Morality: Thought Experiment

[Trevorum]

Why, Pack, clearly we have to get DHS to arrest all of those Italian and Greek families who serve wine with supper to all family members, even teenagers. Their family values are clearly in conflict with ours!

[packsaddle]

Absolutely, I'll get the matches if you gather the wood. Condemn them all...let Dionysus sort them out.

[Hunt]

I guess I should answer my own questions:

 

1. Is Mr. Z morally straight?

 

Probably not--at least not totally. Like all of us.

 

2. Do you have enough information to determine if Mr. Z is morally straight?

 

Not 100%, but probably you do. Most likely he likes to look at pictures of unclad ladies. You don't have enough information to determine how far from the ideal of "morally straight" he is.

 

3. Is Mr. Z performing his duty to God?

 

Again, probably not.

 

4. Should you say anything to Mr. Z about this? Should you report this to the Committee or the COR? Does it matter if you know that the CO, a church, strongly condemns such material?

 

No, no, and no. Without more, this simply amounts to evidence that Mr. Z has feet of clay like everybody else.

 

5. If you were the head of BSA, how would you go about determining whether a person with a subscription to Playboy is morally straight or not? How would you determine whether such a person should be allowed to be a Scout leader?

 

I am persuaded by the response of others that, in general, it is not the job of BSA to delineate what is morally straight and what isn't--except at the boundary of whether a person is fit to be a leader in any unit, no matter what the CO thinks.

At that level, how would I decide what behavior would automatically disqualify a person from being a Scout leader? It's tough, because not even all illegal behavior would do it.

Convicted felon? Probably disqualifies in almost every case.

For legal behavior, I'd have to create some criteria, such as:

Is this behavior likely to be harmful to Scouts? Is it likely to seriously impair the leader's ability to lead? Is it likely to bring Scouting into disrepute by association?

Is it a behavior that is strongly condemned as highly immoral by....? By whom? That's where I run into the problem, and what is obviously the point of this exercise. You could fill in any of the following, but I find all unsatisfying in various ways:

1. By the general consensus of U.S. society.

2. By the majority of BSA COs.

3. By the majority of a particular BSA committee.

4. By the traditional standards of BSA (determined by...?)

5. By (several? most? all?) major world religions.

It's tough to know how to do this. You'd also have to factor in how big a deal the standard-setting group would find the activity--thus, in my example, although many of the groups would in fact condemn reading Playboy as immoral, I suspect that most of them would not declare a person who does this as unfit to be a Scout leader.

[Rooster7]

It has been clearly established by some folks on this board that - if something is legal, it is not necessarily moral. A point I happen to agree with. However, Id like to point out that the inverse is true as well. Just because something is illegal, it is not necessarily immoral. For example, I dont feel that a father who allows his 17-year old son to have a sip of wine is guilty of immoral behavior. Perhaps I better use another example, because the aforementioned scenario is not in fact illegal.

 

The legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. The national law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term "public possession" is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following:

 

An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older

Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution

In private clubs or establishments

In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer .

 

[acco40]

I'll regret this but I can't resist ...

 

Is Mr. Z morally straight? A resounding yes! If the yahoos who proclaim homosexual behavior taboo in the eyes of the BSA because of the interpretation that morally straight equates with heterosexual then ergo - Mr. Z is morally straight.

 

Now of course the real reason is who knows. I bought a Playboy once for the specific purpose of reading the John Lennon interview contained within. Now, that said, it didn't prevent me from looking at the other contents of the magazine. I watch TV. I rent movies. I don't like all of the gratuitous violence, sex and nudity that is contained in those media. However, sex is a big part of the real world. American views are not in perfect alignment with Europe or the mid-East. Sex, nudity, etc. should exist in literature, art, entertainment etc.

 

On the flip side try this one on for size. Mrs. Z, a physically fit, buxom, healthy mother, age 32, breast feeds her eight month old son in the back of the troop meeting room during a COH. Is anything wrong with that?

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Acco40, "Is anything wrong with that?" Heck no. I still drink a fair amount of mammary gland excretion.

[Hunt]

"On the flip side try this one on for size. Mrs. Z, a physically fit, buxom, healthy mother, age 32, breast feeds her eight month old son in the back of the troop meeting room during a COH. Is anything wrong with that?"

 

Does she have her uniform shirt tucked in?

 

[Oak Tree]

"Does she have her uniform shirt tucked in?"

 

Yes, but it is not buttoned as shown in the Uniform and Insignia Guide.

 

Oak Tree

[johndaigler]

Before we go too far down that unexpected and unScoutlike path...

 

Scoutldr - well done!

 

Ed and Rooster, Respectfully, you're VERY wrong with the "reading adult magazines causes rape and other immoral acts" thing. Your logic is off - When "A" happens and "B" happens - it doesn't mean "A" causes "B". The criminals have refrigerators and TVs. Perhaps eating hotdogs or watching Saturday morning cartoons made them do it. -- Both more scientifically valid possibilities, BTW.

 

Anyone ever know someone who goes through 20 or more Playboys each and every day? Anyone sick from secondhand smut? Can you tell who's the smoker even when he's not smoking? Can you tell who's Playboy reader even when she's not reading?

 

Assuming that Mr. Z is capable of sharing his reading choices with boys is a HUGE jump and RADICALLY changes the question and therefore the answer.

 

The very concept that Mr. Z can be defined by one of his reading choices is frighteningly Orwellian to me!

 

So, Hunt, let's jack up the pressure. How many glasses of wine can Mr. Z have at dinner before driving home becomes an immoral act? Is getting home safely the standard? No blood, no foul? Is the first glass the line crosser? Is the number different for different drivers? Does Mr. Z's action ever reach "immoral"? Is the legal limit the standard? Does legally sober but hurting someone on the way get him over to the dark side?

 

jd

 

 

[packsaddle]

I guess I have to respond because of my family's experience with a drunk driver. In many states (perhaps all?) it SURE IS illegal for a minor to possess or consume alcohol in any quantity.

 

In my state, there is no distinction between a child who is the offspring of a parent and the child who has another person as a parent - if the adult gives the child ANY alcohol they have committed a crime. Period.

I also know this to be true in other bible belt states. In fact, if a parent has been shown to engage in this behavior, a complaint can be filed and the family can be investigated by DSS (DHS) for fitness to continue to have children in the home.

 

Here is a site for VA:

http://www.abc.state.va.us/Education/parent2/parent2.htm

Specifically, "Purchasing, aiding and abetting or giving alcohol to minors is against the law."

and then, "It is illegal for anyone under 21 to possess any alcoholic beverage."

 

The law is perfectly clear. Considering the potential tragic consequences of breaking the above law (and thereby providing a twice-negative example that both this behavior and breaking laws are acceptable), to conclude that the behavior is 'moral' is an expression of moral relativism that I am surprised to see here, considering the source.

[Hunt]

I don't think JohnDaigler is talking about underage drinking--he's talking about Mr. Z having a drink--or a few drinks--and then driving home.

In my view, if he drinks enough to violate the law, that's also clearly immoral, because he has a moral obligation to obey the law. Second, if he drinks enough to impair his driving abilities at all, even if he's under the legal limit, in my opinion it's immoral for him to drive home. If you ask my mother, his immorality begins with the first sip of alcohol.

This is a nice example, because it shows several concepts of morality:

1. What's illegal is what's immoral, nothing more or less. (Few people think this.)

2. That which harms or has the potential to harm others is immoral.

3. Certain behaviors are immoral because of God-given standards, whether they clearly harm anybody or not.

This is one reason the issue of homosexuality is so controversial--there are many people who believe it is immoral under (2) above, as well as (3).

[johndaigler]

Pack, I understand what you've said, but I think you may have writeen it in ink that's too dark. Though, I did go to some of the appropriate VA websites and it does seem as if they've written the policies in the same DARK ink!

 

Don't some of your churches use wine in their religious celebrations? Aren't there thousands of Virginians who use wine as parts of at-home family/cultural/religious events?

 

PS> With all due respect, isn't "Bible Belt State" a devisive oxymoron? . . . Perhaps, only if your state govt. uses it or thinks of itself that way. Hmmmm . . . I need to think about this one . . .

 

jd

[Hunt]

This is a detour, but it's an interesting one.

The law of underage drinking is complex.

The federal law that sets the drinking age at 21 explicitly excludes consumption of sacramental wine from the definition of "public possession." Some states have similar language; others don't. In my opinion, the federal courts would probably rule (and may have already ruled) that laws prohibiting the consumption of sacramental wine by minors are unconstitutional. As far as I know, this isn't an issue anywhere. This wasn't even an issue during Prohibition.

 

What has been an issue, though, is whether parents can serve alcoholic beverages to their own children in the privacy of their own homes. A couple of state laws I looked at do in fact seem to prohibit this. (Again, the law would probably be unconstitutional when applied to wine consumed for religious reasons.) I have never heard of a prosecution for this involving only the children of the parent--they generally involve parents that host drinking parties. But clearly, in many cultures drinking wine with a meal is normal and acceptable before the age of 21. Is it immoral for such people to serve wine to their children at home in states where it is technically illegal? I'm not sure. (I leave aside whether privacy rights would make enforcing such a law unconstitutional.)

[packsaddle]

Hunt, I agree that the problem is more difficult when applied outside the 'religious ceremony' realm. There may be a way to sort this out, however.

 

Question 1: Why does a government have a compelling reason to restrict alcohol to persons under a certain age?

The answers may include maturity, developmental health, safety, or fear of substance abuse (both of the alcohol and the harder drugs to which it is a gateway). I doubt that 'morality' plays a large part of the government's decision.

 

Question 2: If non-moral concerns (such as safety) are a reason for such restrictions, why would the restriction be applied less strongly for the child in the presence of the parent, than for the child in the presence of another adult? Or, for that matter, the child in no one's presence?

 

If anyone can supply a good answer to that, they will be able to rationalize a parent feeding their child alcoholic beverages as they see fit. The law does not specify an amount of alcohol, nor does it specify who the adult is, feeding the alcohol to the child. The law merely prohibits the activity.

 

To me the morality issue IS associated with it, doubly so, especially if adults who are supposed to be role models for youth violate that law thus instructing the child that it is acceptable to engage in underage consumption of alcoholic beverages, as well as to violate the law, even one having to do with safety and health, if the individual disagrees with that law.

 

As for the 'bible belt' thing, I merely used it in the same colloquial manner that we use it all around here - in the bible belt. Yes it may be divisive. The people here in the bible belt seem to like it that way.

[Rooster7]

"The people here in the bible belt seem to like it that way."

 

With that last statement, do I detect a note of -

 

empathy?

 

No, that's not it.

 

thoughtfulness?

 

No, that's not it.

 

hypocrisy?

 

Hmm.

 

Once again the pot rears his ugly head and slanders the kettle.