Accountability Citizenship
Connect with the Author
  • Home
  • Register
  • Blog
  • Bookstore
  • Contact
  • Book Reviews
  • Spotlight

Navigating Right and Wrong

5/7/2018

2 Comments

 
Picture
In tonight's blog, I want to step back from current events for a bit, and focus instead on some tools to help us navigate the issues and choices that are pushed at us each day by a large number of information brokers.  Specifically, tonight, I want to deal with the challenge of navigating right and wrong, especially when different sources conflict with one another and seek to sway your opinion.  I propose a conceptual model that may explain why we disagree about right and wrong, and may offer some tools for resolving our disagreements.

There are some things we can all agree are "right," and there are other things we can all agree are "wrong."  For instance, we probably all agree that the equation "2+2=4" is "right."  And likewise, we can agree that the statement "2+2=5" is "wrong."  But there is also a troubling area of disagreement when we stray from simple statements into more complex realms such as politics, economics, and religion.  We might depict these three regions using a pair of interlocking circles:  a "right" circle, a "wrong" circle, and an area where the circles overlap to represent the realm of disagreement over what is right or wrong.

When we find ourselves in the realm of disagreement, the first question we should ask ourselves is whether all participants in the discussion are using the same standard for "right."  Some of you may react by saying:  "Of course there is only one standard for rightness!"  But that would be wrong.  We can speak of being "right" in the sense of the Unites States Constitution, or in the sense of adhering to some religion or moral theory, or in the sense of being the most practical way to achieve some desired result.  Those three standards for "right" are distinct.  They may agree in some cases, but they certainly conflict in some others. 

Picture
In the case of abortion, for instance, there is a clear disagreement between most Christian religions and the Constitution.  The constitutional standard is given by the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which holds that the mother has the right to terminate her pregnancy.  In general, Christian religions hold that human life begins at conception and one cannot terminate a human life without committing murder.  We cannot expect to arrive at a solution to the question of whether abortion is "right" when we are using two standards that are fundamentally incompatible in this case.  The same constitutional protection for religious freedom that enables the argument from the Christian perspective also supports the rights of people who do not believe in the Christian religion.  

​The common language in this case has to be the Constitution, because it is the only standard for "right" to which all the participants in the discussion can agree.  On Constitutional grounds, the Roe v Wade decision relies on the Fourteenth Amendment to uphold a woman's right to have an abortion during the entire length of her pregnancy, while also allowing room for states to restrict abortions after the first trimester.  The decision was reached with seven justices voting in favor and two justices dissenting.  In the forty-five years since the decision in Roe v Wade, Republicans have been in the majority for forty-three years.  Even with an eight-to-one Republican majority in 1992, the Court upheld the Roe decision (Planned Parenthood v Casey).

​I present the abortion issue here only as an example of a case where there is profound disagreement in our society, and to emphasize that, in such cases, the first step to reaching a settlement or a compromise or a decision is to agree on a common standard for right and wrong.  It is simply not the case that there is only one standard, but it is true that the only standard we all must accept as Americans is the constitutional standard.  So in summary, then, we have arrived at a conceptual framework in which there are areas of broad consensus on what is right and what is wrong, but there is also a troubling realm in which there is significant disagreement over what is right and what is wrong.  And we discover, in this realm, that part of the reason we disagree may be because we are using different standards for what is "right."  In such cases, we must all agree to use the constitutional standard because that is the only standard we have in common as Americans.  Even with the application of the single standard--the Constitution--there is still significant room for disagreement. But the adoption of a common standard is the first tool at our disposal when navigating "right" and "wrong" in the realm of disagreement.

2 Comments
Paul Graziano
5/22/2018 08:51:40 am

This is a very interesting blog post Steve. I agree that the Constitution needs to be the common language for discussion on issues of the day but caution labeling it as the "only standard for 'Right'." The Constitution has provisions for correcting imperfections. The Dred Scott case is a good example of a grievous wrong decided by the Supreme Court of that time, later made right be an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution had many influences as it was being written, the Declaration of Independence being one of them. In describing unalienable rights in that document Thomas Jefferson wrote "...that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those principles are the building blocks of the Constitution. In regards to Roe v. Wade, the court acted upon what was then known about when life begins. Science has advanced the line (or regressed the line, depending on your point of view) as to when human life begins. I wouldn't be surprised to see a future ruling modify Roe v. Wade, otherwise life has less value than liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Reply
Stephen Tryon link
5/29/2018 09:53:13 pm

Ranger Graziano, thanks for your comment. When I said the Constitution was the only standard for 'Right', I should have also made clear that I meant that comment with regard to the Constitution as the system of procedural justice to which we all submit here in the United States. Of course, since it is a system run by humans, it produces UNJUST outcomes sometimes. But procedurally, we all have to agree that what makes a law legitimate in our society is whether the law has been created in accordance with all of the constitutional procedures that go into making (and challenging) laws. Dred Scott is a great example of an outcome that was terribly unjust. It was also a case where the incoming president (Buchanan) colluded illegally with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Taney) to get the ruling he wanted and to get it expedited. I can think of lots of laws and / or supreme court decisions with which I disagree. But I acknowledge the legitimacy of those laws unless and until I can get them changed in accordance with the corrective procedures you mentioned. Our mutual friend, Dr Patrick Byrne, spends several pages on a related discussion in his dissertation (570 pages of densely argued philosophy). He concludes that it is legitimate for individuals to try to get the state to implement laws that coincide with their individual moral beliefs, but that it is not legitimate for the state to implement laws based on moral beliefs not shared by all. In my view, the Constitution extends the set of laws that we as a society consider legitimate by creating a process that we can all accept as morally sound (because, even though no human system will produce perfect laws, the Constitution gives us ample ways to litigate and change laws with which we disagree). As George Washington said, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make am
nd alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Author

    Author of Thy King Dumb Come and Accountability Citizenship, Stephen P. Tryon is a businessman and technologist with extensive experience in e-commerce, a retired Soldier, and former Senate Fellow.

    Register to Win Cool Stuff!

    Archives

    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    July 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    View my profile on LinkedIn
Proudly powered by Weebly