In a previous thread, we’ve been having a good discussion about Natural Law and the basis for morality. In light of yesterday’s funeral of Coretta Scott King, I tried to highlight the link between Natural Law theory and the civil rights movement. The question I’m asking is “what reasons justify the civil law?” As I mentioned in the other thread, this question of “reasons” isn’t merely academic. Our ideas about “reasons” have enormous consequences for our ideals of justice and freedom.
What I’d like to do now is highlight how the concept of Natural Law led to the revolution that is the civil rights movement in America.
This is a picture of four U.S. Presidents together on the dias at Mrs. King’s funeral. It’s a bit difficult for some of us who were only just born in the ’60’s or later to grasp how extraordinary this scene is. Only 30-40 years ago, the presence of four white male U.S. Presidents at the funeral of an African-American woman would have been inconceivable. Only a bit more than 150 years ago, slavery was still legal in the South and this country was torn by the bloodiest civil war in history. Not long before that, slavery was part of the backbone of the U.S. economy.
The struggle against racism is far from over, but how did things come so far in such a relatively short time? Here is what Dr. King said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. . . . Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
This is what gave Dr. King’s leadership, and the civil rights movement, its moral force. If Dr. King had said “I have no transcendent basis for my claims; go out and maximize your utlity, with force if necessary,” we would not have the extraordinary picture of white and black leaders mourning and remembering Mrs. King together in peace. This is why “reasons” matter.
18 replies on “Civil Rights and Natural Law”
It appears that you are using an utilitarian argument to privilege a transcendental moral system over an utilitarian moral system!
Ahab, I’m not following you. How’s that?
You seem to be saying that Dr. King’s reliance on a transcendental morality was more effective than relying on a utilitarian one.
In other words, one should adopt the transcendental moral argument because it serves the utilitarian purpose of more readily effecting a change in moral attitudes.
I see. I don’t think suggesting that Dr. King’s natural law argument was more effective than other arguments is taking a utlitarian position. I’m not saying his argument was “good” merely because it was effective. It was effective in large part because it truly reflected the good. “Good because effective” isn’t really utilitarianism anyway. Utlitarianism says what is “good” is that which allows the maximum number of people to maximize their utility. The civil rights movement did the opposite — it allowed a minority to prevent the majority from benefitting at the minority’s expense. That’s difficult, I think, to fit into a utilitarian model.
I see. I don’t think suggesting that Dr. King’s natural law argument was more effective than other arguments is taking a utilitarian position.
Utilitarian in the sense of practical or useful. To posit that it was more effective in persuading people of its rightness than an utilitarian moral system would have been, is a practical, or useful, reason for using the transcendental moral system. But it says nothing at all about the actual morality of the position itself. There were people opposing the civil rights movement who thought they had God on their side too.
I’m not saying his argument was “good” merely because it was effective. It was effective in large part because it truly reflected the good.
And how do you know that? As I just mentioned, those on the opposite side of this issue also thought they were following the transcendental moral law that is from God.
“Good because effective” isn’t really utilitarianism anyway. Utilitarianism says what is “good” is that which allows the maximum number of people to maximize their utility. The civil rights movement did the opposite — it allowed a minority to prevent the majority from benefiting at the minority’s expense. That’s difficult, I think, to fit into a utilitarian model.
The civil rights movement succeeded because it obtained the consent of the majority. Or at least the consent of those who had and have the majority of the political power.
By the way, I’m not an utilitarian moralist. I don’t think that is the only alternative to a transcendental moral system.
I’m not sure this approach of claiming that one should adhere to a transcendental moral system because it is successful is very helpful to your case. I don’t see how you can separate successfulness from practicality. Do you really want to argue that one should adopt a transcendental moral systesm because it is practical or successful?
The actual morality of a cause has nothing to do with the success or failure of that cause, imho.
No, I don’t think practical success, and particularly success in persuading a majority, is the ultimate measure of whether something is moral. However, consistent with Natural Law theory, I do think that what is “moral” also “works,” because what is “moral” is by definition (in Natural Law theory) consistent with how things are meant to be.
So what’s your framework for ethics?
No, I don’t think practical success, and particularly success in persuading a majority, is the ultimate measure of whether something is moral. However, consistent with Natural Law theory, I do think that what is “moral” also “works,” because what is “moral” is by definition (in Natural Law theory) consistent with how things are meant to be.
That certainly seems reasonable to me.
So what’s your framework for ethics?
Morality makes no sense except within a social system. It helps to guide the interactions of those members of a society.
I believe that morality has been one of the outgrowths of the evolution of social animals, like us humans. I’m not up on the latest research involving the social structures of animals like apes or chimpanzees, but I believe there has been an accumulation of evidence showing that they also engage in what could be described as moral behavior. Humans have a relatively complex decision making system (the brain) and a developed language which has resulted in a moral system that is much more nuanced and complex than that found in our animal cousins.
I also think genetics plays a part in determining our moral predispositions. However, the interactions of the individual with her family, peers and the society at large plays, I believe, the biggest part in the development of her moral system. Hopefully, when the individual matures, she will be able to critique the system she has inherited through genes and culture and be able to modify it based on her experiences in life: accepting those parts of the system which seem right to her and rejecting those that seem wrong.
I think an excellent example of how such moral development might take place can be found in the book “Huckleberry Finn.” Based on his experience with Jim, Huck realizes that he has to do what many in his society think is immoral: he makes a moral decision which he believes may very well condemn him to hell. His decision impacts how he interacts with others and how they will interact with him.
I don’t think the above is complete, by any means. I’m still trying to figure a lot of things out. 🙂
Hopefully, it will give you a rough idea, at least, of where I’m coming from.
“I believe that morality has been one of the outgrowths of the evolution of social animals, like us humans.”
So is our morality as a society getting better or worse as we evolve, in your view?
David,
I would love to hear how you reconcile Natural Law with the noetic effects of the Fall … (I know you are busy, just file that thot away for a future post)
So is our morality as a society getting better or worse as we evolve, in your view?
I’m afraid your question doesn’t make much sense to me. Evolution shouldn’t be equated with progress.
I am not asking about evolution. Are humans improving or declining from a moral standpoint? Why or why not?
I am not asking about evolution. Are humans improving or declining from a moral standpoint? Why or why not?
Thanks for the clarification.
As to the answer to your revised question: I don’t know. I don’t even know how one would be able to determine the answer to such a question.
I’m curious though, do you have an answer for it?
Ahab,
Are you being serious with me? You seriously cannot answer whether or not humans are improving?
Ok, let’s get more specific.
Is America’s view of slavery in 1830 better or worse than it is now? How about civil rights? Are we morally better off now than we were in 1930s in regards to civil rights toward African Americans?
If you really cannot answer those questions, then I must go back to our host David and claim that moral relativism is still alive and well in our land, and that his assertion that no one really believes in moral relativism is … well … disproved. 🙂
Jeff,
I’m being very serious. I find your line of questioning confusing.
I don’t know what the idea of moral progress has to do with whether or not morality is subjective or relativistic or whatever.
Why do you think a non-relativistic morality automatically means that humans are going to get better?
I do happen to agree with the view that slavery is morally wrong. But I could believe that whether or not I was a moral relativist or absolutist.
“I do happen to agree with the view that slavery is morally wrong.”
Are people who view slavery as morally neutral wrong?
Jeff,
Not sure what you mean by morally neutral here.
I don’t see this shotgun questioning as being very productive. If you find something that I’ve posted here to be disagreeable, or you think it wrong, feel free to point it out and I will try to respond.
I’m sorry, but I’m starting to get the impression you think you are some sort of know-it-all-teacher who has to guide his young, ignorant student through didactic questioning. I still haven’t seen you answer any of my questions, yet you keep thowing them my way.
We’re adults here. Let’s treat each other that way. Please.
Fair enough. I am not trying to be snippy — just trying to see if you really believed that something like slavery could be ok depending on who held the view. I don’t know how else to do that other than asking questions.
Have a great weekend … and I responded to your emails earlier, but not sure if you got them.
Take care friend.
Jeff,
I’m not a moral relativist.
I don’t think that requires me to adopt a transcendental type of moral code.
On the subjective-objective line on the morality scale, I think I lay closer to the subjective end.
If there is any kind of moral objective framework, then I think it more likely that it lies embedded in our genetic structure and not in the mind of some supernatural being.
Hopefully, this gives you a little better idea of where I stand.:-)
Do think that if there is an objective moral code, that means that it has to be unchanging?
Got one of your emails. Thanks! May you have a good weekend too.