We all have different ideas of what exactly is moral and what isn’t. Even within that, who among us measure up to our internal standards? None of us are perfect.
Recently I have found myself thinking frequently of morality, and hypocrisy, and what are the best choices and whether certain belief systems make one more or less prone to deviating from a moral code.
Examples:
1) Tom Haggard, the pastor of a Christian conservative mega church, who appears to have lied and cheated on his wife with a man who used to be a prostitute. If he hadn’t been so convinced that homosexuality was terribly evil, or that people are weak and tempted by the devil, would this have happened? I was raised a Christian. I remember reading repeatedly in the bible how Jesus valued peace and love, and values poverty and was basically not favorable towards material wealth. I do not remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuals. In spite of this, Christian conservative have no problem with war or wealth, yet hold huge hatred of homosexuality. Many Americans apparently do. Witness the passage of so many state constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Why? In my view, whether a gay couple can or cannot get married should only matter to gay couples. And as a biologist I think that monogamy should be encouraged. It reduces the spread of disease, and marriage vows hopefully help encourage monogamy.
I think we need to take responsibility for our own actions. Saying you were tempted is a bad excuse.
2) Speaking of marriage vows and monogamy, I mentioned that Bill Clinton might be an interesting person to have dinner with. He is someone I have always wanted to meet. The person I said that to shuddered in response. I was surprised. President Clinton is a smart man, and charismatic, and concerned about the welfare of the world and the poor and education. I imagine he would be a very very interesting person to talk to over dinner. No, I was told, he is morally reprehensible, and that was that. I was dumbfounded. Yeah, he let an eager woman give him blowjobs, and he shouldn’t have, and he tried to weasel out of admitting it. But I wasn’t talking about DATING him. And yet somehow this tawdry little bit of info, which we would never know about in other people, completely over whelmed any interest in all of the global concerns and projects that Clinton is involved in. Why? Am I some kind of moral idiot to think well of the man for all he has done and said on fronts that are morally important to me because he did something wrong that would cause me to break up with him if I was dating him, or drag him off to a marriage councilor if he was my husband? He did something he shouldn’t have. So did Monica. In my eye they are equally to blame. But among the terrible things one could do, it is not at the top of my list.
The person I had this conversation with is someone I think very highly of. So, now I feel somehow dirtied. Am I wrong? Does one failure taint everything that one does? Even if the failure causes only personal hurt in the family, while good works save lives of thousands? Does my friend screen her dinner companions this way generally? Would she shun artists and musician and philosophers because they had been unfaithful? Have none of her personal friends ever slipped? Are all things equal? Or are they not?
3) A kitten that I sold as a pet last April, a very very sweet and beautiful Blue eyed white Oriental, contracted FIP and was put to sleep a week ago. She lived as an only cat. The virus that killed her likely came from my house, and the genes that made her susceptible to the disease came from one or both of her parents, I own both. As a bit of background, this virus is ubiquitous in places where there are a number of cats, shelters, cat shows, and breeders. Anyone with more than one cat may have a situation with cats passing it back and forth.
The virus is usually harmless. Once in a while, estimated overall at 5% of the time, a cat develops a fatal immune system reaction to the virus and dies. This misfiring of the immune system in response to a mutation in the virus appears to be genetic. A genetic susceptibility. It is the reaction that is FIP, not the virus. Over the decades that I have had cats, I have not had a lot of cases of FIP, and until recently I had sent only 1 kitten out that had contracted FIP and died. In the past 2 years 4 kittens, out of 21 have left my house, only to get FIP some months later. Three of those four went to multi-cat households, but sweet Tink was an only cat.
I have 12 very young kittens in my house. Seven of them are half-siblings of one of the cats that died (10 full sibs are fine and healthy), 5 are nieces and nephews of the same cat. Someone who’s opinion is important to me asked if I was going to keep all the kittens, not sell them or place them, as they stand a chance of getting the disease. I was astonished. One of eleven died. That is one too many, but it is less than 10%. Now I have half sibs and nieces and nephews. Am I worried that they could be susceptible? You bet. Do I think it likely that any individual kitten of this group will get FIP? No. Do I think I should keep these 12 kittens for the rest of their lives in my house because I worry that one or another might be susceptible, or might not be? No. I think it is more fair to the kittens to let them go out and be people’s pets. But because I have been questioned about it I am fretting about it.
I cannot guarantee the life span of any cat that I place. I have had people have cats from me live into their late teens. Others have not made ten. The longest-lived cat on record was a pedigreed cat, but in general I suspect pedigreed cats live somewhat less long on average than moggies. If I had a crystal ball and the right skills, perhaps I could tell someone, THIS cat will live only 8 years, and THAT one will live 18, and you can’t have the pretty one in your lap because she will get FIP and die before she is a year old. But I can’t do that. So I have a guarantee in my sales contract. If the cat dies due to a developmental or hereditary problem, I will replace. That, I can do. My cats are special, they bring joy. They love attention. Should they stay here with only the attention they can get from me? Should I not breed them at all? I try to be careful. I am a geneticist. I do not inbreed, I try to use and produce healthy cats. It is my hobby, and they are a great joy to me.
Am I not moral enough? Most of the time I find myself thinking, “I wouldn’t do that” when some friend or another is telling me what they are doing in some gray area. I try to do the right thing. What should I be doing? What are better choices?
About Me
- H
- I am a solitary creature. Not from dislike of my fellows, but just by my nature. I tend to absorb completely in whatever I am doing, losing track of everything else. It is a strength and a weakness. I am not a multitasker. I think the world is an amazing and beautiful place. The more we know about it, the more astounding it is.
Maukie - the virtual cat
13 comments:
I don't think the chance contracting of an illness that very occasionally turns out to be fatal can be in any way your fault. Animals get ill. They get injured. They recover. Sometimes they die. Eventually, they all die. You have no way of knowing the possible fates of any of your kittens. The only way I can see that you might be morally responsible for placing a cat that ends up with a fatal illness is if you already know the cat has that disease when you place it. If you sold someone a kitten that you knew full well was unwell then you would definitely have a moral responsibility, if only for not allowing the prospective owner the full facts before making a final decision. I suppose if there was a bug going through your household and several cats were contracting it, it would also be unwise to pass on kittens until the illness had run its course and the cats were healthy again. But if you sell a healthy kitten that may or may not become ill at some point in the future, I can't see that you personally have any responsibility for the cat's future health.
As for the Bill Clinton thing, that really bugs me too. The man did some great things. He's intelligent and passionate and gets things moving that need to be changed. He was 1000 times the president Dubya is, and yet I bet such people would have no similar issues with Bush. Okay, he's started illegal wars and incited violence and gone against basic human rights and conned an election and created several dangerous situations in the world and can hardly string a sentence together, but he wasn't caught with his secretary kneeling under the Oval Office desk! So he's a perfectly moral person. Pah. Clinton's affair just happened to be very public news. How many more politicians out there are having affairs as we speak, and yet will never be caught at it? Or is it just a case of it all being acceptable as long as we don't have to find out about it? The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
I'd like to have dinner with Bill as well. Very interesting conversation would be had.
Are we beating up on Rian this entire blog, Dr. Lorimer? Ye might have named me, I am not afraid to stand by my beliefs.
Rian did not say Clinton had not accomplished wonderful things. Nor did Rian even bring Dubya into the conversation. I said he was morally reprehensible because he, a man who appears to have a tendency to conduct affairs, did not divorce his wife long ago. It is my belief that he felt he could go further in the political arena as 'a family man'.
Morally, he should have dissolved the marriage long ago.
I am not a hypocrit. I do not have affairs. I did not invite my father into my house when he was having his. And I still would rather have had lunch with the Dali Lama than Bill Clinton.
As for the cats, Rian said at least twice that I did not have enough information on the disease to say what the Correct choice was.
And why is it that people, namely in this instance Rian, who feel that Clinton is not Perfection, are automatically assumed to be fans of Bush?
THAT, as Someone Else might say, chaps my hide.
Ah, Rian! I was not beating you up. I was trying not to beat myself up! Ever since I got that phone call I have felt awful.
Surely it is up to Hilary and Bill whether they choose to dissolve their marriage or keep working at it? It is not just one person's choice, is it? I admire Mrs Clinton for standing by her husband regardless of his straying tendencies. And even if they have a terrible marriage, what right does any outsider have to comment? I'm not quite sure why someone would be considered 'morally reprehensible' because they chose to stay in a possibly faulty marriage. Even if they only stay together for the public image, is that so dreadful? Many people have marriages for reasons other than love and committment. I'm not saying that I think they're a great idea or that I'd be happy living that way myself, but I wouldn't doubt a person's morals for doing so.
I think what gets to me the most about the whole Clinton thing is the way the rest of his attributes seem to be consistently ignored because of one mistake that was made public. Yes, he had an affair. Yes, he lied about it. If I was his wife, I'd have every reason to find his behaviour appalling. But the rest of his policies and attributes and contributions to society still stand, and are surely more important to the world than his affair? I by no means think that everyone who has a problem with Clinton is automatically a fan of Bush, but he gets used as an alternative example because he was the next president and because he is so clearly a far worse leader than Clinton could ever have been... he's just a ready example.
And I apologise if I've said too much... I have no wish to salt any possible wounds here. Underlying issues aside, I do feel quite strongly about this particular topic. And I'm not always the best at keeping my thoughts to myself, I know...
If one canna be monogamous, one should not be married. Clinton did not have just the one affair.
And if one is the President, one should not lie to the country about anything, personal or public.
Once a politicain lies, how can he or she be trusted on ANY policy?
The same can be said, of course, about Bush and Iraq.
Clinton cheated on his wife. He lied to his wife and to his daughter. He lied to the country.
That is morally reprehensible and self absorbed.
Does the Good outweigh the Bad? Of course it does. But it does not CANCEL OUT the Bad, nor wipe it away.
Hmmmm, I guess I see many shades of gray, and I fret over how dark or light they are. Few things are unreservedly black or white to me. Everything is in context. For instance, I think killing somebody is wrong, but if someone was trying to kill you or people around you, and the only way to stop it was killing the killer, I can see that as not so offensive. Instead the question becomes, was that the ONLY way to stop it at the moment.
Well that is not relevant to the Clinton question, instead I would argue relevance. What Clinton does sexually and whether he lies about that behavior is irrelevant to how he was or is in other areas. We all have strenths and weaknesses. I can concieve of lying to protect one's loved ones. I can even understand, though I do not condone, lying to protect oneself.
IMO Clinton should not have done what he did with Monica, nor with any other outside of his marriage, but neither should he have been asked about it in court under any circumstances other than a divorce hearing. I think the vast majority of people who have behaved with sexual impropriety would lie about it if asked in public. That does not make the impropriety or the lie RIGHT, but it is a common human weakness. I do not think Clinton wanted to leave his wife. In general I do not judge politicians or surgeons or veterinarians or novelists on their sexual behavior and whether they are honest about it. Now for people I date? Yes.
Of course I don't date anyone, so that is irrelevant too *laughs*. In short I do not think Clinton was a bad president because he allowed an adult intern to give him blow-jobs then tried to hide it in a lawyerly definition oriented way. The fact that he did this in a poublic hearing is also relevant to me. I don't consider it "lying to his country" in the sense that the country has no need to know about it in the first place. It does not impact us... except that many other countries think we were silly to get all worked up about it. AND it managed to tie up a man who had been an effective President, keeping him on the defensive and unable to accomplish things like try to put a stop to developing terrorists. And that didn't even require the Monica scandal. The republicans had been busy trying to hobble him with anything they could dig up, the bad investments they had made, the suicide of a friend, whatever they could dream up.
I still think Clinton would be an interesting man to have dinner with and talk about the world, and education and fighting AIDS and the environment, and whatever.
So Dr. Lorimer thinks it is perfectly fine to lie about sexual proclivities, but not about politics?
Sex Lies are just fine, Political Lies are an entirely different species?
Soooo. Where do Rape Lies fit in? Are they not Sexual Lies of a sort?
And for the record, it takes two people to make a blow job and/or play with a cigar. Unless Monica knocked him out with a paper weight, he was an equal participant.
Once a politicain lies, how can he or she be trusted on ANY policy?
But lying is what politicians do. It's just rare that their lies are exposed in quite such a grand way. Was anyone truly shocked that Clinton lied about an affair? Is anyone really that shocked when politicians lie to get votes?
I'm not condoning lying for one second here. I'm just saying it's part of human behaviour, like it or not. And I don't think a man lying about an affair that was made hideously public is in any way unusual or shocking, or any more reprehensible than any other lie of politics.
Rape is a crime, a crime of violence in which a person is harmed and the perpetrator wishes harm. It is most certainly not the same as having an affair.
As I said in my original post and in my replies, what Clinton did I consider wrong, but I would not put in in the same category as rape. And as I also said before, I consider the two of them equally guilty. And no I do not consider sexual infidelity in the same class as Lying to convince the country to go to war in which thousands upon thousands are killed, nor to lie in a way that causes benefits that people rely on for their lives to be cut.
I do not see all wrongs as equally severe. Some are mild other heinous and all levels lay inbetween.
Sexual pecadilloes between consenting adults and trying to hide them is damaging to the cheater's family. OTOH gambling and lying about it might bankrupt a family, might even cause the gambler to be killed. Drinking and driving (and lying about it) can kill not only the drinker but also others in their car or other cars. What about just making simple little lies so as to not cause any worry? I know of people who said they were fine when they weren't, and then landed in the hospital running up huge bills, or even dying when earlier treatment could have been much simpler or saved them (respectively), and losing a parent is probably harder on the kid than having a parent who was unfaithful. What about people who cheat on their taxes? They are lying to the American people. No one is directly harmed, though less money goes to the government, and that contributes to economic problems and the cutting of programs. Which of these offenses is the worst? I don't know..... but they are not all the same.
Here's an example of grayness. Suppose as a professor, eager to be liked, I gave students easy tests and gave them all A's and told them they were wonderful and brilliant and could do anything. Thus ego-bolstered they then went on to discover(or perhaps even worse, failed to discover) that they were not in fact knowledgable or competant. It could ruin their prospects, ruin their self image or maybe cause them to be unable to tell whether they were underprepared or whether the next set of expectations were biased and unreasonable. It is conceivable that the white lies could lead to devastating effects. Similarly someone who is told they look fabulous when they don't... or any unwarranted praise that causes inflated self image. On the otherhand, such lies might give someone confidence and allow them to tackle things they never would have tried without that confidence.
Now I personally do my best to not lie period, nor cheat on taxes, nor drive drunk. I do not always succeeed of course. But that is the standard I try to acheive. Does that mean I will not hang out with anyone who does not do what I try to do?
FYI
The health case that came immediately to mind was of a middle aged man. His wife had been widowed as a young woman due to the war in Viet Nam. This man exhibited signs of heart disease for some time, always denying it, saying he was fine. Then he had a heart attack, and he said he did not want to go to the emergency room as they were out of town and he was concerned about emergency issues. he said it wasn't really that bad, they'd go home and he'd see his regular Dr. the next day. He died before the night was through.
Unless Clinton truly believed that he 'did not have sex with that woman', I do not think ye can compare him to the man in the hospital. Clinton was covering up an obvious wrong.
And if Dr. Lorimer passed all her students, whether or not they deserved it, Rian would find THAT morally reprehensible, as well. After all, look where that got Starbuck.
Should not people in power also be held to higher standards? Greater responsibilty, etc?
People in power do need to be held to high standards. Particularly inregard to things that could effect their performance in their position of power. I maintain that bad sexual behavior is not a deciding point for me on a politician though. I would not toss out Thomas Jefferson, or Ben Franklin, or even King Charles II for their bedroom (or oval office) sexual misdeeds. They had little to do with their competance in their job. OTOH Jimmy Carter, arguably the most moral President we have had, was not a very good leader.
I would not take into considration whether a surgeon was two-timing, but I WOULD if she was an alcoholic, as it could affect her job performance.
Hmmm I guess I could say that it wouldn't be important to me if an author was an alcoholic, but it WOULD if the person was a surgeon. I don't care where Clinton put little bill, but I WOULD care if a marriage counselor behaved that way. I wouldn't care if my department Chair had a gambling problem, but I WOULD care if my accountant did. I wouldn't care if my hairdresser was a liar, but I WOULD care if my Pastor was.
Post a Comment