Duty and right
I was not surprised that my recent blogs regarding the role of guns in the life of we human, the role the second amendment of the constitution of the United States, and forgiveness stimulated a lot of passionate comments and some discussion. Actually, it seemed difficult to engage others in discussions. Individuals made such comments as:
· It is my right to have whatever guns I choose to have.
· Those people associated or even saying that they are associated with ISIS or other radical groups are terrorists, are engaging in evil behavior and do not deserve forgiveness.
· We have to protect ourselves from evil and dangerous people.
Obviously, there is no argument which is sufficient to counter the statement that someone has a right to do something. Someone has the right go naked, but in most public places it is illegal to do so (besides not being particularly attractive for most of us). We have the right to sabotage our health, engage in self-pity or a host of other behavior. When we talk about having the right to engage in some behavior perhaps it would be help to distinguish between:
· The legal right.
· The moral right.
The extent of the legal rights conferred by the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution for United States citizens to own any gun and keep it on one’s person is going to continue to be a matter which is addressed by courts, the lawyers and individual citizens for many years to come. Whether the question is what the second amendment authors or those who voted for it intended or whether the ongoing history of the United States changes the definition of militia it is going to be passionately debated. The limits of the word right as used in this amendment may hinge on the definition of militia.
For most of us moral right overrides what is legal or illegal. The ongoing discussion of what is morally right in terms of such issues as birth control, same sex relationships, access to health care, the use of military force, the option of choosing when to die and a host of other issues can and does engender very passionate discussions. What one may considers his or her moral right might or might not interfere or affect the ability of another person(s) to engage in behavior which they consider morally right.
Many of us believe that it is our duty to engage in behavior which we believe is morally right even if it adversely affects the ability of another person to engage in behavior which they feel is morally right. I was listening to an NPR program yesterday while driving. I believe it was Terry Gross interviewing Ben Taub who recently published an article in The New Yorker entitled “The Shadow doctors – The underground race to spread medical knowledge as the Syrian regime erases it.” In this article and during the interview he discussed the decisions of doctors such as David Nott to dedicate their medical services to train others and to provide care to many in Syria despite the fact that they are in constant danger of being killed or being acutely injured themselves. When he asks one doctor (I believe it was David Nott but did not find the quote in the New Yorker article) why he continued to daily risk his life, the answer was, “It is my duty.” It is obvious that he was referring to moral duty.
For many, this life journey only has meaning if we are engaging in behavior which is consistent with more moral values. Often, it seems, the source of those moral values is the God of one’s understanding. I do not know if the sense of duty for Dr. Nott comes from a belief in a higher power or if it just seems to him axiomatically true that we humans have certain duties.
I could list many other examples of moral duty. Among those I heard discussed on NPR or those I read about recently include:
· The moral duty of doctors responsible for training resident doctors in abortion procedures in Texas in light of recent laws and/or practices of particular hospitals in that state.
· The moral duty regarding the treatment of animals, including the rights of fish who, according to the results of many scientific studies, are able to experience pain and other sensations.
· The moral duty of how to respond to various religious groups/factions in Syria, Iraq and other countries.
· The moral duty of those who believe that Allah demand that they destroy the infidels.
It is our “duty” as parents, mentors, teachers, clerics to teach by example and to guide our children in how to grapple with these issues. The easiest way to do this is to impart a set of very dogmatic, clear “moral” rules which one must obey no matter what the circumstances. The more difficult task is to model and teach that it is very difficult to know what one’s moral duty is. Very often a decision affects more than one person or group. Very often there are conflicting moral rules or duties. The decision of Dr. Nott and others affects not only him but his extended family as well. I do not know whether he has children, a partner, or others for or to whom he has some responsibility. One could ask what his moral duty is to them. If he dies, other than money from an insurance policy and a powerful example of “doing the next right thing” how does he help them if he gets kills or injured so badly that they need to care for him the rest of his life? How are they affected if he drowns in guilt and anguish because he could not do what he thinks is his duty?
Is it ever okay or enough to make a decision and engage in an action because one has a legal right or one is legally forbidden to do something?
What is my duty in listening to and responding to those who passionately disagree with me regarding our moral responsibility regarding gun “rights,” the second amendment, or the action of radical extremists whether they be those who have sworn allegiance to a radial Allah or a radical Christian God?
These are not issues which will be adequately addressed in political sound bites or hurling nice, smooth, perfectly round stones at each other. These are tough, emotionally charged issues which, I believe, I have a moral duty to address in a way which is enormously respectful of those with whom I disagree.
Written June 22, 2016
I was not surprised that my recent blogs regarding the role of guns in the life of we human, the role the second amendment of the constitution of the United States, and forgiveness stimulated a lot of passionate comments and some discussion. Actually, it seemed difficult to engage others in discussions. Individuals made such comments as:
· It is my right to have whatever guns I choose to have.
· Those people associated or even saying that they are associated with ISIS or other radical groups are terrorists, are engaging in evil behavior and do not deserve forgiveness.
· We have to protect ourselves from evil and dangerous people.
Obviously, there is no argument which is sufficient to counter the statement that someone has a right to do something. Someone has the right go naked, but in most public places it is illegal to do so (besides not being particularly attractive for most of us). We have the right to sabotage our health, engage in self-pity or a host of other behavior. When we talk about having the right to engage in some behavior perhaps it would be help to distinguish between:
· The legal right.
· The moral right.
The extent of the legal rights conferred by the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution for United States citizens to own any gun and keep it on one’s person is going to continue to be a matter which is addressed by courts, the lawyers and individual citizens for many years to come. Whether the question is what the second amendment authors or those who voted for it intended or whether the ongoing history of the United States changes the definition of militia it is going to be passionately debated. The limits of the word right as used in this amendment may hinge on the definition of militia.
For most of us moral right overrides what is legal or illegal. The ongoing discussion of what is morally right in terms of such issues as birth control, same sex relationships, access to health care, the use of military force, the option of choosing when to die and a host of other issues can and does engender very passionate discussions. What one may considers his or her moral right might or might not interfere or affect the ability of another person(s) to engage in behavior which they consider morally right.
Many of us believe that it is our duty to engage in behavior which we believe is morally right even if it adversely affects the ability of another person to engage in behavior which they feel is morally right. I was listening to an NPR program yesterday while driving. I believe it was Terry Gross interviewing Ben Taub who recently published an article in The New Yorker entitled “The Shadow doctors – The underground race to spread medical knowledge as the Syrian regime erases it.” In this article and during the interview he discussed the decisions of doctors such as David Nott to dedicate their medical services to train others and to provide care to many in Syria despite the fact that they are in constant danger of being killed or being acutely injured themselves. When he asks one doctor (I believe it was David Nott but did not find the quote in the New Yorker article) why he continued to daily risk his life, the answer was, “It is my duty.” It is obvious that he was referring to moral duty.
For many, this life journey only has meaning if we are engaging in behavior which is consistent with more moral values. Often, it seems, the source of those moral values is the God of one’s understanding. I do not know if the sense of duty for Dr. Nott comes from a belief in a higher power or if it just seems to him axiomatically true that we humans have certain duties.
I could list many other examples of moral duty. Among those I heard discussed on NPR or those I read about recently include:
· The moral duty of doctors responsible for training resident doctors in abortion procedures in Texas in light of recent laws and/or practices of particular hospitals in that state.
· The moral duty regarding the treatment of animals, including the rights of fish who, according to the results of many scientific studies, are able to experience pain and other sensations.
· The moral duty of how to respond to various religious groups/factions in Syria, Iraq and other countries.
· The moral duty of those who believe that Allah demand that they destroy the infidels.
It is our “duty” as parents, mentors, teachers, clerics to teach by example and to guide our children in how to grapple with these issues. The easiest way to do this is to impart a set of very dogmatic, clear “moral” rules which one must obey no matter what the circumstances. The more difficult task is to model and teach that it is very difficult to know what one’s moral duty is. Very often a decision affects more than one person or group. Very often there are conflicting moral rules or duties. The decision of Dr. Nott and others affects not only him but his extended family as well. I do not know whether he has children, a partner, or others for or to whom he has some responsibility. One could ask what his moral duty is to them. If he dies, other than money from an insurance policy and a powerful example of “doing the next right thing” how does he help them if he gets kills or injured so badly that they need to care for him the rest of his life? How are they affected if he drowns in guilt and anguish because he could not do what he thinks is his duty?
Is it ever okay or enough to make a decision and engage in an action because one has a legal right or one is legally forbidden to do something?
What is my duty in listening to and responding to those who passionately disagree with me regarding our moral responsibility regarding gun “rights,” the second amendment, or the action of radical extremists whether they be those who have sworn allegiance to a radial Allah or a radical Christian God?
These are not issues which will be adequately addressed in political sound bites or hurling nice, smooth, perfectly round stones at each other. These are tough, emotionally charged issues which, I believe, I have a moral duty to address in a way which is enormously respectful of those with whom I disagree.
Written June 22, 2016
RSS Feed