Freedom and Equality
Spanish Parliament passed a law allowing gay marriage, the adoption of children and the passing on of wealth. Good for Spain. The traditionally conservative Catholic country passing a vote in this direction (a movement made for Socialist Reform more than likely) is interesting. What sort of ramifications will this decision have for Belgium or for the Netherlands is yet to be seen, though it is interesting to witness. According to supporters of gay marriage, the passing of this law was an act of freedom and of equality, the very fabric of the West. It is amazing to me that when people seek freedom and equality, that many places in the world, America for me, can be very stingy about who freedom and equality apply to. America was founded upon such a premise, though contingent upon whom it applied. To deny freedom and equality to some and grant it to others seems irresponsible, and contributes to discrimination.
posted by Timcom at 11:30 AM
5 Comments:
Freedom and equality are so widely considered good that it is easy to forget that they are merely part of the value system our culture has inculcated upon us. What makes us morally superior to a culture that relies on slavery?
Your assertion that the West is founded upon these two ideals is not manifestly true, at least to me. Neither Romans, Greeks, nor Hebrews ever could claim anything approaching freedom, let alone equality. The Democracy of Athens was so obviously limited that it hardly bears consideration. The period following the fall of the Roman Empire is certainly not short in human rights violations. In fact, as far as I know the first two serious attempts at any sort of systematic equality and freedom occured in France and America. As interesting as the French Revolution was, I think few would consider it a success. That leaves stingy old America. Of course, we have attempted to spread our culture's value system to the four corners of the earth, but, in the eyes of many thinkers, such efforts are unethical. Perhaps instead of celebrating Spain's newfound freedom and equality, we should mourn the destruction of its culture.
hnmmm...
This is a very erratic response and more just a stream of thought. Sorry.
Freedom and security (and more recently political equality) are very common themes in history. Equality seems to derive from the two in very different, very dynamic ways. What do people really want in a country? Protection? Oh yes? A voice? Yes? But depending upon historical circumstances, whether people choose to rely more on those governments who offer freedom or those who offer security is very interesting.
Perhaps the way we see and define freedom and equality are products of enculturation, but the notions are not specific to our culture.
Equality (for women, for gays, etc) is now a feasible possibility. When human beings were mainly nomadic, then settled into areas when agriculture was discovered, 'equality' was scarce a notion coined. Why? Because people didn't have time to debate who had more rights. The sexes, based upon physiological make-up had certain key tasks that made living possible. Women had children and thus were incapable of doing much when they carried babies. Men became more accustomed with markets, with trading, etc that gave them an interesting position of power. Though women's tasks were also most important around the dwelling.
My point is that because our culture is mobile and relies on a concept of freedom, because women are just as capable as men (in many circumstances better) at doing key jobs specific to a traditionally male-dominated role, they have the possibility to live as equals to men. Is this cultural? A tougher question. Our culture allows this to be possible, but is it cultural?
Equality is a term employed by gays/lesbians, feminist activists, striking union workers, etc...It has become a political term, much derived from the western notion of freedom. The main idea is liberation. Something done now, not tomorrow, not the next day. When I think of these activists I oftentimes think of the endeavors of liberation theologians. Gays and women, given cultural standards argue that they should have equal rights. Is what is traditionally accepted the right course of action, the right values, the right way of thinking? Liberation makes us question right and wrong.
Freedom is not necessarily a value specific to our culture, though the meaning we give it is. In fact, I find freedom to be understood much better in light of justice, which I do find to be very valuable. Though western justice does not always ring true, nor represent a true idea of justice...
The O.J. Simpson trial...was he guilty? Probably. But was his courtcase really about whether he was guilty or not? The case was about a black man finally overcoming the legal system, which whites had been doing for years. The rejoicing that followed from the black community was about just that: someone black beating the system. Justice? From a certain point of view. A trial based upon a foundation of freedom? More than likely. This begs the question, 'What is just...' and does America really care? Is choosing a seemingly injust course of action always injust? (A relative ethics is always a possibility...)
As you pointed out, our culture instills in us a particular view of freedom...but when a person lives in a country that provides protection, a country in which that person has a voice, then a person has the power to claim that he has the same rights as another man or woman. Is it just to assume human autonomy and consider equality? Culturally, and in accordance with tradition, perhaps true freedom and equality could not be achieved.
Aside: [When reading the Bible, picking out the cultural inclusions from those distinctly Christian are interesting. After comparing a list of vices from the Bible to those in other cultural passages the lists are identical. What is the point of the list: perhaps to catch the attention of a particular audience at a particular time rather than to suggest a universal list of vices that should always be taken literally. Is it literally acceptable for Christians today?]
Gays have been fighting for liberation because of what they believe is injust within the culture (and perhaps it is). Being gay (homosexual) has been on a list of cultural vices since before the Bible was written, probably because it didn't provide any children in which were vital for the survival of the society. What would be its natural purpose? Who knows. It was weird. Anything weird is obviously wrong, right? Anything that puts us out of our comfort zone...like some of my blogs. It must be wrong. Some art must be kept out of schools I guess...
There is a debate on whether or not a person's sexual preference is biological, but ultimately it comes down to a choice, right? I would agree. But we don't punish a straight person's choice to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why punish a homosexual's choice to marry another man? It's hard to criticize a person for making a choice, when our choices are not so perfect. When our individual security is threatened by someone else's freedom, there's a formula for disaster. This balance of freedom and security is vital for a country's survival.
Why did Greece and Rome fall? Frankly, the security of the Greeks became an illusion, a source of too much pride. Rome, well, was similar. Its foundation of yeomen farmers was kept though the city became corrupt -- the wealthier grew wealthier and the poor grew poorer. Power was something generals fought over. The freedom began to outweigh security at its borders and Rome was eventually sacked. Sure, these are brief explanations, but it illustrates my point that freedom and security, with its derivation of equality are not current ideas.
The destruction you speak of can be said of a thousand cultures all over the world who change all the time. Homosexuality is not necessarily cultural. It exists in most cultures, in some legalized; in some not. This destruction you speak of may be so, but it may not be. Perhaps the culture has realized its traditional error. It may be that they have figured out that the world is in fact round and not flat (at least in this case, morally, or perhaps politically).
Don't be mistaken. I am not criticizing cultures that do not adhere to the findings of science in any way, because each has much to offer, but I am suggesting that cultures are not always right; I am suggesting that cultures are always in process, always searching for truth. Maybe the passing of the law in Spain is a move towards truth...
Systematic freedom is typical of the west, because everything always has to be explained and categorized (lovely Baconian legacy). So I agree with you about systematic freedom, but I think freedom is much more complicated and deeply embedded in the history of peoples as I have already stated.
Perhaps I am misreading your comments about freedom and equality, but it sounds like you are making the case that these impulses are caused by natural impulses within society. It almost seems that you have added legitimacy to the ideas by connecting them to natural developements in human culture. However, in the history books I have read, the developements in human culture are seldom natural or beneficial. The very impulses of freedom and equality do not necessarily result in actual cultural improvements. Although you have asserted that ethics have the characteristics of plastic, your ideas of justice do seem to be based upon universal equality and freedom. What kind of justice system upholds only the individual's right to make choices? I can choose to eat bran flakes or human flesh for breakfast. One would be a good choice and the other a bad choice. Even though canabalism is my preference and, perhaps, also my genetic disposition, surely it would be just to restrict my freedom in this case. Of course, this is where our desire for security comes into play. Perhaps government should generally leave people alone unless they harm others through their actions. Many Biblical laws are based upon such a precept. The obvious question that this raises is whether sexual practices do harm others. This is a question I have not completely answered for myself. At this point, I will, however, make the observation that the sexual revolution of the 1960's seems to have done little other that propigate STD's and undermine the traditional family. By the latter statement, I mean that the traditional family unit is rapidly being replaced. Furthermore, it seems that a sutable replacement has not been found, though I am certainly open to suggestions.
Freedom and equality are only lenses through which to look at the historical and seemingly cyclical nature of civilizations. They are not natural and I apologize for being unclear. However, historically, freedom and security seem to be underlying issues that make and/or break a nation. Perhaps the political definition of freedom is more a result of western culture, but I am referring to it as a term aside from its cultural connotation of the present.
The metaphor presented in the previous entry is not accurately analogous to the point I am trying to make.
2 Comments:
1: There are some universal ethics that people will agree on and then there are situations where a universal ethics will not hold up.
2: To assume that one cannot have a universal ethics in some cases and relative in others is to assume that logical paradox cannot ever be accurate. Though I find Christianity to be very logically paradoxical.
The metaphor used establishes that even though genetics or personal choice leans more towards cannibalism, it needs to be thwarted...but further...it needs to be thwarted because of the culture we live in. In another culture cannibalism might mean the difference between survival or death.
Obviously cannibalism should be restricted in our nation...but it's because of government that we as people don't destroy each other (not only because of our genetic disposition to eat other people). The issue concerning government seems to me to be a privacy issue to which I won't get into...that would take pages and pages of chicken scratch.
Good thoughts...
Post a Comment
<< Home