Moral Obscurity Is Not Moral Ambiguity

 

Dore: The Judgement of Solomon

Not all moral issues are clear; ask Solomon the Wise. This is why the moral codes of different religious differ. But be careful: it does not mean that morality is relative, or up for grabs. That is like saying that algebra is meaningless because it is difficult.

Two current examples:

The movie Cuties.

Critics give it an 89% positive rating. Audiences give it 12%. Audiences find it morally depraved: pedophilic pornography. Some say the exhibitors should face prison. The movie critics counter that its message is a lamentation over the sexualization of minors; they consider it an admirably moral movie.

In this case, the real issue is being missed. It is not whether the movie is pedophilia or not. It is whether the end justifies the means.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the answer in paragraph 1753:

A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.

Note that, apart from any other considerations, in order to make the movie, some minors—the eleven-year-old actors—necessarily had to be sexualized. The movie, further, necessarily functions as pornography for any pedophiles who see it.

So the matter is obscure because of this misdirection, but in the end morally clear: the movie Cuties should not be shown. At the same time, those who are in error on the morality should be forgiven rather than lynched.

Quebec’s Bill 21

It is widely popular in Quebec, and universally condemned in English Canada as racist and discriminatory. The bill bans the wearing of religious symbols by public workers “in positions of coercive authority”; and requires the face to be uncovered to receive some government services.

It is not racist. Again, this is missing the real issue. The bill follows established practice in French culture since the nineteenth century. It is understood as an issue of separation of church and state.

It currently affects Sikhs most seriously; but that is not the original intent. It is wrong to think that only Sikhs or Muslims go in for conspicuous religious dress. A Catholic monk or nun or cleric might otherwise conduct government business in their habit. The ritual requirement is parallel. They do not, because they long ago submitted to this requirement.

The bill, and the requirement, therefore does not discriminate among religions.

The problem is that it discriminates between the religious and the non-religious. Although meant to avoid giving government sanction to any particular religion, it actually gives government sanction to secularism, or even atheism.

The only equitable solution is to allow religious garb of all kinds.

And to avoid imputing unworthy motives to the opposition.