necessary for the family to thrive.  Both sons would likely grow up being helpful to their mothers, but their motivations might differ considerably, as would their abilities to relate to their mothers’ (and others’) needs. 

Like many parents, I have been both fathers in this little example as I have learned from repeated personal experience that, ultimately, joy flows from my willingness to nurture meaningful relationships with people, sometimes by inconveniencing myself.  If natural morality is indeed relational – fundamentally a matter of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions in regard to others by, first, doing no harm and, next, striving to assist or benefit them – then making it a priority to discover how to open the eyes and minds and hearts of our children to this way of life will both bring them joy and make much of the world a better experience for all.

What We Can Do as Concerned Citizens

Distinguishing between natural/relational morality and constructed/relative morality can greatly simplify our work as concerned citizens in our various communities.  Instead of feeling overwhelmed with the prospect of fighting battles on several fronts – from abortion to euthanasia – we can grasp how these various family issues are related to a larger struggle of competing moral systems.  Individuals may find it easier to select one part of the struggle to concentrate on, a part that requires their knowledge or talents.

In addition, it becomes easier to define the kind of influence one desires to have in the community, and it may also help in narrowing a choice of work to one area.  For example, parents who do not consciously choose to teach natural/relational morality may find that schools, sports teams, and other places where their children spend a good deal of time may be making the decision for them, as constructed/relative morality has become the norm in most institutions.  It wouldn’t be difficult to devote a life’s worth of work to the local educational system or to organizations that strengthen parenting skills, for instance.  For those who cannot get involved to such a degree, our everyday dealings with school boards, libraries, even local elections of organizational or government officials will be improved by our awareness of the vital importance of the norms established by society’s choice of a moral system.

What We Can Do as Social Scientists

The family is the first and the most natural training ground for natural /relational morality, yet this concept of morality is largely overlooked or ignored in the dominant academic theories for both childrearing and family therapy.  There is a need for social scientists willing to consider natural/relational morality as a viable alternative to self-interest and the behavior problems that often follow.  In particular, social scientists and other scholars doing research on topics that may be related to the natural family should understand that most research assumes a morality, often the constructed/relative morality, when designing surveys or interpreting data.  I would like to suggest that, in order to understand the truth of any issue related to family issue, personal moral philosophy should be considered as a variable, not ignored or simply assumed as a given.  Only then will we be able to compare the results of people or governments employing radically different approaches to social norms.

What We Can Do as Government Representatives

We often hear in modern political discourse the concept that no single value system should be imposed through law on people who do not believe in that value system.[5]  An important step for government officials is to realize that this statement is itself a values statement.  Words like “should” and “should not” indicate that a moral judgment, an assumption of rightness or wrongness, is being expressed from within some moral philosophy or system.  Considering the plausibility of the two competing moralities described above means recognizing that  the adoption of laws that supposedly make all value systems equal is as much an imposition of values on those who may have valid reasons to disagree as is a system that specifies criteria for right and wrong and accordingly prizes some conduct, tolerates others, and penalizes still others. 

Law, by its very nature, enforces some conception of right and wrong – and therefore of morality – on society.  Thus lawmakers in particular, as well as officials who assist them in selecting, interpreting, and enforcing the law, are incessantly making decisions that support one form of morality over the other.  Instead of seeking a supposed neutral ground that does not exist, government officials should at least become aware that a choice of moral systems does exist, that the ability to identify one in relation to the other is important, and that one (natural/relational morality) supports the natural family while the other (constructed/relative morality) tends to undermine it, even while attempting to solve its problems.  Since the two systems now under debate on the world stage are diametrically opposed to one another, a nation’s choice of one or the other will eventually have dramatically different effects on the long-term prosperity, stability, security, and even the freedom of its citizens.  It is therefore better for a country to make a conscious and informed choice of the moral system on which its laws are constructed, than to adopt an artificially constructed morality by default or because of international “peer pressure.”

My recommendation is that countries and international organizations expressly adopt a policy which both recognizes natural/relational morality as the moral foundation for its laws and for the interpretation of those laws.  Otherwise, in one generation or two, a country choosing otherwise may well wish it had done so.

Thank you.

Endnotes:

[1]  Lee, Dorothy.  (1976). Valuing the Self: What We Can Learn from Other Culutures.  Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, pp. 11-12.

[2] I am indebted for most of this collection of religious citations to remarks made by Elder Russell M. Nelson to the International Scientific and Practical Conference on “Religious Freedom: Transition and Globalization” in Kiev, Ukraine, 27 May 2004.  http://www.lds.org/newsroom/voice/display/1,18255,5004-1-121,00.html  (last accessed October 6, 2004.)  A similar collection is found in the appendix to C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, where Lewis refers to this uniformity of thought as being consistent with the Tao of nature, i.e. consistent with the “natural law” that different consequences flow from different kinds of actions towards others.

[3] On the Edge of Greatness: The Diaries of John Humphrey, First Director of the United Nations Division of Human Rights, (Vol. 1: 1948-49) at 39 (cited in Scott FitzGibbon, The Formless City of Plato’s Republic, chapter in The family in the new millennium, (Vol. 3) at ______, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007).

[4] James Q. Wilson (1993) The moral sense. Los Angeles: Plenum Press.

[5] In the United States this argument is usually couched in the context of a “separation of Church and State,” a judicially adopted doctrine stemming from the provision in the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First Amendment, first clause).