Where does morality come from?

Three weeks ago The Collegian published an opinion article titled “Slavery: Not Up for Moral Debate,” in which the author made several incorrect assumptions and misrepresented key facts regarding the purpose of the booth and the intentions of those participating. This response is my effort to give readers clarity.

It seems to me that a central reason for that opinion piece’s particular take on the booth was a refusal to accept or understand the actual exercise of the booth.  As was explained, the board exercise is always an engagement on the reasons one believes what one believes.  If the statement were “Abortion is Not Healthcare: Agree – Disagree”, it is not a statement of the opinion of those at the booth.  It could as easily say (and has) “Abortion IS healthcare: Agree – Disagree”.  One can frame it in an unclear manner such that the idea is communicated “slavery is up for moral debate”, but that’s not helpful.  I would’ve preferred that the opinion piece accurately reported this, but at least the exposure offers an opportunity to clear up what has unfortunately been made muddy.  That’s the headline, but a few other specifics seem in order: a few corrections, clarifications, agreements and disagreements.

Corrections:

“I’ll spare you the analysis just on the tone-deaf absurdity of calling the slave trade boring.”  — As she quoted me directly above that, what I mean by “boring” is exactly what I said: no one disagrees that the slave trade was morally evil.  This makes conversations (potentially) “boring” in that there is no disagreement, which can make discussion less engaging.  If someone is going to insist the word “boring” means something equivalent to “the issue wasn’t a big deal,” then I can only encourage such a person to read in context.

“If manufactured controversy was needed to ‘start the conversation,’ it seems a lot like they just wanted to use the shock value to wrangle people into speaking to them.” — As I told the author, this simply is not true. She’s welcome to her opinion about the inside of our hearts and heads, but this was not the goal.  We’ve never tried to merely “shock” people into conversation.  We have lots of conversations around lots of topics, and it’s never been an intention, nor would it be necessary to manufacture controversy.

“Put bluntly, Equip wasn’t creating discussion.”  — This assertion is false, as there actually were lots of discussions, and most of it was productive.

“They promoted rage-bait and the fabrication of controversy. Their goal wasn’t education, but rather provocation.” — This too is false, and though I told this to her in person, she chose to assert that she knows our real motives.  Again, you can hold this opinion, but a major goal of every booth engagement is discussion and education, which usually happens — often a great deal.

I’ll just point out one last correction.  The opinion piece says,

“Equip provided a space for racist rhetoric to be expressed.” — I think I understand why someone would say this.  Someone might imagine that the mere option to say “disagree” might somehow encourage the person with racism in their heart to publically feel affirmed (or something along these lines).   I think it takes a preset determination to see it this way.  If someone expresses to me that they don’t think the slave trade was evil, far from a “safe space,” what they’ll hear from me is that the slave trade was wicked, and they need to repent of such sin.  Also, there wasn’t any racist rhetoric expressed anyway.

Agreements:

Near the end she says, “True accountability…requires recognizing the realities of systemic racism.”  This implies I/we don’t recognize racism.  As I shared with her, I do in fact believe racism is a real, present sin.  God hates racial vainglory or racial animosity.  Is the idea that even talking about why slavery was evil, somehow condones it?  That certainly doesn’t follow, and we don’t.

The author suggested “If moral reasoning was truly their purpose, a question like, ‘How do you know something is morally evil?’ would have been far more fitting…”.  Was there a reason why only the one side of the booth was chosen for the opinion piece picture? Perhaps. Because, as I in fact explained to her, that WAS almost exactly what was written on the other side of the board: “Where does morality come from?”  So, in this case, agreed, moral reasoning was truly our purpose.

A brow-furrowing complaint has come from the fact that our standard operating procedure is to put a couple of tally marks on each side of whatever topic we’re talking about.  You can dislike this, think it’s dumb, etc., but the fact is that that is what we always do.  It wasn’t “rage baiting,” and on multiple occasions we’ve mentioned it to people when they ask about the “score.”  Whatever else it is, it wasn’t designed to “stir up controversy,” though obviously it did.  I put this under the agreements section because in hindsight (on this issue, at least), I understand why this might look deceptive or “rage baiting.”  I get that.  I wouldn’t personally put tally marks on (at least) some topics to avoid this confusion in the future.  Live and learn.

Disagreements:

One can theorize that a discussion-centered booth somehow stirs up the racists, but there’s no evidence to think so.

Near the end she says “real suffering is reduced to a rhetorical exercise…”  This is, I have to say, just silly.  No one was reducing suffering to anything.  Having an epistemological exercise is not equivalent to reducing the topic to it.   To repeat what should be obvious, talking about the slave trade is not the same thing as condoning it.

Clarifications:

As stated, the other side of the board said “Where does morality come from?”  That was a part of the same project, which was digging deeper into our moral foundations of our convictions.  This is not, mind you, the same thing as suggesting that the slave trade is “up for moral debate”, and I’d suggest even a modicum of a sympathetic eye can see this.

Yes, it is in fact correct to say that I do not believe in separate “races.”  I believe God has made all mankind as one race, the race of Adam and Eve, and therefore we are of one humanity.  I’m unclear what is controversial about this, save that in our modern climate the emphasis is on how different and separate we should be (based on skin color, ethnic background, etc.).  Ivy league schools have even held segregated graduation ceremonies in some cases.  I think that’s racist, because I don’t believe we should judge one another on the color of our skin, and the more we view ourselves as a part of one race of humanity, the better.

Conclusion

So, why put the statement up that says “Slavery was a moral evil,” and “Where does morality come from?”  What does this have to do with Jesus? As a Christian, I believe that everything has to do with Jesus. He is Lord of all, and discussing slavery without reference to Him only leads to hopelessness and despair.

In our postmodern, relativistic culture, most people don’t actually have a good answer to either explain evil nor a solution to it.  The exercise at the booth was to help us consider the ground of our moral reasoning, rather than assume it.  With a topic like the slave trade, it is helpful to consider why it was evil. For me, as a Christian, it is because all humans are made in the image of God.  But if you don’t start with that presupposition, then you just may side with the atheistic character Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, who says,  “Without God, all things are permissible.”

As a friend said, “The whole point of [this board] is to help people understand that they lack a foundation to call something morally wrong, even though it is, and even though they do.”  Amen.

Since God is God, and his Word is true, we have a basis to declare the slave trade as evil.  And with any evil, Jesus can forgive sinners, whether they be racists, abortionists, self-righteous religious zealots, or anyone.  Jesus came not for the healthy, but for the sick.  He comes not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.  Jesus calls everyone of the human race to repentance, to turn and live.