06/23/2003 Archived Entry: "Idiotarians are morally shallow"

Kolya posted on this thread on Setting the World to Rights:

I still don't like the word "idiotarianism" and have never used it except when debating the nuances of its meaning with other readers of LGF. We need a term whose meaning is more apparent and which has connotations of immorality, rather than irrationality.

To that end, I propose the term "morality denial". Chomsky, the French, The European Union, and all those who believe America to be guilty of unilateralism, are morality deniers.

I agree that we need a new term, and that it must be clearer and connote immorality. However, I don't think that "morality denial" can refer clearly to the phenomenon. I think "moral shallowness" is a better replacement for the term "idiotarianism".

Here is an example, from the Address of John Paul II to the new ambassador of the United Kingdom to the Holy See, of a morally shallow approach to international politics that does not seem to me to fall clearly into the category of morality denial:

As an essential part of its fight against all forms of terrorism, the international community is called to undertake new and creative political, diplomatic and economic initiatives aimed at relieving the scandalous situations of gross injustice, oppression and marginalization which continue to oppress countless members of the human family. History in fact shows that the recruitment of terrorists is more easily achieved in areas where human rights are trampled upon and where injustice is a part of daily life. This is not to say that the inequalities and abuses existing in the world excuse acts of terrorism: there can never of course be any justification for violence and disregard for human life. However, the international community can no longer overlook the underlying causes that lead young people especially to despair of humanity, of life itself and of the future, and to fall prey to the temptations of violence, hatred and a desire for revenge at any cost.

This seems to say that of course terrorism is immoral, but it is basically caused by oppression and that the people committing terrorist attacks are essentially not responsible for their actions. Also, the Pope must be aware that the terrorist actions he refers to as revenge for oppression are not directed at the governments that keep people in misery, but rather at free and successful societies. It's true that we can no longer overlook the underlying causes of terrorism, and true that we must act to fix them, but it is not true that we caused them. It is also not true that terrorism is caused by poverty and inequality. This is a moral error, and a deep mistake about morality. But it does not seem accurate to call it "morality denial". The address continues:

It was out of concern for these more profound human issues that I invited the leaders and representatives of the world's religions to join me in Assisi last January in order to bear clear and unambiguous witness to our shared convictions concerning the unity of the human family and the particular obligation of religious believers to cooperate, together with men and women of good will everywhere, in building a future of peace. In the end, it is in the conversion of hearts and the spiritual renewal of societies that the hope of a better tomorrow lies. The building of such a global culture of solidarity is perhaps the greatest moral task confronting humanity today. It presents a particular spiritual and cultural challenge to the developed countries of the West, where the principles and values of the Christian religion have long been woven into the very fabric of society but are now being called into question by alternative cultural models grounded in an exaggerated individualism which all too often leads to indifferentism, hedonism, consumerism and a practical materialism that can erode and even subvert the foundations of social life.

It seems that this part refers to moral obligations and moral convictions. That is not compatible with denying that morality exists. If he is referring to moral obligations and convictions, how can "morality denier" be a clear term to refer to the nature of his error? If he is not referring to moral obligations and convictions, what does he mean?

He continues:

In the face of this cultural and spiritual challenge, I am confident that the Christian community in the United Kingdom will continue to make its voice heard in the great debates shaping the future of society, and will continue to offer credible testimony to their convictions through their programmes of educational, charitable and social outreach. The past decades have, by God's grace, seen significant progress in the building of cordial ecumenical relations which are more genuinely expressive of our common spiritual roots (cf. Address to Her Majesty 17 October 2000). The common witness of committed Christians can greatly contribute to the renewal of social life in a way which respects and builds upon the incomparable patrimony of political, cultural and spiritual ideals and achievements which has shaped your nation's history and her contributions to the world.

This is an attempt to outline the proper actions for Christians to take. It seems to contain the mistaken notion that morality is basically about tolerance, but it doesn't seem to deny that morality exists.

He continues: