Lyndon Furst's
A Different Perspective
"Moral Certainty and The TRUTH"
POSTED 8/18/09
Moral Certainty and The TRUTHÂ
"When one is dealing with moral certainty and the TRUTH, factual accuracy is relatively unimportant." I have thought about this a lot in terms of the current political situation in our beloved Republic. It seems that people who have satisfied their minds that their position is morally correct do not feel constrained to make accurate statements. Facts, as one ideologue so famously stated, "are stupid things." So, what is moral certainty?
People who have strong convictions on almost any topic are typically certain that they are right about life's big questions. It is generally in the nature of deeply held beliefs to have complete confidence about the unprovable existence of a particular interpretation of moral good. Moral certainty is the reward of the true believer. The ambiguities that beset the rest of us do not perplex those who are confident that they are right. In politics this seems to hold true for those at both ends of the ideological spectrum. Extreme left and extreme right both have the comfort of moral certainty. Those stupid little things called facts can be safely ignored. (The ideas for much of this paragraph were taken from a web source which I have lost.)
An example of moral certainty muddying the political waters is when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson determined we should go to war in Vietnam. Communism was expanding in Southeast Asia. Johnson was convinced that communism was bad. One future President would refer to a communist nation as an "evil empire." Johnson grabbed the first pretext for war he could find and, without interest in the facts of the situation, sent American troops to that faraway country. The general consensus of historians is that decision was a tragic mistake. Maybe if Johnson would have been a little less certain about the correctness of his convictions he would have taken into consideration the facts of the situation and made a better decision. Better for America at least.
Currently, many conservatives are certain that government, and its programs, is inherently evil. Government is the problem not a solution to problems. Thus, any program proposed by our current administration is, by definition, bad. That gives them license to ignore facts when they engage in political discourse. Remember, factual accuracy is unimportant when you are morally certain that you're correct. The TRUTH(deeply held beliefs) trumps the truth(mere facts).
An example of this moral certainty in action is seen in e-mails making their rounds among conservative circles. One of them claims that Obama's healthcare plan would require senior citizens to get counseling on how to end their life rather than apply for expensive health care options. Of course that is actually not correct but true believers feel justified in stating so since it fits in with their view of moral certainty.
One Republican leader, Sarah Palin, has referred to Obama's healthcare plan as "evil." The former governor of Alaska has a level of moral certainty that true believing conservatives find very comforting. Palin's accusation that Obama's plan would involve a "death panel" making decisions regarding healthcare for certain classes of people is patently false. Such a preposterous charge would be laughable if so many people didn't actually believe it. Coming from a politician who is certain to be considered a serious candidate for President in four years gives the accusation a certain level of credibility. From my perspective, it is very unfortunate that a person of Sarah Palin's level of public standing would engage in such conduct. Certainly her view of the TRUTH should not override the truth. Even true believers should be comfortable with factual accuracy.
I am not certain which of the several healthcare plans being considered by Congress would be best for our country. Maybe none of them are any good. However, if we had a single-payer plan, such as those that are popular in Europe and other parts of the world, I doubt that we would want to change to the current health care system. I am certain of one thing: making false accusations or distorting the facts regarding the various healthcare proposals being considered is not in the best interest of America. Factually inaccurate statements do not advance public discourse nor do they result in good decisions. The democratic process is dependent on a certain level of truth regardless of the TRUTH.
Those who are morally certain should find it within their hearts to tell the truth. Falsehood should have no standing in anyone's moral makeup.