I understand that each new generation has new outlooks on the world, on God, and on the reasons for the universe. But, in the long run, it seems that people are losing their connection to their moral centers or, if you will, their consciences. Maybe each one of us needs to conduct an audit of our moral centers. What are our moral values? This episode discusses where our morals come from, Terri Schiavo, Jack Kevorkian, and the movie "Sommersby".
Email: ScottRFrazer@gmail.com
Website: Scottrfrazer.com
S2E14 – Moral Dilemmas and Judgements
This is the podcast Science and Scriptures, Season 2, Episode 14, or “Moral Dilemmas and Judgements”
Hello everyone. This is Scott Frazer, your host of the podcast Science and Scriptures.Thanks for tuning into my podcast.I have been contemplating how the new year is going to affect our society. Major things happened last year that I simply did not see coming.I believe that a major part of my continuous surprise at the news is that I don’t understand how people are changing their moral outlooks. I understand that each new generation has new outlooks on the world, on God and on the reasons for the universe. But, in the long run, it seems that people are losing their connection to their spiritual selves, or, more specifically, to their moral centers. Because the news that continuously surprises me is never good news. It’s news at how bad some people have become. Maybe each one of us needs to conduct an audit of our moral centers. What are our moral values? How have they changed in the past decade?
One of my favorite movies in the category of “movies that make you think” is an older PG-13 movie entitled Sommersby. It stars Richard Gere and Jodie Foster, so one might expect it to be a sappy love story.It is… but it also features an interesting moral dilemma. Richard Gere plays a soldier named Jack Sommersby who returns home to Vine Hill, Tennessee after fighting for the Confederacy in the Civil War. Jack is the owner of a plantation in Vine Hill. He hasn’t been heard from for six years and he is presumed dead. He has changed a bit, but everyone assumes it was due to the ravages of war. Before he left for the war, Jack was a violent man, prone to gambling and drinking. But now that he has returned from the war, he has become a much better man – treating his ex-slaves with kindness and his wife with tenderness. Vine Hill is in the ravaged, post-Civil War South. The town is on the verge of starvation. Its lands are barren with no one to work them. To save the town and his plantation, Jack offers to deed plots of his land to the townspeople and his former slaves if they will help him to grow tobacco as a cash crop. His idea works and in the next year Vine Hill raises a profitable tobacco crop.
All is going well.There are only a few people in town who are suspicious about Jack’s loss of memory about his home and friends.Then a Federal Marshall turns up with an arrest warrant that accuses Jack Sommersby of murder. He is arrested and taken to Nashville for trial. Half the town goes with him.
Then we learn more about the backstory. Jack admits to his wife, still played by Jody Foster that he is not Jack Sommersby; he is a scoundrel and con man named Horace Townsend. He admits that he had shared a prison cell with the real Jack in a Union prisoner-of-war camp for four years. With that much time to talk, Horace got to know all about Jack’s family and hometown. Also, the two could have been twin brothers, they looked so similar to one another. The real Jack Sommersby died, so Horace, having nowhere else to go, took his place. The hero of Vine Hill is not Jack Sommersby; he is Horace Townsend.
The trial is going poorly so Jody Foster tells the court that Jack admitted to her that he was actually Horace Townsend and, thus, did not commit the murder. Her honesty does not work. Horace cross-examines his “wife” and squelches her assertion.
He didn’t need to do that. Horace Townsend could have admitted that he was not really Jack Sommersby. Horace did not commit the murder, so justice would be served. But if Horace declares he is not Jack Sommersby, then the deeds for land that he gave his friends and ex-slaves would be worthless. They would all be homeless in the post-Civil War South. Or…, Horace could continue the ruse and the lie.Everyone will get to stay on their land - but Horace would be executed for a murder he did not commit.
We find moral dilemmas throughout our history. The Founding Fathers broke the English laws of the land when they led the Revolutionary War. They had their own moral dilemma about the Revolution. Thus, the Declaration of Independence opens with a moral justification for their revolt and a war they knew would kill thousands. We read,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another… they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” (unquote)
Moral dilemmas are common in the business world. There is actually an occupation called ethicist. Ethics are the moral principles or values governing a particular culture or group. An ethicist is a person whose job it is to keep track of those moral principles and keep his company safely within them.At a hospital, where moral dilemmas are frequent, medical ethicists counsel hospital administrators. When should a long-term comatose patient be allowed to pass away?How should the possibility of organ harvesting of a dying patient be suggested to a grieving family?
The whole concept of morality is difficult to define. From where did our moral centers originate? How did we get our moral values in the first place? This is a critical question that needs to be considered in any debate about the existence of God. Most everyone agrees that we have a moral center; most people call it their conscience. It probably lies somewhere near the emotional center of the brain. When we break one of our moral laws, we feel guilty about it.But I don’t believe we learn morality like we learn the alphabet. It seems to come prepackaged in our brains when we are born. Let me give you an example.
In the Old Testament, God forbids any type of incestual relationships. We read in Leviticus 18:6, “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.”
Following this scripture come eleven more verses, detailing what the Lord means by this commandment. It seems pretty important to the Lord… but I don’t ever remember it being taught in public school or any of the youth Sunday School classes I attended. I have never heard it brought up in a Sacrament meeting talk. Incest is too sensitive and embarrassing a topic to discuss in public, so few teachers, whether in church or public schools, ever mention it in their lessons.So, since I have never been taught about how incest is wrong and why it is wrong, why do I know deep down that it is wrong? Most of us find incest to be morally wrong without really understanding where that knowledge came from.
Today we understand enough about genetics to know that the children of a marriage between say, a brother and sister have a good chance of having disabilities. This can be our mental go-to reasoning to explain to ourselves why incest is wrong. But our knowledge that incest is wrong does not come from our very recent understanding of genetics. It comes from much deeper than that.
The same might be said for other moral prohibitions that lie within us. For example, could you eat a dish whose main ingredient is human blood? Would you… injure a child? Would you torture a kitten or a puppy? Wait… don’t turn off my podcast. I’m done.But I want you to notice your emotional response to my questions. This reaction is not your logical mind thinking, “I’m offended!” Your reaction is probably more of an emotional response.You were never taught that torturing a kitten is awful and terrible. The only explanation is that you know the general principle that harming a weak and defenseless animal or human being is beyond contempt.
There have been debates about whether a moral center even exists, and the question still exists for some. The fact is that we all have moral centers. Surprisingly with our diverse population, we are somewhat consistent in what our consciences tell us. As children, we can be taught that some of those initial values are wrong.For example, the children of cannibals may grow up being taught that it is okay to eat human flesh. But other children, who are not taught anything about cannibalism, reject the idea as they grow older. Similarly, other people have abused their consciences to the point that they don’t function anymore. What bothers your conscience? Lying? Losing your temper and yelling at someone? Not keeping a commitment? What actions cause you to be disappointed in yourself? Your conscience gives you a starting point to understand right and wrong.A toddler will voluntarily share toys if a friend is upset and crying.
So, where does this moral center or conscience come from? If you are atheist, the only answer can be that it was developed through evolution. However, this is a particularly hard argument for evolutionists to make. Evolution is built on the premise that the strong survive. Those who can avoid starvation, being killed in war, or otherwise dying will live to adulthood and pass on their genes to their children. This survival often requires a significant amount of… selfishness. If food supplies are severely limited, you may need to figure out how to get more than your fair share to survive. If you find yourself in battle, you may choose to shrink back from the front line. The brave and selfless soldiers who throw themselves into battle usually die there.
Why then, would developing a conscience help a man to survive? How would developing a desire to help others, relieve suffering, share your food with a starving child, and other acts of charity and kindness help you to survive life and pass on your genes? The whole idea is contradictory to the teaching of “survival of the fittest” that has been taught by evolutionists for years.
The counter argument is that at some point we developed morality and charity so that we could develop communities. Humans are social beings and living in groups provides for better defense from wild animals and human enemies. This is true.However, being the most charitable and moral person in the community will not assist you in your individual survival. In fact, being the most charitable with your food can be detrimental to your survival during times of famine. Stepping forward to protect the defenseless in a battle will also get you killed.How, then, could developing a moral center be something that evolution would support?
However, there is another answer to the source of our moral center. It is natural to believe that our conscience comes to us with the spiritual, premortal being that resides inside of us. It makes sense. The spirits that were taught by Heavenly Father before we made our journeys to earth would have committed themselves to certain moral principles. Though there was a veil of forgetfulness placed over our minds, it appears that some of our moral values were designed to seep through the veil and influence us. When we follow our moral code, we feel that we are doing the right and righteous thing. When we do something immoral, our consciences can bother us relentlessly. In the end, we want to return to Heavenly Father – and our spirits know that committing immoral acts will not get us there.After violating a moral code, we often feel dirty, and no amount of showering will help us to feel clean again.As best we can, we must make amends.
Most everyone has done something for which they have repented, but still remember with disgust and a little self-loathing. That may explain why there is so little debate about the existence of a conscience.Their effects on us are too real, too deeply poignant to deny. However, our emotional responses still don’t help us to understand what a conscience is. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that one’s conscience may also be called the Light of Christ. Yet, that label doesn’t help us much in figuring out what it is. It does, however, declare our moral center to be of spiritual origin and not of evolution.
Moral Values Don’t Change, but HOW we Follow them can change.
Let’s look at a moral dilemma we all face frequently. Should you give money to a person begging on the street corner? Many people struggle with this question. The scriptures tell us to give of our substance. We read in Mosiah Chapter 4,
“And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.”
However, we live in a different world than the one to which King Benjamin preached. Things have changed. For example, Portland Oregon, which has a large homeless population, has signs throughout the city asking people to NOT give money to the homeless. They ask instead that money be sent to a named organization that encourages the homeless to go to shelters and get back on their feet. The homeless often won’t attend such programs if they are getting enough money to get by without them.
Please note that our moral beliefs haven’t changed since the days of King Benjamin – we still want to help the poor and homeless. Yet, it is possible that the best process for helping the poor has changed. We can stay true to our moral value… but take a new approach to meeting it.
Who established our moral beliefs, if not God?
Though there are many people who preach about moral beliefs, I would argue that it was God who established our moral law. Our inherent moral code for this earth was established long before the Preexistence. I believe that only a higher being can dictate moral values, because morality is not something that you can put up to a popular vote.
If I was to argue with a cannibal, I would declare to him that eating human flesh is an immoral act.He might declare with equal certitude that eating human flesh is okay. How do we declare the winner of such a debate? Do we put it up to a vote? Obviously if we ran an election, my argument would win. There are few cannibals in the world at present. But what if, by some chance, the cannibals won? Would you change your mind on the subject?
Even the thought of voting on a moral principle seems wrong. However, our morality stands silently behind many of the public issues that confront us today. How we vote on propositions, and even who we vote for in elections, is often based on our moral code. I have heard the saying that, “you can’t legislate morality”, but history proves that governments will certainly try to do so. Whether we are talking about the Prohibition of alcohol, the acceptance of new sexual mores, the legalization of marijuana, pornography, the death penalty, or torture by waterboarding, challenges to our moral beliefs are occurring all the time.
But please note that morals are different from opinions. With opinions, you can write down a Pro versus Con list as to why you have a certain opinion. With Morals, you can make no such list. You can only try to assess exactly what you believe deep down. This is often difficult – so we don’t do it very often.
Moral judgements are so very difficult because we don’t understand that moral decisions involve pro and cons that we don’t understand, much less try to quantify. Let me give you an example. Let’s say your great-grandfather has had a stroke. He is bed-ridden and in a coma. The doctors have declared that your great-grandfather has brain activity, and he is apparently still thinking. But the neural connections in his brain allowing him to communicate or to move his body were destroyed during the stroke. Should the machines keeping him alive be turned off?A decision must be made. On one hand, I could argue that letting your great-grandfather linger in a coma is a kindness. On the other hand, I could just as easily argue that it is torture. But personally I would certainly argue harder for the latter case.
The nation’s struggles with defining its own morality are evident. In 1990, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo fell into a persistent vegetative state after suffering cardiac arrest. No doctor who examined Terri believed she had any chance to recover. A fierce public battle took place between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and her husband, Michael Schiavo, who wanted to disconnect her feeding tube. The controversy engulfed the nation, both sides very convicted to their opinion. The case spurred an emotional nationwide debate over quality of life, right-to-die, and end-of-life issues. As a nation, we had obviously not figured out the correct path to take in such a moral dilemma. After years of being tried in state and federal courts, Terri's feeding tube was finally removed in March 2005.
In the 1990’s a pathologist named Jack Kevorkian started helping people who were beyond medical help to commit suicide. On June 4, 1990, Janet Adkins, an Oregon teacher who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, was Kevorkian’s first assisted suicide. By his account, he assisted in about 130 suicides over the next nine years. Nicknamed Dr. Death by his critics, the nation did not know how to respond to this man. Should people be allowed to end their own lives if they are suffering, in deep dementia, or beyond medical help? Dr. Kevorkian was brought to trial and acquitted several times. Finally, in March 1999, a Michigan jury found Dr. Kevorkian guilty of second-degree murder. Dr. Kevorkian has died, but the moral dilemma he presented to the nation have yet to be resolved.
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we should seek to understand our own morals. Morals are behind most of the commandments. We should recognize the moral commitment behind “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Thou Shalt Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother”. However, defining our own moral stands on present-day issues will continue to be difficult. Challenges to our moral values will continue. Each of us should try to evaluate and recognize our moral beliefs – and then determine if they are being reflected in how we live our lives.
So, let’s get back to the movie Sommersby. Moral questions like the one in his movie can help to give us perspective on how to meet real-life moral challenges. Should Horace Townsend admit that he was an imposter, causing the eviction of his friends and freed slaves? Or should he continue the lie and be executed for murder?
I’ll give you my opinion here, because, after all, that is what I do on this podcast.I believe Horace Townsend should continue the lie. I know my decision is against the law - and I am very rarely okay with that. I know it’s a lie – and I am even less likely to be okay with that. I respect this movie because it depicted a very rare situation that caused me to reconsider my normal, knee-jerk judgement. First, Horace Townsend was a bad man who found a way to repent of his past life and do something noble in his new life. There is value in that. Secondly, many people would have been seriously harmed by the truth, losing their land and homes. In the movie, Horace was indeed hanged for the murder he did not commit… The music playing in the background is similar to the movie finale music – Hopeful, determined to do the righteous thing, confident. I hope the music represents how we should feel when we make moral decisions.
The moral of the story is that, sometimes, doing the most moral thing requires great sacrifice – and it’s often not the most obvious thing to do. A moral certitude of your beliefs can help with that.
Present-day moral issues are rather disconnected from what we learn in church on Sundays. Many of those challenges are political and/or very uncomfortable to discuss in church. But in our own thoughts and meditation, we need to work to understand our own moral codes and how our consciences should respond to the issues of the day. I believe there will be continued attacks and criticism of our morality in the future - because being immoral is often the easier path for an individual or a country to follow. We need to be ready to oppose that.
The next time you read your news feed, consider how your morality is being challenged by current events. We are in this world partly to learn how to decide between right and wrong. Your morals, or conscience, were given to you to help in that learning. (music starts) Hopefully, you can more be more conscious of your moral direction and not be unconsciously steered away from what you believe is right and righteous.
So, that is all I have for you today. As always, thanks for listening to my podcast.If you enjoyed today’s topic, or if someone you know is facing a difficult decision, please consider sharing this episode with them. This is Scott Frazer from the podcast Science and Scriptures. Take care and have a good week.