The following editorial is from Volume 26, Issue 1 of Free Inquiry
A heated controversy engulfing us today concerns "the right of privacy." Personal liberty is heralded by liberals, Democrats, libertarians, and conservatives alike. They say that they wish to protect individual freedom from repression, although they differ about which freedoms need to be preserved. Conservatives are especially worried about the government’s intrusion into the private domain. They emphasize economic freedom, a reduction in taxes, and the deregulation of business. Liberals fear Big Brother from any source—repressive governments, powerful religious institutions, or corporate conglomerates.
The burning issue in the United States
today is whether there are constitutional grounds for the right of
privacy. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. implied as much at his
hearings before the Judiciary Committee, inferring that many of these
rights are now "settled law." Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and David Souter insist that the
Constitution is a living document and that the right of privacy is
implicit in it. Strict constructionists deny this.
The right of privacy allows individuals
to pursue their own interests and values without interference, so
long as they do not harm others or prevent them from pursuing theirs.
This is an ethical position, not simply a legal one, and it is
intrinsic to the ethics of secular humanism. The cultural
battleground over the right of privacy has been bloodied by disputes
concerning its application: freedom of choice is widely defended.
This entails reproductive freedom (abortion, contraception,
artificial insemination, therapeutic cloning) and the right of a
person to control his or her own body. The right of adults to pursue
their sexual proclivities (sexual freedom, same-sex marriage,
adultery, sodomy), and in general to satisfy their desires as they
see fit without interference from the state (as Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy has argued) is also protected. “Informed consent” has
also emerged as a vital principle governing health care (the right to
die with dignity, euthanasia, assisted suicide). Most secular
humanists defend all of the above. Cultural conservatives do not.
How far does the right of privacy
extend? It has been said that “De gustibus non est disputandum”
(of tastes one should not dispute), recognizing the pluralistic
idiosyncratic diversity of desires and preferences: one person likes
potatoes, another tomatoes. One prefers blue; another red. One
relishes hot tamales and drinks beer; another prefers quiche and
daiquiris. One is attracted to blondes, another to brunettes.
Archconservatives have deplored the right of privacy, since they are shocked by forms of behavior in society that they find distasteful, such as sexual promiscuity, gay marriage, marijuana use, or rap music. Libertarians are disturbed by efforts to impose the norms of a particular religious tradition, the standards of an elite class, or phobias against certain elements of popular culture on the entire society. Secular humanists in principle argue for toleration, saying that in doing so we need not necessarily condone such behaviors, and we can criticize them. Even so, we have no wish to prohibit them by law.
Both claims have some merit. Secular
humanists, who defend the right of privacy and have in the past
defended emancipation from extremely restrictive social standards,
are fearful of oppression by the state, the economy, or the church.
Conservative reactionaries are disturbed by what they view as the
breakdown of the moral order, and they worry about their children
coming under the influence of noxious lifestyles.
I believe we need to add a concomitant
principle alongside the right of privacy—this I call (borrowing a
phrase from the business literature of two decades past) “the
pursuit of excellence.” I submit that we can and do disagree about
tastes, and that some preferences may very well be better than
others; that is, educated tastes have an intrinsic appeal that
underdeveloped, tastes may not. Those who proclaim the sanctity of
unbridled individual freedom need to develop an appreciation for
qualitatively developed pleasures. Subjectivity is not the governing
rule. “Anything goes” is not blithely accepted. Some pleasures
may be better than others on a comparative scale: more satisfying,
more enduring, more expressive of the creative potential of developed
personalities. John Stuart Mill, in his famous work, On Liberty
(recently added to the hit list of the ten worst books by the
indignant conservative publication Human Events), attempted to defend
the view that "I would rather be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied." This suggests a criterion of better or worse intrinsic
in human realization, and it recalls Aristotle’s list of actualized
virtues and excellences in the Nicomachean Ethics.
It is often not a question of
either/or, the so-called higher pleasures versus the so-called lower
pleasures, but both. In any case, the physical-biological pleasures
in moderation and with temperance, as well as the pleasures of
intellect, art, and morality of a fully developed person, are
important in achieving the fullness of life. We need to affirm that,
as humanists, we are committed to both the sciences and the arts—to
what Matthew Arnold called "The best that has been thought and
said."
I submit that, if an open democratic
society cherishes the right of privacy, at the same time it needs to
encourage the cultivation of excellence and nobility. It should
endeavor to raise levels of taste and appreciation by means of
education and persuasion.
First, moral education is vital in
developing moral character and moral reasoning and the capacity to
empathize with the needs and interests of other persons—and also
the capacity to govern our passions with some measure of mature
self-restraint.
Second, cultural education is
essential, including enriched cultural opportunities to elevate
aesthetic appreciation and sensitivity to music, dance, poetry,
literature, drama, architecture, and the other arts.
Third, the development of intellectual
talent is central to a democracy: programs to reduce illiteracy; to
learn about human nature and evolutionary history; to expand
knowledge of science, the nature of the universe, and human culture;
and to develop reflective and practical wisdom.
Religious schools, such as the
madrassas of the Middle East, emphasize rote learning and
indoctrination. This is contrary to the program of humanistic
education, which emphasizes the development of independence and
innovative thinking. We need to educate individuals so they can be
open to new dimensions of experience and appreciate alternative
cultural forms. Overemphasis on otherworldly religious duties may
block the fulfillment of highly developed intellectual moral and
aesthetic experiences.
We have called for a cultural
Renaissance as part of the new Enlightenment. This involves at a
minimum the development of cognitive skills, a capacity for critical
and creative thinking, an understanding of the methods of scientific
inquiry, and the scientific outlook. But this also involves the
reformation and transformation of our values, which enable us to go
beyond the banalities and vulgarities of so much of pop culture. In
his book Vulgarians at the Gate (Prometheus Books, 2001), Steve Allen
dealt critically with “raunch radio” and “trash TV.” He
advocated raising the standards of popular culture, and in particular
he chastised those who are willing to use four-letter words at the
drop of a hat. (What would he have said about The Aristocrats, a new
film overloaded with words like fuck and shit?) Allen was criticized
by civil libertarians, who feared that his ideas could be interpreted
to condone censorship and play into the hands of cultural vigilantes.
Allen responded that surely we should be able to criticize excessive
vulgarity in the public square and attempt to improve popular taste
without countenancing puritanical censorship committees.
One can deplore the excesses of popular
culture. On the other hand, there are other expressions in our
culture that are no less crass or vulgar. Many of these are usually
ignored by archconservatives, who are primarily agitated by “sexual
improprieties” and do not worry about other debasing forms of
behavior. May I list some of these:
•Violence, for its own sake, is widespread in our culture. By this, I mean brash violence in movies and on television and in books and computer games in which murder, war, and the battering of women are glorified. These seek to arouse terror and horror. One particularly egregious example that comes to mind is the film The Devil’s Rejects, in which brutal murders are depicted with the gore and guts of victims spilling out. Similarly, television programs are becoming excessively graphic and obscene. I don’t advise censoring or forbidding the broadcast of these programs, but I would support efforts to limit young children’s exposure to them. I do not wish to curtail all such dramatic portrayals, but please, not in primetime. I might note that the freedom to depict violence frankly for worthwhile artistic ends should be defended. We may speak out against a film like The Devil’s Rejects while celebrating significant works like A Clockwork Orange or Schindler’s List.
•Greed: the focus on economic gain and the ostentatious displays of wealth as typified by Donald Trump in his television series, The Apprentice—and by contestants who will bear any hardship or break any allegiance trying to win a million dollars on Survivor—are also questionable in terms of values. Programs like these glorify cutthroat competition and success at any cost. Perhaps this reflects the attitudes of advertisers, who will do virtually anything to hook viewers and entice consumers to buy their products.
•Credit madness: High credit-card debt continues to build up as frenzied spending balloons beyond the means of many consumers. Bankruptcies are at an all-time high, even as new legislation goes into effect making bankruptcy more difficult. Two further signs of greed: the U.S. government provides the second-lowest share of per-capita GNP of any Western nation for foreign aid (after Italy), and tax cuts for the rich still remain on the books in spite of growing deficits.
•Gambling has become a national passion. The growth of gambling casinos beyond Las Vegas and Atlantic City continues at a dizzying pace. Virtually every major city in the United States seeks to entice suckers to slot machines and roulette wheels. "Gaming," they say, is a form of entertainment. Unfortunately it has become more than that; rich and poor alike may become addicted to gambling, believing in “luck,” as though unaware that gambling sprees have ruined lives and wrecked families. There are few public campaigns pointing out the dangers. The case is similar for the proliferation of speculative investment schemes and the boom in real estate prices. Investment in securities and property is a sensible way to earn income and ensure a comforta-
ble retirement. Unsavory get-rich-quick schemes have have been marketed by hucksters—and the public is not adequately forewarned about the excesses of speculation.
•Sexual exploitation: many films depict sexual brutality, sexualization of the very young, and degrading sexual behavior. Adults should have the right to read or see what they wish without censorship. There is often, however, an excessive focus on promiscuity for its own sake, and secular humanists need to point this out. It is one thing to view films in the privacy of one’s own home; it is another to flout certain behaviors without consideration of standards of good taste.
•Religious extremism can be a problem. When adherence to a religion requires obedience, withdrawal from the world, prayer to achieve goals, and contrition, individuals may be debased and lose their ability to function in the mainstream society. Yet some who claim to be religious leaders are held above criticism, such as con artists who practice faith healing and other forms of deception and operate unchallenged by any save James Randi and a few other skeptics. Belief in miracles, Jesus and Mary sightings, and other forms of superstition need criticism in contemporary society. Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow of CSICOP, today stands virtually alone in the United States in his heroic role. The distortions in Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, illustrate the problem we face of religious mythology touted as true.
•Other forms of addiction: the frantic pace of modern culture contributes to addictive behavior. People use alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and other forms of immediate gratification without moderation. The campaign against cigarette smoking needs to extend to alcohol and gambling. We need to address depression, a huge problem in contemporary society.
•Breakdown of families: Humanists need to concern themselves with society’s high divorce rate, which often leads to children being left adrift. We need to restore an appreciation for family values, but expanded ones, including nontraditional gay and lesbian relationships. Alas, in the United States, 18 percent of children live in poverty versus 5 to 8 percent in Western European countries. Many who claim to believe in family values are indifferent to this fact.
•Vindictive retribution: the resort
to excessive punishment is widespread. Half of all the prisoners in
the world are in American jails. The United States is the only major
democracy that condones capital punishment. Arguments against
execution aside, some 132,000 people now languish in life
imprisonment. Much of this vindictiveness springs from biblical
morality, which promotes an “eye-for-an-eye” mentality.
I find many of the above
behaviors—usually condoned or ignored by conservatives—to be
obscene. One fact to bear in mind is that the United States is the
most religious democratic country in the world. Yet our religious
beliefs are often accompanied by dysfunctional values. Gregory S.
Paul has earlier shown in Free Inquiry—and most recently in the
Journal of Religion and Society—that countries that have the
highest proportion of the population who interpret the Bible (and
other sacred texts) literally tend to focus on puritanical repression
and have the highest incidences of crime, homicide, sexually
transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies, and divorce. Five of the
“red” states have the largest proportion of Bible-thumping
believers, and also the highest murder rates (Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, and Nevada). Studies show that societies with the
highest intensity of religious faith, at the same time, often have
the highest incidence of violence.
Secular humanists are skeptical of
religious claims. They deplore superstition and credulity. However,
it is imperative that we step beyond debunking and that we provide
alternatives that contribute to human enrichment. These include
creative growth, human fulfillment, aesthetic enjoyment, peak
experiences, cognitive skills, and moral empathy. We emphasize the
opportunities for the good life that affluent society offers:
abundant cultural opportunities for leisure, travel, and recreation.
We also emphasize the need to build moral relationships between
individuals.
Other moral principles that need
defense are the principles of fairness. This is especially the case
ina society that focuses excessively on self-aggrandizement,
competitive achievement, greed, and the accumulation of wealth.
Caring for others is essential, not only within local communities but
also on the planetary scale. This does not derive its source from
obedience to religious commandments, but grows out of a genuine
internalized sense of empathy. This is an important component in the
transformation of values that secular humanists seek to bring about
as part of a new Enlightenment.
Paul Kurtz is Professor Emeritus of
Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo and
Chairman of the Center for Inquiry–Transnational.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription