Bishop Barron on Gay Marriage & the Breakdown of Moral Argument

Summary

The 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

• 📚 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.
• 🚩 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.
• 🤔 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.
• 🏳️‍🌈 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.
• 🇨🇦 In Canada, expressing a moral argument against gay marriage can lead to legal problems, indicating a societal shift towards penalizing moral dissent.
• 📊 The speaker criticizes the reliance on poll numbers to determine moral rightness, arguing that majority opinion does not equate to moral truth.
• ⏳ 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.
• 💖 The 'sentimentalizing' of moral issues, such as gay marriage, is critiqued for leading to emotional appeals rather than rational arguments based on moral principles.
• 👨‍👦‍👦 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.
• 🤝 The script calls for clear and serious moral arguments rather than obfuscating issues that prevent genuine engagement with ethical questions.
• 🌫️ 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

00:00

🗣️ 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.

05:01

🏳️‍🌈 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.

Keywords

💡Moral conversation

Moral conversation refers to a dialogue focused on ethical issues and principles. In the video, it is lamented that society has lost the capacity for coherent moral discussions due to diverse assumptions, leading to a lack of common vocabulary and concepts. This is exemplified by the inability to engage in serious debate on moral issues such as gay marriage, instead resorting to accusations of bigotry or discrimination.

💡Assumptions

Assumptions are the presuppositions or beliefs that guide one's understanding and approach to a topic. The video discusses how diverse assumptions have led to a breakdown in moral conversation, as people no longer share a common ground from which to discuss ethical questions, resulting in a failure to understand each other's viewpoints.

💡Coherent argument

A coherent argument is one that is logically structured and persuasive. The script points out that the capacity for coherent moral arguments has been lost, with people now resorting to name-calling and labeling rather than engaging in meaningful debate, as illustrated by the reaction to moral arguments about gay marriage.

💡Discrimination

Discrimination refers to unjust treatment or consideration of a person based on their group membership, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. In the context of the video, it is highlighted that making a moral argument about issues like gay marriage is often met with accusations of discrimination, which stifles open discussion.

💡Poll numbers

Poll numbers represent the results of public opinion surveys and are used to gauge societal views on various topics. The video criticizes the reliance on poll numbers to determine moral rightness, arguing that majority opinion does not necessarily equate to moral correctness, as historically demonstrated with attitudes towards slavery and the use of atomic bombs.

💡Moral rectitude

Moral rectitude is the quality of being morally correct or justifiable. The script argues that poll numbers do not inform us about moral rectitude, suggesting that moral truth is not determined by popular opinion but by ethical principles and arguments.

💡Sentimentalizing

Sentimentalizing refers to the act of treating serious issues with excessive emotion or personal bias, rather than rational consideration. The video describes how the issue of gay marriage has been sentimentalized, with personal connections to gay individuals influencing opinions more than logical arguments or ethical considerations.

💡Gay marriage

Gay marriage is the legally recognized union of two individuals of the same sex. It serves as a central topic in the video, illustrating the broader issue of the breakdown in moral conversation and the challenges of discussing ethical issues in a polarized society.

💡Bigot

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of others' opinions or beliefs, especially on issues related to race, religion, or sexual orientation. In the video, the term is used to describe how individuals who oppose gay marriage are often labeled, which reflects the difficulty in having a nuanced moral discussion.

💡Hate speech

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The script mentions that in some contexts, moral arguments against gay marriage are equated with hate speech, further illustrating the challenges in engaging in open moral debate.

💡Cultural breakdown

Cultural breakdown refers to the deterioration of shared values, norms, and the ability to communicate effectively within a society. The video suggests that a cultural breakdown is evident in the inability to have serious moral arguments, as people are more likely to resort to personal attacks than engage with opposing viewpoints.

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