Tags
Related Posts
Share This
“Progressing” towards destruction?
In the philosophical and parliamentary debate regarding the initial legalization of gay marriage, a peculiar thing happened: liberals managed to shift the burden of proof to those who oppose the change.
Liberals (in the philosophical, but not necessarily political, sense), flying in the face of thousands of years of tradition, didn’t need to show that this proposed change would be beneficial for society. Rather, conservatives were forced to demonstrate that not changing the definition of marriage is necessary for the good of children and the good of society.
Needless to say, this is bad philosophy and bad reasoning. The default position should be, and always has been, the status quo, until a better alternative can be shown. Those who want the change must show that it is good. If they do not – even if it is neutral change – it is in vain, for in the end no one will be better off. Whenever one proposes a change of any sort, the onus should be on this individual to show that such change will produce a desirable effect. Currently, the rules of change seem to be topsy-turvy.
Why have we so blatantly abandoned rudimentary logic? The answer lies in the birth of Enlightenment-era political thought that has granted divine-like weight to human progression and rationality. The result was an unwarranted faith in the myth of progress: human reason is able to solve any problem, and government is an artefact derived from reason. Thus, societal progress is highly probable, if not inevitable.
Such utopian ideas seem flattering. We love to believe that our species is inherently wise and benevolent, but a quick survey of history shows that the human predicament is not relentlessly improving. It is easy to name instances of progressive human over-estimation. For example, since the Enlightenment we have seen slavery dominate prominent world economies, a liberal democracy give rise to Hitler, and the birth of nuclear weapons.
Even still, progress is already beginning to impose its morality on us. Whatever serves to further man’s scientific quest for knowledge is unquestionably praised, regardless of the negative effects it may have on citizens. Medical care is a great example. New medical technology has created nearly unsolvable dilemmas regarding life and death, but anyone who questions man’s conquest of nature, even on this basis, is written off as “old-fashioned.”
I highly doubt that I would enjoy living in a society governed by the utopian ideals of modern, progressive historicists. Fortunately, it will never happen (ironically, utopia literally means “nowhere”). However, progressive utopian thought can be dangerous. Although the desired outcome cannot be achieved, the destruction of an existing society can. And as Ernest Van den Haag warns, “is quite likely to be succeeded by a worse one.”
Hello, I liked your article, but took exception to one thing. You say that Liberals were “flying in the face of thousands of years of tradition” by putting the onus of proof on the Conservatives. I think you mean that the “traditional” definition of marriage as between one man and one wife is supported by thousands of years of tradition. If this is what you are saying, then I disagree with you. If I may give a very brief history of marriage within the Judeo-Christian world: Old Testament times: marriage is supposed to be between a man and as many wives as he can acquire. This is in line with the idea that the Jewish people ahd to build themselves into a nation. 50-800 AD: the church is generally opposed to it, viewing sex within marriage as being only slightly less sinful than sex outside of marriage; and viewing virgintiy or chaste widowhood as being preferable to either. This is based on Paul’s exhortation to “be as I am”: unmarried. For evidence of the prevalence of this view in the early church, see Jerome and Augustine. 800-1400 AD: the church decides that no one is listening to its condemnations of marriage, so it decides to sanction marriage as being the only way that sex isn’t bad. Marriage becomes generally viewed as a sacrament, although this wasn’t to become official in the Catholic church untill much later. During the Middle Ages, the church attempts to control marriage and is resisted. Somewhere between 1000 and in some places as late as 1700 AD, church marriages become the norm. During much of the middle ages, the church also sanctioned (or at least ignored) serial marriage, or “second-class marriages”, which were created so a man of status could have some extra-marital fun. Throughout history, then, marriage has been viewed as betwen one man and several women for far longer than it has ever been between a man and a woman. Serial marriage, second class marriages, adultery, and divorce were all permitted at various times, with the man receving the lion’s share of the liberties in those departments. We need to be careful what we call “traditional,” since most traditions are much shorter than people would have us believe.
Sven Heyde
Sven, undermining the tradition (however short-lived) that Tyler is defending speaks nothing at all to the folly of reverse-onus historicism with regards to this issue.
But I will speak to your point. Historically, yes: the Church (for better or worse) baptized much of Greek thought and (later on) embraced the madness of the Manicheans. You point to true progress through several transitions out of the ‘traditions’ of the time: from chaos to fidelity, polygamy to monogamy, and from several ‘grades’ of marriage to all marriage as a sacred institution.
But these examples aid Tyler’s point, not a historicist anti-traditional stance. For you missed a key point: the perfect man, the perfect woman, and the perfect union have already existed in the mind of God – harmony and relationship, bound under a sacred contract which is written in the heavens themselves. Any true progress in the definition of marriage was and always will be towards this standard.
Yes, the Church wobbled and staggered and was tremendously imperfect in its quest. However, past failure on the part of the church and of its ‘tradition’ of marriage does not silence its authority when speaking to the regressive re-definition of marriage, nor does it shift the burden of proof away from the self-styled ‘progressives’.
Sven, You’re right, I need to clarify. I should have said that marriage has (virtually) always been limited by gender difference, although the amount of spouses has fluctuated, even within Christendom. Still, marriage, as an institution, has served the purpose of family building and nurturing children.
However, my point remains the same: any societal change, must be evaluated within it’s historical context, respecting tradition as a source that we can learn much from.
Tyler Chamberlain
Good points Ben, I should have made clear that I don’t defend what you call “reverse-onus historicism.” On the other hand, I don’t agree with your notion of progress in terms of marriage. I think that the church simply responded to its environment, and vice-versa, but I don’t think that there was any real progression towards where we are now, more a series of accidents. I guess that all of this points to a difference in the way that we read history, and in views regarding the extent to which God guides history, since we’re looking at the same “facts” and coming to different conclusions. My original point was, and still is, that there are a variety of ways that marriage has been practiced in the history of the west, and we should use the term “traditional” guardedly.
Sven Heyde
Sven,
I agree that the term “traditional” needs to be used guardedly if it is understood as “that practice reflected most often in the past”, yet if we understand “traditional” as referring to something existing as “long-established” than I must disagree. Despite the misappropriation of the union of one man to one woman to serve a myriad of broken, misguided and fallen ends this misappropriation does not deny the fact that at its inception marriage was defined as the union of one man to one woman (Gen. 2:23-25). Our view of history at this point is a non-issue since in the beginning God defined marriage. It was at this beginning that the traditional or established state of marriage was revealed as it existed in the Divine Will. Tyler’s point still stands, though more depth than the article allows would have been needed to explicate the matter. His use of the term seems to have merely followed a convention within the discourse community and did not beg further investigation for the point of the article.
Jeffrey Thomas