any moral leaders?
Posted on December 17, 2004
Filed Under camus, philosophy
The 2004 presidential election season was disappointing for many reasons, but not the least of which was the unprecedented public argument that one’s religion is the only source of morality and personal values. The argument is disappointing because it represents an incomplete view of morality.
Because no counterargument was ever offered, pop culture in the U.S. is left with the impression that religion must be the source of both morality and one’s personal values. This is not a new argument; it’s the default view that students will have when they walk into my ethics class next semester — happens every time.
I think we need to talk about this. No matter which side of the political spectrum you’re on, we need to talk about morality. We need to talk about access to health care, access to education, and job security as moral issues. War, poverty, and the widening gap of wealth inequality are moral issues. We need to talk about why (not just how) we need to protect the environment. And, as Cornel West said a few weeks ago on the Tavis Smiley show, “the issue of abortion is a complicated, difficult one; let’s have the robust conversation we ought to have.”
Morality is not about dogma. It’s about what motivates us; about how we make moral decisions; about our sources of personal strength, courage, and conviction (i.e. virtues); about the obligations and duties we share by virtue of our civic status.
I think that in order for our country to come together, we need an articulation of the role that morality can and should play in the public sphere.
Albert Camus was more than just a good writer; for a time, until his death, he was one of the clearest moral voices of Europe. Throughout his life, he struggled with the question, could there be meaning, any good, any justice without a god. His answer, like mine, is yes. Goodness, justice, morality… these are not cosmic concepts. They’re rooted ones, grounded in life, in the human experience.
Hoping to gather some encouragement in the midst of this political depression, I asked friends these questions: Who do you consider to be a (some) moral leader(s) of today? Why is that person someone you consider a moral leader? I’m specifically interested in living persons rather than the legacy of someone (e.g. while MLK is an obvious person whose legacy may still influence us, I’m hoping to find a list of contemporary moral leaders).
I received these responses. The – indicate a new response, and italics are all quotes. My thoughts pick up below.
– Bo Lozoff - Human Kindness Foundation (Hillsborough, NC. ! )
Lao Rubert - NC Justice Policy Center
Martin Eakes - Self-help Credit Union - (Durham, NC !)
Amory Lovins - Rocky Mountain Institute
Paul Wellstone - D-Minn. Doesn’t meet the living criteria, but is the only mainstream politician I can think that never stopped using his office to advance moral causes.
– I don’t really think I know what a moral leader is. You hear about it all the time these days in all the bullshit political campaigning and whatever. I don’t have a person whom I look to for morality consultation. I know what right and wrong is/are. I don’t know of anyone whom I’d consider to be like a bastion of morality. I mean, I think of Jimmy Carter as a good person. And I think of my mom as a good person. I can’t imagine my mom doing something immoral. She’s one of the best people I’ve ever met. But I don’t think about what my mom or Jimmy Carter would do in any particular situation to determine what I should do.
– Michael Moore, Isabelle Allende
– the Dali Lama
– No one springs to my mind right now. I suppose Bush sees himself as a moral leader, and some are inclined to agree. No one I know sees him that way.
– Jimmy Carter and Billy Graham. I really can’t seem to think about morality without crossing into religion. Maybe John McCain - he seems to stand up for what he believes.
– Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Reagan, Colin Powell
– If by “moral leader” you mean a leader who is moral, I would say Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, maybe Dennis Kucinich, but I’m not completely sure about him.
If you mean a person who is leading a movement towards morality, I might say Jimmy Carter again, and maybe add Jim Wallis.
I’m still really struggling with not being cynical or bitter after last week, so my current thought is that probably the most moral people are those who are doing quiet things, day after day, mostly unrecognized. I’m trying to figure out a way to continue to believe in our “system” despite the fact that the corrupting factors are pretty much givens rather than influences that can be battled against.
To me, a moral leader is someone with a very clear vision of how he/she wants to live his life in a manner that is beneficial to others, and someone with the ability to persevere and shrug off cynics and detractors. It’s also someone who is patient and diligent and just keeps at it relentlessly. However, I would not put Ralph Nader in that category, even though he might fit my description. I just think he’s a megalomaniac.
Received later: I think I would like to add Senator Tom Harken to my list.
– Michael Moore is the “moral conscience” of this country.
– all right, I admit to the fact that I can’t think of a single damned moral leader in my life - now, whether that’s a result of immorality or laziness or lack of consideration, I hesitate to say
– Arundhati Roy, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader… I don’t know. I hesitate to put any of those people on the list. I’ll think more on it. There’s a difference between the academics who write about moral action and justice and those who have the charisma to do something about it. Franz Fanon says some good things as do Stuart Hall and Roy, but they aren’t celebrities of action.
I received two other responses most consistently. A lot of folks said something to the effect of “I’ll think about it and get back to you.” Incidentally, no one who said this ever got back to me. In which case, the first response really becomes something like the second. Mostly, people said something to the effect of “I can’t think of anyone” or, more assertively, “there isn’t anyone.” I’m not sure what to make of this last response, but I don’t feel good about it. Here’s why.
I think that morality is about habits (and here). People are not the worst thing they’ve ever done, nor are they the best or kindest. We are more than our mistakes or good fortunes. I wouldn’t want my moral character to be assessed by either of these extremes. Mainly because I can make some pretty awful mistakes, and a few times I’ve gotten really lucky. Examining an average of my life experiences would give a more appropriate sense of my moral character. This is where habits come in. Habits are what you do most of the time, when you’re in between plans. Those in between moments – that’s where to look to find out who a person really is. Your habits represent the average of your life.
Part of the genius behind the Nicomachean Ethics is the prescience with which Aristotle wrote about moral psychology. How we are raised is important to our moral development since our habits are not something that we form consciously. Kids develop morally by emulating the habits of people they admire. Adults, in perhaps a more nuanced or mature way, do the same.
We do the things that people we admire do, even if we have inconsistent reasons for doing them. The point is that none of us act in a vacuum. We are influenced by other people always. What influences appeal to us says a lot about who we are. Who/what we choose to model our behavior after is indicative of the moral character we want to develop.
I asked about moral leaders. I think it’s important that we have moral leaders so that we each have a growing awareness in our lives of the role that morality plays.
Unlike other posts here, I open this one up for comments.
Comments
Leave a Reply
About
nicomachus.net is the virtual representation of Phillip Barron, who is responsible for all of the writing and photography, unless otherwise credited. Want to know more?
Jump to the full-size calendar
CM Durham
