Secular Morality and the "Noble"

A series of posts have recently run in the Stand To Reason post that argued the merits of an evolutionary origin of moral principles that could be explained over against a divine absolute standard.  Such an approach would reject the ideals of a Mosaic ordinance or sharia tradition based on a pragmatic foundation of moral transitioning from core concepts to refined details that bend and adjust to changing cultural norms.  As interesting as this line of debate had been, I have found one fundamental flaw that dooms the tenets of evolutionary morality.

It cannot, and will never, embrace the noble act, the self-sacrificial, the unselfish, the motives of helping the other to the detriment or endangerment of self.  If evolution is the driving force, the important issues of self-survival, self-preservation, and self-advancement would overrule the "noble."

I think of the medieval tale of Sir Gwain and the Green Knight.  The knights of the Round Table are petitioned by a lady-in-waiting whose mistress is held captive by the Green Knight.  She would ask for a prestigious knight as Lancelot, but he is indisposed.  Gwain, a young and lesser known knight, volunteers to save the lady.  The lady-in-waiting scorns the uppity young lad, but agrees to lead him to the Green Knight's castle.  After a few side adventures which proves Gwain's merits, they finally arrive at the treacherous knight's castle.

The moment of that arrival was at 11 A.M.  Gwain prepares to blow the castle horn to announce his presence when the lady-in-waiting asks Gwain to delay that summons.  The Green Knight is under a charm where his greatest strength would be at the sun's height, at noon.  If Gwain waits till three or four in the afternoon, the battle would be in his favor.  Gwain scorns the woman's advice, stating that as a knight of integrity, it would not do for him to seek such advantage, but battle the Green Knight at his greatest strength.  Gwain blows the horn, requests battle from the Green Knight, and engages in battle for the liberty of the captive damsel.

And, after horrific battle of hours duration, Gwain triumphs, spares the Green Knight whose loyalty is to be pledged to King Arthur, wins the release of the woman, and accomplishes the goal of his mission: to prove the merits of a noble knight pledged in the pursuit of justice.

Gwain would never do in an evolutionary scheme of ethics.  Mankind would never aspire to higher, better goals in a evolutionary ethics.  A system that reckons man for ape can never have such lofty aspirations, all claims notwithstanding.

Which is why godliness trumps mere morality, which is becoming rather chimerical these days.  Which is why no society will have a future in adopting it.  Chesterton is correct:  It is not that Christianity was tried and found wanting, but found difficult, and never tried.

We must stop trying to be moral;  we needs must be noble.  That is why "paying it forward" is a paper tiger, awesome only in form, but lacking true bite in its teeth.  As much good as can be accomplished with a PIF mentality, far preferable of "spend it recklessly."  Much more good is done if we feel we must not wait for some awesome kindness granted to us.

What, Then, Is Intolerance?

In trying to explore the flip side of tolerance, I thought to distinguish the definitions of tolerance and intolerance.  In viewing "intolerant," I noted this definition:  not able or unwilling to accept or embrace a concept.

I wish to consider these two elements 1) inability and 2) unwillingness.  In the modern quest for "Toleration," we seem to ignore both.  The novel notion of undiscriminating acceptance loses the discernment that refusal to accept is based on pre-conceptions.  Examination of these pre-conceptions is reduced to declarations of such views as "hateful" or "evil."  The natural mode of tolerance would at least have the curiosity that would inquire as to the perceived intolerance.  "Why are you against ... " is a legitimate inquiry to ones opinion and the bases of the opinion, especially if proven as fact.

Thus intolerance can be an inability.  Those who are called homophobic explain their position as Scriptural.  To insist on one abandoning ideas that are deemed sacred would be ... well, call it what it is.  Intolerance.  Thus intolerance can be to a certain degree based on unwillingness.  To insist on political and cultural changes in the name of progressive advance thinks little of matters of conscience.  To demand willingness is coercion, high-handed, totalitarian activities worthy of thugs.

This is why the prospects of political correct default positions have dim hopes of foundational change in the lines of toleration.  Gun violence is becoming rampant, and it could well be based on the overt demands of accepting change against ones abilities and volitions.  When push comes to shove, we may have unwittingly sown the seeds of Intolerance in a campaign to produce a more tolerant society.

The irony is tragic, sad to think in a world that would have irony for their comedies.

What, Then, is Tolerance?

The trend is unsettling.  The Mozilla firing.  The forced sale of the L.A. Clippers.  The cancellation of television programming.  The censure of the rapper for an insult of the president.

One common theme of all these varied incidents is a professed allegiance to the idea of "tolerance."  There are segments that need to be accepted and affirmed.  Those who refuse are declared bigots, perpetrators of "hate crimes," and treated as pariahs.  All in the name of tolerance.

We have moved from a tenet of "live and let live" to a dogma of "accept all things without discrimination."   And those who fail to adopt the popular mantra of "equality" in unequal matters are savaged with a blood-lust that betrays the political savagery of an oppressor who has replaced an oppressor.

We are trained to view the LGBT community as warm, wonderful, and quite normal people.  Perhaps some are.  But individuals are convincible, not whole communities, and those who trifle with the affects (and affectations) of the "community" are dangerous.

We have emerged as a nation that cannot bear insult.  What decades ago would have been deemed polite disagreement has been given status of unbearable "hate."  Echoes of pleas of tolerance sound hollow somehow.  Perhaps the rise in violence is a counter-proposal to seek tolerance at the previous standard.

In the end, there are two opinions to tolerate.  If time is granted to savor one opinion and one opinion only, to see one side of the issue and only one side of the issue, then we have failed as a society.  Tolerance is being able to voice points of favor and disfavor, without bloodshed, unpleasant consequences, or diminished respect.  It is the work of two parties, not just the obligation of a single side.

If this then is a lesson unlearned, we must then move on to the next question ...