In my previous post, I began to walk through Dan Barker’s book Mere Morality and noted, among other things, that he tries to claim that our sense of morality is a result of biological evolution and that the underlying standard to determine whether or not an action is deemed “moral” is what he calls the harm principle. Now, as I discussed in my last post, there are a number of problems with Barker’s assertions. In this post, though, I am simply going to continue my “discussion” with what he lays out in his book. And what we are going to find out in this post is that there is a good way and a bad way to make an argument, and Barker chooses the bad way.
Religious Values and Human Values
If this subtitle made you pause just a bit and thin, “Wait, what does that even mean?” you’re not alone. Nevertheless, Barker throws out this distinction between what he calls “religious values” (which he will argue are bad) and “human values” (which he will argue are good). Yet upon reflection, the distinction and argument he makes is nothing less than nonsensical. Consider the following quote: “Humanistic morality is the attempt to avoid or lessen harm. It is the only real morality because it uses human values in the natural world, not ‘spirit values’ in a supernatural world, as its measure. It is the opposite of religious morality because it is based on real harm, not the imaginary concepts of ‘sin’ and ‘holiness.’” (20)
Honestly, what does that even mean? Sure, it might serve as catnip for those already antagonistic to Christianity, but let’s be clear, none of that makes sense. What the heck is a “spirit value in a supernatural world”? In any case, it soon becomes clear what shell game Barker is playing. Essentially, it boils down to this: if it is something we deem as “morally good,” Barker will call that a “human value,” but if it is something we deem as “morally bad,” Barker will call that a “religious value.” And (here’s the kicker), if there is a “morally good value” found within a religion, Barker will say (amazingly with a straight face) that that “morally good value” is really a “human value” and not really a “religious value.”
How convenient. With that kind of mental jiu jitsu, it isn’t surprising to find comments like this:
“Although religious doctrine is generally irrational, divisive and irrelevant to human values, some religions have good teachings sprinkled in with the dogma…” (20). “…the good values that a religion might profess are not religious values. They are human values. They transcend religion, not in a supernatural sense but in the natural sense that they are available to everyone…” (21). “…the purely religious values—the ones that make a religion unique and supposedly ‘better’ than the others—are not good values, because they are irrelevant to morality.” (i.e. when to worship, religious texts, etc.) (21).
Let’s look at that last quote. Apparently, Barker doesn’t know the difference between religious practices/rituals and ethics/morals. Someone needs to tell him that “when to worship” isn’t “not a good value” because it isn’t a “value” at all. And so, when he claims that the religious practices that make any religion distinct (i.e. when to worship, what texts they read) are bad values because they are “irrelevant to morality,” that makes about as much sense as saying, “Oh, the game of baseball is immoral because look at those uniforms that are unique to each team—those have nothing to do with morality!”
Yes, they don’t have anything to do with morality. No, they are not “not good values”—they’re uniforms! And yes, that is a completely illogical, silly, and nonsensical claim from beginning to end.
Morality is Social…and Only Social
In any case, one of the points regarding morality that Barker makes is that it is essentially social. C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in Mere Christianity, where, in his discussion about morality, he gives the analogy of a fleet of ships. Lewis argues there are three things that come into play that need to be considered: (1) the sea-worthiness of each ship itself; (2) each ship in relation to the others; and (3) the overall direction that the fleet of ships is headed.
Barker’s claim that morality is essentially social would thus correlate to Lewis’ second point. Of course, what Barker fails to take into consideration is something Lewis insists is paramount: the connection between the sea-worthiness of each individual ship and its relationship to other ships. The fact is, if any particular ship has a broken rudder, over-heated engines, and is generally a floating disaster waiting to happen, it won’t matter how “ship-shape” your own ship is, that floating disaster is bound to lose control and crash into your own ship. Lewis’ point should be obvious: morality, although having an obvious social element, is also relevant on an individual level.
Not so in Barker’s definition. For Barker, morality is social and only social. What one does with one’s individual body is entirely a private affair, and the question of morality doesn’t come into play. Consider these two quotes:
“Harm is still harm, whether it is social or not, but your body is your body, and if you are mentally healthy, and if your action does not affect others, and if you can cover your own health expenses, then harming yourself is a health issue for you alone, not a moral issue for society.” (25)
“But if the person is not mentally unhealthy, then what he is doing might actually be a moral act, as in the case of the men who shot off their trigger fingers in order to avoid being drafted to fight in a war not of their own choosing, preferring to stay home and raise their families. Similarly, virtually all women who choose to have an abortion are making a mentally healthy and rational choice, a difficult decision for moral and health reasons. …abortion is not killing an unborn baby. The blinkered absolutist doctrine of some religious groups that ‘life begins at conception’ interferes with moral reasoning.” (26)
Let’s tease these quotes out a bit. First of all, Barker’s comments are rather troubling. Is the morality of self-harm entirely dependent on whether or not you have good health insurance? What if someone is a raging alcoholic or drug addict? As long as that person stays in his own house and doesn’t get behind the wheel while drunk or high—does that make his actions moral? Not only that, but it is pure foolishness to think that such actions don’t have social consequences. Self-destructive behaviors do affect society in a host of different ways: tax payer money for drug-rehab programs; law-enforcement expenses to arrest drug-traffickers; and countless other ways such behaviors lead to further problems in society.
Secondly, did Barker say that a man who shoots off his trigger finger in order to get out of going to war is doing a moral act? Is that true across the board? If a genocidal war-monger started WWIII and was threatening the very existence of the United States itself and was planning to exterminate entire races of people, is refusing to fight against such evil a “moral act”?
Thirdly, abortion is not the killing of an unborn baby and “life begins at conception” is an “absolutist doctrine of some religious groups”? Let’s get a couple of things straight: life does begin at conception. That is a scientific fact and not some “absolutist religious doctrine.” The moral question facing abortion is whether or not the unborn fetus has personhood, or more accurately, when does the life that is conceived become a person? Let’s face it, that is a very complex question. Yes, it is true that some of the more extreme fundamentalists insist on the “absolutist position” that as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, that that cluster of cells immediately deserves a social security number; but it seems that Barker’s stance is equally absolutist. Indeed, both “absolutist” positions are concerned less with actual morality and more with a certain political position. In both cases, it is safe to say that critical thinking is not happening.
Beware of Those Castrating Monks!
In Barker’s typical ironic manner, as soon as he finishes denying that life begins at conception and that shooting your trigger finger off to avoid fighting for your country is a morally good thing to do, he turns around to accuse Christianity of truly immoral practices—namely self-castration! Now, if you are thinking, “I’m not sure I’ve ever seen “self-castration” classes announced in the Sunday morning bulletin at my church,” Barker wants to assure you, that it has happened in Christianity: “And by the way, when Jesus announced that we should cut off body parts, he was telling others to harm themselves. There were entire monastic orders that castrated themselves because Jesus said in Matthew 19:12 that ‘he that is able to receive it, let him receive it’” (27).
Two things need to be said here. First, Jesus did not say “we should cut off body parts.” He was not encouraging self-castration. There is plenty of scholarly discussion on this, but when read in the context of Matthew 19:1-12, it is obvious that this is said within the context of marriage and singleness. He was simply acknowledging that some are born without the desire to get married, and some have chosen to live celibate lives for the sake of the Kingdom of God (i.e. the Apostle Paul). To suggest that Jesus was approving of self-castration is just absurd.
Secondly, are you aware of “entire monastic orders” that practice self-castration in obedience to Jesus’ command of self-castration (which he never commanded)? I’m not. And do you know why? Because there are none. In fact, at the Council of Nicaea, it was specifically forbidden for clergy to get castrated. The only thing I found that was even close to what Barker claimed was a heretical 19th century-early 20th century Russian sect called Skoptsy in which men were castrated and women underwent mastectomies. Needless to say, Skoptsy was not a monastic order, and it certainly wasn’t in any way a traditional or orthodox Christian movement.
In any case, Barker doesn’t give any details to support his claim that “entire monastic orders” (plural!) practice self-castration. The reason why is obvious: it is a false and scurrilous claim. Or let’s be clearer: it’s a lie.
In my book, that would be considered immoral.
