Bishop Barron on Gay Marriage & the Breakdown of Moral Argument
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre's concern over the loss of coherent moral discourse in the West. It highlights Justice Elena Kagan's statement on moral arguments raising discrimination flags, suggesting an inability to engage in serious debate. The speaker criticizes the labeling of moral opponents as bigots, the reliance on poll numbers to determine moral rightness, and the sentimentalization of moral issues, such as gay marriage, instead of logical argumentation. The script emphasizes the need for genuine moral dialogue in our culture.
Takeaways
- đ Alasdair MacIntyre laments the loss of coherent moral discourse in the West, highlighting the inability to engage in ethical discussions due to diverse assumptions and a lack of common vocabulary.
- đ© Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's statement about moral arguments triggering a 'red flag of discrimination' illustrates the immediate dismissal of moral arguments without serious consideration.
- đ€ The speaker points out the inconsistency of using moral language to object to moral arguments, suggesting a deeper issue with how we approach moral discussions.
- đłïžâđ The fear among Christians about the issue of gay marriage is highlighted, as opposition is often labeled as bigotry or hate speech without engaging in the underlying moral debate.
- đšđŠ In Canada, expressing a moral argument against gay marriage can lead to legal problems, indicating a societal shift towards penalizing moral dissent.
- đ The speaker criticizes the reliance on poll numbers to determine moral rightness, arguing that majority opinion does not equate to moral truth.
- âł Historical examples are given to show that majority opinion, such as support for dropping atomic bombs in 1945 or acceptance of slavery in the 19th century, does not reflect moral correctness.
- đ The 'sentimentalizing' of moral issues, such as gay marriage, is critiqued for leading to emotional appeals rather than rational arguments based on moral principles.
- đšâđŠâđŠ Personal anecdotes, like a politician's support for gay marriage due to having a gay son, are highlighted as sentimental but not necessarily indicative of a moral stance.
- đ€ The script calls for clear and serious moral arguments rather than obfuscating issues that prevent genuine engagement with ethical questions.
- đ«ïž The video aims to clear away the fog of confusion surrounding moral debates, emphasizing the need for a return to serious and coherent moral argumentation.
Q & A
What does Alasdair MacIntyre lament in his text 'After Virtue'?
-Alasdair MacIntyre laments the loss of the capacity for coherent moral conversation in the West, due to the diversity of assumptions and the lack of a common vocabulary and set of concepts for approaching ethical questions.
What does the speaker find concerning about Justice Elena Kagan's statement regarding moral arguments in the context of the Supreme Court's deliberation on gay marriage?
-The speaker is concerned that Justice Kagan equates any moral argument with the 'red flag of discrimination,' which suggests an inability to engage in serious moral debate and a tendency to label opponents as bigots rather than addressing their arguments.
What is the inconsistency the speaker points out in Justice Kagan's approach to moral arguments?
-The inconsistency is that while Kagan raises the red flag of discrimination at any moral argument, the speaker argues that this itself is a moral objection, which could be seen as discriminatory towards those making moral arguments.
Why are many Christians worried about the issue of gay marriage according to the speaker?
-Many Christians are worried because those who voice opposition to gay marriage are often characterized as bigots or engaging in hate speech, rather than being engaged in a serious moral debate.
What does the speaker suggest about the role of poll numbers in determining moral right and wrong?
-The speaker suggests that poll numbers, while interesting sociologically or politically, do not inherently tell us about what is morally right or wrong, as majorities can be morally repugnant and minorities can be morally correct.
What historical examples does the speaker provide to illustrate the irrelevance of poll numbers to moral rectitude?
-The speaker provides the examples of the public opinion on dropping atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 and the acceptance of slavery in the early 19th century, both of which were widely accepted but morally questionable.
What does the speaker mean by the 'sentimentalizing of moral issues'?
-The speaker refers to the tendency to make moral judgments based on sentiment or personal connections, rather than logical arguments or principles, such as supporting gay marriage because one knows good gay people.
Why does the speaker criticize politicians who support gay marriage based on personal connections to gay individuals?
-The speaker criticizes this because it sentimentalizes the issue and does not provide a substantive moral argument for why gay marriage should be supported; it only shows personal affection.
What does the speaker aim to achieve by discussing these issues in the video?
-The speaker aims to clear away the fog and obfuscating issues that prevent a clear understanding and serious discussion of the arguments surrounding moral debates, such as the one on gay marriage.
Why does the speaker choose not to make a moral argument for or against gay marriage in the video?
-The speaker chooses not to make a moral argument in this video to focus on the broader issue of the breakdown in moral discourse and the inability to engage in serious moral arguments, which is the central theme of the script.
Outlines
đŁïž The Erosion of Coherent Moral Discourse
In this paragraph, the speaker reflects on Alasdair MacIntyre's observations in 'After Virtue' regarding the decline in moral conversation in the West. MacIntyre laments not just the poor state of morals, but the deeper issue of a lost common vocabulary for discussing ethics. The speaker highlights the current state of moral debates, where people often talk past each other or resort to name-calling rather than engaging in meaningful discourse. The paragraph also critiques Justice Elena Kagan's statement about moral arguments in the context of the Supreme Court's deliberation on gay marriage, suggesting a bias against moral arguments as inherently discriminatory. The speaker emphasizes the need for serious moral debate rather than resorting to accusations of bigotry or hate speech, especially when discussing contentious issues like gay marriage.
đłïžâđ The Sentimentalization of Moral Issues
This paragraph delves into the phenomenon of sentimentalizing moral issues, using the example of gay marriage. The speaker acknowledges the positive aspect of more gay individuals coming out and being accepted by society, but criticizes the logical fallacy of equating personal relationships with moral arguments. The paragraph points out that knowing someone who is gay and is a good person does not automatically validate gay marriage as a moral issue. The speaker also addresses the use of personal anecdotes by politicians to support gay marriage, arguing that such sentimental appeals do not constitute a moral argument. The goal of this paragraph is to clear away misconceptions and highlight the importance of engaging in genuine moral debate, rather than relying on sentiment or personal stories.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄMoral conversation
đĄAssumptions
đĄCoherent argument
đĄDiscrimination
đĄPoll numbers
đĄMoral rectitude
đĄSentimentalizing
đĄGay marriage
đĄBigot
đĄHate speech
đĄCultural breakdown
Highlights
Alister McIntyre laments the inability to have a coherent moral conversation due to diverse assumptions and a lack of common vocabulary.
Current moral discussions lead to people talking or screaming past each other rather than engaging in serious arguments.
Justice Elena Kagan's statement suggests a bias against moral arguments, equating them with discrimination.
The speaker points out the inconsistency in using discrimination as an argument against moral arguments themselves.
Christians are worried about being labeled as bigots for opposing gay marriage.
In Canada, expressing a view against gay marriage can lead to legal problems, equating moral arguments with hate speech.
Poll numbers are often misused to determine moral rightness, despite their inability to reflect moral truth.
Historical examples show that majority opinion, as reflected in poll numbers, does not equate to moral correctness.
The speaker argues that moral issues should not be sentimentalized but rather argued based on principles.
Personal relationships with gay individuals should not automatically influence one's stance on gay marriage.
The speaker emphasizes the importance of making and taking moral arguments seriously in culture.
The video aims to clear away misconceptions to better approach and understand moral arguments.
The speaker intentionally does not make a personal argument on gay marriage in this video, leaving it for potential future discussion.
The breakdown in moral discourse is evident in remarks like Kagan's and was predicted by McIntyre.
The speaker criticizes the reliance on poll numbers as a measure of moral correctness.
Sentimental connections should not replace logical arguments in moral discussions.
Transcripts
in his great text after virtue the
philosopher aleister mcintyre
laments not so much the bad state of
morals in in the west though that's true
enough but he laments something deeper
and more fundamental
namely the fact that
we've lost the capacity even to have
a coherent moral conversation
that our assumptions are so diverse
that we've lost a common vocabulary and
set of concepts for even approaching
ethical questions
that we don't argue with each other
we talk past each other
or more likely we scream at each other
about moral issues
well i thought of allister mcintyre's
observation recently when
i read an account of one of the
days when the supreme court was
considering this much vexed issue of gay
marriage
and
justice elena kagan just appointed by by
obama
was quoted as saying this she said
whenever
a lawyer makes a moral observation in a
case such as this
for me the red flag of discrimination
goes up
let's be struck by that because she
didn't say
whenever someone makes a bad moral
argument the red flag of discrimination
goes up it's simply whenever someone
makes a moral argument period
the red flag of discrimination goes up
now i'll lead to the side of fundamental
inconsistency that i'm making a moral
objection discrimination to um a moral
argument you know so i'll leave that to
the side but i'll say this
mcintyre coming to mind
we've lost the capacity even to have a
coherent moral argument so all we can do
is simply
excoriate our opponents as
bigots or practitioners of
discrimination
we don't engage them in a serious
argument or we line up you know points
of view and see who's got it relatively
right but rather we simply excoriate our
opponents
as as
bad people
now this is precisely why an awful lot
of christians are worried around this
issue
because those who voice
any opposition to gay marriage for
example
are usually characterized ipso facto as
bigots
or people simply engaging in hate speech
now if you doubt me on this look
especially at a country like canada
where this has become a very serious
matter of even legal
problems
if someone
expresses publicly a view against gay
marriage
is someone who's making a moral argument
let's say against this emerging
consensus simply engaging in hate speech
or is the person proposing a real
argument
i think that's the breakdown that uh is
evident in a remark like kagan's and it
was predicted very much by aleister
mcintyre
here's another sign of this breakdown
our obsession with poll numbers around
moral issues so on this issue for
example
we hear almost every day that increasing
numbers of americans are supporting uh
gay marriage especially among the young
um here's the thing about poll numbers
poll numbers are interesting
sociologically they might be interesting
politically or psychologically
but in themselves they don't tell us one
little thing
about what's right or wrong go back to
the
year 1945.
if you've taken a poll in our country
let's say in the early summer of 1945
i bet i'd be willing to bet 98 percent
of americans would have said
it's good to drop the atomic bombs on
japan if it brings the war to an end
i think a lot of very good people would
have said yeah go ahead and do it
if it brings this terrible war to
conclusion
that's okay with me
poll numbers would have said well 98 of
americans say it's fine to drop the
atomic bomb on innocent people
or go back even further go back to the
early 19th century
i bet if you've taken a poll of this
country you would have found very few
americans who would have said that
slavery is morally outrageous
i bet most people even north and south
in 1825 would have said no slavery is a
legitimate uh practice and they might
even have appealed to to religious
sources to do it
my point is that poll numbers in
themselves don't tell us much about
moral rectitude
sometimes a lot of people can find
something that's morally repugnant just
fine and sometimes only a tiny handful
can find what's really morally splendid
to be right
and so it's another sign of the mcintyre
problem
here's still another sign of it
what i call the sentimentalizing of
moral issues now especially the issue
that we're looking at now of gay
marriage
what i mean is this
let's say in the past oh 25 30 years
increasing numbers of gay people have
come out of the closet so that now more
and more people recognize their brothers
and uncles and and
friends and so on as gay now please
don't get me wrong i think coming out of
the closet for gay people is a very good
thing i don't think living lives of
self-reproach and discrimination all
that is a good thing
so that in itself i think is is
praiseworthy
but the result of this is that
increasingly people say well
my uncle my brother my cousin is a is a
gay person and they're good people
therefore gay marriage is a good thing
and see that's what doesn't follow
i think you can say in most cases should
say
that
uncle brother cousin etc are good people
but it doesn't follow automatically that
everything a good and decent person does
or wants
is morally right
what happens though is the
sentimentalizing of the issue where we
don't make arguments we have more of a
sentimental
connection
that's why for example
i'm not terribly impressed when
a politician says for example i've
discovered that my son is gay and
therefore i support gay marriage well
again i'm glad i'm very glad that a
politician loves his gay son i think
that's a terrific thing
but it doesn't follow therefore that gay
marriage is necessarily a good thing
when we make that move we've
sentimentalized we haven't
made an argument
now the attentive viewer of this video
will
have noticed that i haven't made that
argument and that's on purpose that
might be for another video
what i want to do though what i wanted
to do in this video was simply clear
away some of the fog
because i find
it's very difficult even to approach
this issue because there's so many
obfuscating issues that prevent us from
really coming to terms with the
arguments and i think a lot of it does
go back to what mcintyre noticed that we
as a culture have a very hard time
engaging in and making and taking
seriously
real moral arguments
you
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)