Don't change the law, change hearts and minds

Unity

There are aspects of modern life that many of us are unhappy with.  To name a few:

• children watching hours of TV instead of having fun outside with healthy pastimes
• so many marriages ending in divorce
• thousands of abortions of unwanted babies
• easy availability of hardcore pornography which debases women
• the puerile nature of so much that is on TV and radio these days

This post is not about debating the rights and wrongs of any of these, or about discussing worthy exceptions to the rule.  We all already know how we feel about issues like these and where our line of tolerance is drawn.  This post is about, how do we change things?

To take two examples about which most people feel very strongly: abortion and divorce.  I have read in many places of the desire to change the law to severely limit abortion and do away with no-fault divorce.  The motivations behind these calls are understandable and laudable: to give every potential baby a chance of life and to discourage couples from 'throwing away' their marriage too easily.  However, I believe that changing the law is not the answer.  Let me explain.  If you make no-fault divorce illegal do you think that those people who are tired of each other will stay married and work harder to make it work?  They are more likely to claim that one half has been committing adultery, even if they have to pay someone to appear as co-respondent in order to gain their divorce.  Instead of having a situation where people are honestly doing the wrong thing, they are dishonestly doing the wrong thing.

The laws of the time only reflect the values and opinions of the time.  Changing the law will not change what people believe.  You have to make changes to people's hearts and minds first, and then the law will change.

If we want to cut back on the number of abortions, then making abortion illegal won't work.  Women have been aborting for thousands of years whether it's legal or not.  We would be better served to ask why are women aborting and what do we need to do to a) stop women getting pregnant in the first place if they're not ready to have a baby and/or b)encourage them to feel more positive about having the baby that they didn't plan for.  We are wrong if we think that the women who have abortions must shoulder all the guilt.  Society, which created the situationin which these women fell pregnant and those to have an abortion, must take responsibility, and we must all take responsibility for society.

Equally if we outlaw no-fault divorce it won't change anyone's opinion on marriage.  What messages does society send out about marriage that leads to such a high divorce rate?  If we change those messages (and they are many, and contradictory and the least of them is that it's easy to get a divorce) then no matter how easy divorce is we will still find marriages that last a lifetime.

To forbid something that you believe is wrong leads to dishonesty, risk-taking, an increase in crime and a strengthening of the worst elements of society if the hearts and minds of the people have not been won over first. 

When we change people's beliefs and values it doesn't matter what the law says.  They'll do what's right anyway.

Comments

[Anna S]

I think you do have a point here. I mean, it's not like no-fault divorce laws *created* the distorted view of marriage that is common this days. No-fault divorce laws are just a symptom of public opinion. Same goes for abortions.

[James B.]

I think that you're correct in saying tht it is not enough to legislate. We must teach.

Now Aristotle would say that habituation is the key to virtue and that the state must habituate man towards virtue and away from vice. The truly evil thing about the current age lies in mendacious attempts to restructure nature, so as to create a more arable environment for evil.

Legally speaking, I have a lot of problems with no-fault divorce, because they remove the bargaining power of the petitioner, traditionally the wife.

But the legislation should not wait for the teaching. In every age, there were vicious souls.

The key is to recognize that you're not done, once you've passed the laws.

This actually is one of the reasons why America is a democratic republic and not a direct democracy. Truth is not determined by opinion polls, and moral standards should not be dependent on something as fickle as public opinion. Sadly, many of our leaders have lost track of this, these days.

[Buffy]

The big question is, how do you change people's beliefs and values? We know that it happens because morals are not static, but where do you start? I am not sure we can blame governments, which to a large extent have to reflect popular opinion. I suppose I think it has to start with the parents.

[James B.]

You're right that it is difficult to win hearts and minds. I suppose this is a chicken and egg type question- so which comes first- changing minds or legislation.

Ultimately, it is a matter of culture. Of course our western cultural patrimony has it roots in Greco-Roman culture, Judaism, and Christianity. The loss of culture is something that Pope Benedict speaks of often.

Today's culture however is not organic and did not develop organically. Of course nature abhors a vacuum. Thus, as man stepped away from Judaeo-Christian belief, Judaeo-Christian culture became replaced with consumer culture. This was manufactured for us by the advertising executives on Madison Avenue, entertainment executives in New York, and movie producers in Hollywood.

And so this is ultimately the problem. Culture always carries values, both implicitly and explicitly. The manufactured consumer culture appealed to man's basest instincts: greed, lust, and gluttony. These values replaced the virtues fostered by religious belief.

And so the answer involves the restoration of a culture that properly accounts for and synthesizes the challenges of modernity and affirms the dignity of the human person in a way that consumer culture does not.

So at the aggregate level, the restoration of morality is deeply tied to culture.

As to the responsibility of governments— governments did not cause the decline in morality. However, they significantly abetted the decline in morality by changing the laws.

And this then goes back to the nature of authority in the world. If we accept the view that legitimate governments stand in for God in the exercise of earthly power, government is responsible to God as well as to its citizens. Government's don't have to reflect popular opinion; they must reflect truth.

Of course this is the mendacity of the liberals: they have convinced us that morality is a matter of mere opinion and does not have a truth value. They have been able to do this because traditional discussion of morality was rooted in religion. However, once the layers are peeled away, we see that morality can stand on its own two feet without the support of religious doctrine.

What if I were to say that, "Personally, I believe that stealing is wrong but I don't want to impose my views on anyone else."? Well clearly stealing is wrong; this is basic operation of natural law.

But this is the problem: that the media frames disagreements about abortion and euthanasia in the same way it portrays disagreements over the divinity of Christ, or the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

The problem is that these are two very different kinds of disagreements. But murder, stealing, lying, and adultery are all wrong, regardless of whether it's in the Bible.

But so to bring it back— because legislators forgot their duties to God and wrongly believed morality to be a matter of opinion— they incorrectly changed to laws to facilitate evil and licentious behavior.

You're right that parents play an important part in this. But they have to be supported and encouraged towards this by culture.

[Serena]

Wow, James B.--Well said. I especially liked "because legislators forgot their duties to God and wrongly believed morality to be a matter of opinion— they incorrectly changed to laws to facilitate evil and licentious behavior." What a good point: Morality is not a matter of opinion. I must admit, I hadn't realized how the issue of morality had been twisted to look that way!

[James B.]

Serena,

Thank-you for the compliment. Sadly, coming to terms with this matter was not a strictly academic matter for me. Rather, I saw that great evil that emerged when our legislators succumbed to the myth that they were machines who actuated the legislative desires of the constituents, instead of public servants charged with providing for the common good.

You see, I live in Enfield, Connecticut, USA. "So long to the shire" is the phrase I use to describe what I have seen: the legalization of civil unions, the enactment of legislation oppressing Catholic hospitals, coercive taxation that hurts the poor through inflated prices and has driven much of the middle class out of the state, and the enactment of no-fault divorce, and sky-high rates of drug abuse among my peers. Just describing it causes a rather visceral reaction. Ultimately, nature overcomes the best-designed schemes to thwart it. And this is what we're seeing. The surest sign of malaise is the great flight of my population cohort of 20-35 year olds, from Connecticut.

Ultimately, laws can't change how much TV people are watching of the inferior quality of programming. However, they can change attitudes towards pornography, divorce, and abortion. Here in America, the Supreme Court has ruled that pornography cannot be banned, because of the first amendment to our constitution, which protects free speech. Well, if we can't ban pornography, the next best thing government can do to get rid of it is to tax it out of existence. Or to put it another way, capitalism is amoral. It is neither moral or immoral; morality enters through the conduct of marketplace actors. Of course, pornography contributes greatly to moral degradation and divorce, creating what economists call "an externality". In other words, it doesn't pick up the mess it creates. So the thought would be fr taxation to much more effectively reflect the negative social harms caused by pornography and fund their repair, for example, by having a state fund that provides anti-pornography education, pre-marital counseling, and marriage counseling. But so the thought would be that if you impose a 75% tax on the sales of pornography and a 90% income tax on the profits of pornographic businesses, you will make it sufficiently unprofitable to eliminate it.

The advent of no-fault divorce was supposed to take stress off children and eliminate contentious custody battles. Instead, the custody battles have escalated. Before no-fault divorce, there was always a petitioner and a respondent. "It's not fun anymore" was not accepted as a legitimate cause of action for divorce. Divorce was justified by the misconduct of the respondent: adultery, drug abuse, domestic violence, denying marital privileges. This gave the petitioner great power, because only they could petition for the divorce and could use this as leverage to negotiate a more equitable settlement with the respondent, and thus delay or not file for divorce.

Finally, abortion can most certainly be fought through laws. Part of the problem has to do with the fact that in America, adopting a child is an expensive, bureaucratic, time-consuming process. A woman who wants to abort her child does not face the same bureaucracy, consequently, you have the massive destruction of human life through abortion. Ditto ESCR and IVF. Conseuqently, we have a society that creates human life and destroys it, instead of conserving existent lives. Again, we pray for the Supreme Court decision to be overturned. But in the meantime, the social cost of abortion must be built into the pricing through taxes. In this case, the taxes should contribute to a fund that provides free pre-natal and post-natal care to mothers who give their children up for adoption.

Similarly a good first step to pushing back against the immorality of some TV and radio programming involves taxing the utterance of profanity on the public airwaves and cable lines owned by companies that operate as a monopoly utility. This is a good first step towards eliminating the worst content.

Also, why do you think it is that some react so vehemently to the mention of morality? In their heart of hearts, they know what they're doing is wrong, but want to ignore it.

As to the relationship of truth and morality: Ultimately the great hubris lies in belief of some that figuring out the truth about morality involves reinventing the wheel- coming up with one's own ideas from scratch. Thus, pride clouds the intellect. This where the academic study of philosophy comes in handy. It shows us that there is nothing new under the sun, only new variations of the same ideas that real philosophers dealt with far more deftly than the average Joe would ever be able to. However, in the academy, philosophy and theology are often not accorded the respect and deference shown towards the hard sciences. Ultimately, however, science can only answer the why question with answers that point to proximate cause. It cannot answer question such as: "why is there something instead of nothing?", "why am I here?", "what is the purpose of life?", "why are murder, theft, adultery, and dishonesty morally wrong?". Philosophy and theology both provide answers to these questions, that science is incapable of providing. I have a great respect for science and scientists. There are some who over-reach and expect science to do things it cannot possibly do. At the same time, they hold philosophy and theology to a far more rigorous evidentiary standard than is accepted for proof of scientific fact.

This in turn is what has been lost with the demise of the Aristotelean/Thomistic worldview: a much more expansive understanding of the nature of truth- that truth is present in all things. Even if it is obscured, it is still present. And this fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of truth is what has enabled the liberals to engage in the distorted restructuring of society that the past fifty years have witnessed.

The answer fundamentally lies in prayer and virtue. Prayer, makes us capable of the virtue neccessary for living the moral life. As exemplars of the moral life, we become capable of leading others away from the false bill of goods being sold by the liberals and towards the salvation promised by God.

James

[Buffy]

Welcome Serena.

Thank you for another interesting comment James. Do you have your own blog, I imagine it would be a very thought provoking one. Perhaps this is something you should consider?

I love the idea of our legislators serving us by looking after the common good. I think they would be able to concentrate better on this if they didn't have to spend so much time chasing votes. Increasingly our leaders are chosen because they look good on TV and give good soundbytes.

I am sorry to hear about what's been going on in Connecticut. Is this representative of the rest of the USA? In the UK everything is not rosy. I tremble to see what is happening to our health service and our educational system.

You don't exactly say this but I think that you see the rubbish that goes out on TV as being part of the issue. I don't damn TV in itself. It is just a medium for information. It's the dumming down and the dropping of standards that I find harmful. It all seems to come down to what will make more money by being popular, regardless of whether it is a force for good or evil. And often the general public's taste is under-estimated. Time and time again, when someone takes a risk with a film, book or TV programme that is not directed at morons they find themselves with a runaway success. I think that most people are just thrilled not to be taken for an idiot!

Your thoughts on morality are certainly interesting. It some ways morality does appear to change throughout the years. On the other hand, some morals do seem to be found in all societies. For example, the killing of someone perceived as 'innocent'. However, our definition of what makes you an innocent may have changed!

I agree we lead best by example through prayer and virtue, well said.

[James B.]

Buffy,

The common good has much to do with why Plato favors the guardian class- the philosopher kings. The idea is to do what's right for the long term- not what can manipulate votes. And that's the problem. Ultimately, my political philosophy has been highly impacted by studying Aristotle and Aquinas, but also by Catholic social teaching. I'm working on an article about this, but the four main pillars of Catholic social teaching are respect for the dignity of the human person, solidarity with the poor, helpless, and downtrodden, service to the common good, and subsidiarity (the idea that government services are best done at the most local level possible). You see how each one balances the other out and stands in opposition to all the "isms" of the 20th century?

I do not yet have my blog, but have plans to start three blogs in the next two weeks. A couple will deal with my political work (in my full name) and one will be religious (under a pseudonym). Please pray for me- I have many things on my plate.

As to whether Connecticut is representative of the USA, I would say that it isn't entirely. Connecticut is a "blue state" meaning that it is politically liberal, and tends to elect Democrats to power. However, my hometown of Enfield, is a very Catholic place- the population is 85% Catholic, largely descended from early-20th century immigrants. The other Christians are mostly Episcopalians and Congregationalists. Enfield is a working-class blue collar town that generally doesn't think too highly of many of the things that were forced on us by limousine liberals from richer suburbs of Hartford, largely to the west. The red/blue divide is largely a rural/urban divide. Generally, it tends to be these old industrial towns, that industry has left and have a massive program of social services and high tax rates. Cities that are very cosmopolitan tend to be more liberal than those that aren't. My hometown is a large suburb (population 45,000) of Hartford, Connecticut's capital. Part of the reason why these problems exist lies in the fact that no enough has been done to superimpose Christianity onto the realities of urban life. Moreover, the limousine liberals are so established and comfortable in their wealth that they've lost touch with what real life is like. Amusingly enough the cities that my population cohort is fleeing too tend to be more conservative places.

It's not representative of the USA, I guess because we're such a spectrum. You can have a city as liberal as San Francisco, and a city as conservative as Dallas or Charleston.

Ahh... the problems of the NHS. I have been hearing about this for many years. The problem with socialized medicine, like you have in the U.K. is the delivery. There aren't enough personnel or materials because the NHS pays less than the market rate for salary and materials cost. Fundamentally, the problem with the NHS is that it has no actuarial (statistical) basis. The other problem with socialized medicine is that it rewards risky behaviors instead of punishing them. The man who is conscientious about his health: doesn't smoke, doesn't use drugs and watches his weight pays the same amount as an Intravenous drug user or a smoker.

Input taxes, output healthcare. Really, when you think about it, there are two components to healthcare insurance. One is a casualty product- to protect against catastrophic illness. The other is major med coverage, which pays for our clinical care.

It's funny you mention this, because tomorrow, I start my first full day at a major Hartford health insurance company. This is my first professional post-college job, so keep me in your prayers.

I definately agree with you that TV is part of the problem. The liberals have used the media to propagandize people along the slow march to secularism. Don't get me wrong. I have shows I love: "24", "The Office", and "Law and Order". But I don't watch it that much- I have so many other things to do with my time. Nonetheless, I see the deleterious effects it has on others- shortened attention spans, inability to carry on a conversation, debased morals etc. It's awful stuff. Fortunately, here in America, the Federal Communications Commission protects us from the worst content on the broadcast channels. Frontal nudity is completely banned. The "seven dirty words" have to be bleeped. Cable doesn't have to abide by these regulations, and this is where a lot of the garbage sneaks in. I don't have cable; I have better thing to do with my time than to be paid to be entertained by my television.

Dana Gioia, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts put it well, "Most of what modernity has accomplished has been the secularization of culture and society. Contemporary consumer culture not only makes the individual the center of value; it also caters to the lowest elements of human nature--greed, vanity, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Conformity, complacency, and creature comfort hardly represent the ideals of a great culture. They may be economically powerful motives, but they inhibit any genuine spiritual development. In a healthier culture the arts would stand in opposition to these forces of vulgarity, triviality, and excess, but in contemporary culture the arts increasingly reflect them. Our culture has largely lost its sense of the sacred."

And ultimately, that's what's so sad. The word culture has its roots in the word cultus, which is Latin for worship, meaning that it's rooted in the Mass. And so you look at culture throughout the ages and see what de-Christianization has done. Culture no longer offers glory to God. It worships man in all his fallen sinful, slothful lustful vice. And so the problem with TV, along with music (especially rap and hip-hop), movies and media is that it drags the soul down instead of helping it to ascend.

As to morality, morality ultimately has roots in natural law. I will write more about this soon, but I must get to bed. I have to be up at 5:30 for week

Peace be with you now and forever.

James

[Buffy]

Please let me know when your blogs are up and running as I would be interested to read them. You do have a lot on your plate at the moment if you are starting a new job as well. I am sure you will make a success of all of them.

Thank you for explaining a little about US politics. Like the UK it sounds like you have a mixed bag of political opinions. We tend to be Labour supporters in the cities and Conservative supporters in the countryside. Our politics has got a bit mixed up at the moment as the Labour party used be the socialist party and the Conservative party used to be more right wing (a bit like your Democrat and Republican parties) but they have become increasingly similar since Mrs Thatcher left politics. But you probably know this as it looks like you have been studying politics in college? I actually have a degree in history and politics. I was very interested in politics when I was 17 but my interest waned after I got my degree. I am pretty ignorant about it now. I suppose I just became cynical about the whole thing. I still love history though!! Unfortunately although I studied history of political thought I took another option in my first year so missed studying Aristotle, Plato et al. (From memory I did Hobbes, Locke, Hegel and Marx. Unfortunately our lecturer wasn't very good at explaining things, I could have got a lot more out of that course.) My favourite subject was Political Sociology.

Although I am not a socialist I do support the NHS in principle. However, there are some real issues that need to be addressed, such as the one you mention about not rewarding healthy behaviours. I wouldn't like to go the route of the US though. I just don't think we have found the right model yet, and the present government don't seem to be helping any! If you are interested in reading more about the NHS from the inside you could read http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/ - the blog of a doctor working within the NHS. I don't agree with everything he says, or the way he says it, but it is certainly illuminating and very honest.

True Culture - I'm afraid that in the UK (and I think the US) it tends to be of interest to only upper & upper middle classes. This is a real shame and it is not the case in all European countries by any means. For the rest it is all soaps, sports and getting drunk.