If you begin the process of making policy with a skewed
perspective, the policy will be skewed. If you begin policy making from the perspective of what should be, rather than what is, you will get a skewed
policy. Religious morality is founded on the assertions of people in the
context of their metaphysical contemplations rather than fact, whether they
believe in God or Christ, Mahmoud, polytheist or some variation on a given
theme. The challenge with the irrationality of religion being mixed with policy
is that people are busy effecting control over the populous rather than
managing societal outcomes. Religious
morality came into being to manage human interface in a beneficial manner,
morality is in no way created to stop the behaviour, but rather to effect societal
outcomes – as a person subjecting themselves to theocratic rigour one has the
right to ignore outcome, one involved in the governance process must hold
outcome as paramount.
To assert religious belief as irrational is accurate, in
that, the notion of faith absent tangible proof is irrational as a result of the
assertion being unsubstantiated. This is, in no way an affirmation of atheism,
but rather, a criticism of the misapplication of religious morality in
governance which results in outcomes that contradict the basic premises of the
Christian faith (in the Canadian context) and conflict with the enlightenment /
secular ideals as they are want to find expression in a free and democratic
society. There needs to be a detachment from religious belief in the policy
creation process to ensure rational policy that meets the requirements of
society at large.
As an aside, a comment on the Christian moral perspective. Metaphysical
contemplation has inherent the reality that it must start where human knowledge
ends, the Christian moral perspective evolves from the views and general
understanding of people who, in many cases, lived in excess of 2000 thousand
years ago. The assumption that order is preexisting, as opposed to realizing the universe is in a state of flux, assumes that all creatures and things were the
product of a single Genesis and are fixed when the world indicates
differently. Assuming a fixed point of origin provides a reference point, but
creates a distortion in perception, as the “fixed point of origin” occurred in
a state of flux. The beginning and the end are unknown and unknowable, and are
the place of metaphysical contemplation; assumptions that distort this reality
serve to confound thought, distort progress and generally limit humanity. The
ardent adherence to orthodoxy ofttimes generates an immoral circumstance; one
would think that in our modern society “orthodoxy” as it relates to any
religion & government policy would have folded, it does linger, however, so
we have to work to ensure that the negative outcomes generated by orthodoxy get
remedied and the positive preserved.
Moral Relativism is a term normally murmured as a pejorative; I, on the other
hand, see moral relativism as a philosophy that permits “traditional believes”
to provide direction while allowing people’s conduct to evolve with
advancements in knowledge and technology. When one permits the “reexamination”
of moral tenets, an examination undertaken with the desired outcomes of the
“founders” of a given m oral complex in mind – one can begin to expand the human
endeavour and achieve the worthwhile “societal” outcomes we all desire. One is
also permitted to examine an issue absent prejudice, to really examine an issue
from a place of reason. Many of (y)our most vexing challenges – even in modern
Canada – paths to a solution are blocked by the inappropriate adherence to “outmoded”
moral perspectives. Rather than taking a public health perspective, a populist
perspective or just the most efficient solution perspective, we are locked in a repeat of bad policy the attempts to adhere to a single moral perspective with
outcomes that marginalize and effect grossly immoral outcomes on our most vulnerable.
If it is your goal, as it is mine, to have whole and well-adjusted
family units – which is the underlying desire of much of the religion-based
moral complex, then build a policy that addresses that goal – rather than
directing resources to block “vice” for example. Prostitution will occur, it
is contrary to the aforementioned goal, however, by directing resources to stop
it you starve the governance energy to support a family or what some may term as the more
“wholesome” aspects of life. It is necessary at times to “ignore” behaviour to
address the root causes of the behaviour you're want to correct or redirect. The
public health perspective on prostitution brings people in the “trade” into the
ambit of health professionals, people who can offer a way to a different life
should a different life be desired. In the process of “fighting” vice, we marginalize
and alienate people drawn to the “trade”, oft times by unfortunate
circumstances. There is a paradox that exists in developing policy – the ardent
adherence to moral orthodoxy often leads to a damaging outcome. It is the
ardent adherence to the institutionalized Christian moral perspective with
respect to the altered state that has us “warring” against our own people in
the realm of drug policy; even when it was our very drug policy that has imposed
illness on a given individual.
The correct basis in thought for good policy has firstly, the desire to
find the best overall outcome founded on science and fact, and secondly, the
willingness to expose policy execution to honest, rigorous post-application assessment.
Only by establishing indicators, benchmarks and milestones based on a clear set
of metrics can we ensure the policy is doing what it is intended to do.
Morality is far too idiosyncratic for government to manage;
morality belongs squarely in civil society. Any given person’s moral
perspective evolves, most often absent conscious thought, from their family and
their family’s religious practice or the absence of religious practice. So you may disagree with a person’s actions,
fear for their sole – so speak to that person; you may enlighten them to
another perspective. I should emphasize that this commentary is in no way an
attack on any given religious perspective. The challenge arises when
institutional credibility rides on dogma challenged by substantiated fact and
government authority is appropriated to further dogma. To paraphrase Bill
Clinton, all we need for a reason to prevail is to accept another’s truth to be
as valid as our own. It is critical, however, that government policy generates neutrality
in the public square. A child should be the able to start down any street with a given
moral perspective and level of awareness and emerge out the other end
unchanged, save a parent’s chosen direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment