The
Prime Minister of Great Britain has announced that forced marriage is
now illegal in England and Wales. This is a thoughtful move on the part
of the British government, which is currently way ahead of the US when
it comes to implementation of sound human rights policy. But let's all
remember that polygamy is inherently "forced." It is coerced through the
force of fundamentalism whether that be of the Mormon or Muslim variety
or any other systemic imperative. There is a flaw in the liberal
philosophical tradition in that it is so focused on tolerance that it
sometimes places tolerance above human rights in priority. This view has
been widely criticized, especially in the last 20 years, although news
of this kind of debate rarely makes the popular news circles. But that's
what I'm here for.
The liberal tradition that arose in the 1960's in professional philosophy held that tolerance of the practices inside another culture is paramount and if a group chooses to engage is a practice we don't care for, we shouldn't interfere. But notice the flaw in the word "group." If that's how we're going to approach the problem then it follows that "group" rights hold priority over "individual" rights, and that spells big trouble. Today's thinking has taken an approach called Cosmopolitanism (which is where I get my nick-name). Cosmopolitanism holds that human rights are, in principle, for every human being on earth without exception. National boundaries are not moral boundaries. We don't cross over the border and then change our moral values. Nevermind that Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility exists, cosmopolitans are furious about that problem because it shows than in practice, our government has one attitude about human rights within our national boundaries and another when abroad. Our values can't justify this. Cosmopolitanism is, in this sense, a universal moral principle, in contrast to the view that group "rights" are what we must observe in priority, which was prominent in the latter part of the 20th Century. Many people still practice this view that group tolerance is paramount, and thus we hear people proclaiming that we must allow groups like the FLDS to practice polygamy.
The values we proclaim in the Constitution are the values to which we should be adhering when we come into contact with people of other cultures. The lines on the map that divide nations from one another are not there to designate areas where our moral values should change.. That is called Moral Relativism and it's not justifiable under cosmopolitan principles. Cosmopolitanism is a philosophy of Moral Universalism. But this is not to say that everyone must follow a universal religion. Cosmopolitanism is neutral toward religiously-based morality up to the point where someone tries to use their right to freedom of religion to harm the rights of anyone else.
Part of the Cosmopolitan tradition is in making a distinction that is much more flexible than the traditional dichotomy between moral relativism and moral universalism. Someone who argues for moral relativism might wrongfully claim that moral universalism amounts to forcing one's values on someone else. In their critique of 1960's liberalism, cosmopolitans have been very sensitive to this concern and have proposed a very neat solution. Cosmopolitan values are based upon the equally-shared priorities of justice and human rights. These are public universal values that we will not deny to any human being, regardless of the place on earth where they happen to live. Political regimes that violate individual human rights must not be tolerated. The individual is the priority when it comes to justice, and it must be the same for everyone. But most people will also have an additional supplement of moral values that come from their personal, private beliefs. This is where religion comes in. It is there for our private moral value whereas justice and human rights are public moral values that we cannot deny to anyone, regardless of their individual situated-ness.
Let us be fully aware of these thought traditions. The tolerance-as-priority world-view is obsolete. It sidetracks us from the real priority we've had all along, which is individual rights. So don't let anyone fool you into thinking that tolerance of group rights has priority over ensuring individual rights. When group rights are the priority, it allows tyranny of the majority, or a mob-rules kind of anarchy. When that happens, society's least powerful individuals suffer and they always have to forfeit their rights to the more powerful members of a population.
Lastly, I'll sum it up by suggesting that we adapt a common policy that morality goes beyond national boundaries, and moral offenses decidedly cannot do the same. "Tolerance" can never take priority over individual human rights. Moral relativism in the public sphere leads to group rights. Moral universalism in that sphere prioritizes individual rights. Religion is relative. Our moral values should never be.
______________________
Unrelated but in the news. If you would like to check out
The liberal tradition that arose in the 1960's in professional philosophy held that tolerance of the practices inside another culture is paramount and if a group chooses to engage is a practice we don't care for, we shouldn't interfere. But notice the flaw in the word "group." If that's how we're going to approach the problem then it follows that "group" rights hold priority over "individual" rights, and that spells big trouble. Today's thinking has taken an approach called Cosmopolitanism (which is where I get my nick-name). Cosmopolitanism holds that human rights are, in principle, for every human being on earth without exception. National boundaries are not moral boundaries. We don't cross over the border and then change our moral values. Nevermind that Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility exists, cosmopolitans are furious about that problem because it shows than in practice, our government has one attitude about human rights within our national boundaries and another when abroad. Our values can't justify this. Cosmopolitanism is, in this sense, a universal moral principle, in contrast to the view that group "rights" are what we must observe in priority, which was prominent in the latter part of the 20th Century. Many people still practice this view that group tolerance is paramount, and thus we hear people proclaiming that we must allow groups like the FLDS to practice polygamy.
The values we proclaim in the Constitution are the values to which we should be adhering when we come into contact with people of other cultures. The lines on the map that divide nations from one another are not there to designate areas where our moral values should change.. That is called Moral Relativism and it's not justifiable under cosmopolitan principles. Cosmopolitanism is a philosophy of Moral Universalism. But this is not to say that everyone must follow a universal religion. Cosmopolitanism is neutral toward religiously-based morality up to the point where someone tries to use their right to freedom of religion to harm the rights of anyone else.
Part of the Cosmopolitan tradition is in making a distinction that is much more flexible than the traditional dichotomy between moral relativism and moral universalism. Someone who argues for moral relativism might wrongfully claim that moral universalism amounts to forcing one's values on someone else. In their critique of 1960's liberalism, cosmopolitans have been very sensitive to this concern and have proposed a very neat solution. Cosmopolitan values are based upon the equally-shared priorities of justice and human rights. These are public universal values that we will not deny to any human being, regardless of the place on earth where they happen to live. Political regimes that violate individual human rights must not be tolerated. The individual is the priority when it comes to justice, and it must be the same for everyone. But most people will also have an additional supplement of moral values that come from their personal, private beliefs. This is where religion comes in. It is there for our private moral value whereas justice and human rights are public moral values that we cannot deny to anyone, regardless of their individual situated-ness.
Let us be fully aware of these thought traditions. The tolerance-as-priority world-view is obsolete. It sidetracks us from the real priority we've had all along, which is individual rights. So don't let anyone fool you into thinking that tolerance of group rights has priority over ensuring individual rights. When group rights are the priority, it allows tyranny of the majority, or a mob-rules kind of anarchy. When that happens, society's least powerful individuals suffer and they always have to forfeit their rights to the more powerful members of a population.
Lastly, I'll sum it up by suggesting that we adapt a common policy that morality goes beyond national boundaries, and moral offenses decidedly cannot do the same. "Tolerance" can never take priority over individual human rights. Moral relativism in the public sphere leads to group rights. Moral universalism in that sphere prioritizes individual rights. Religion is relative. Our moral values should never be.
______________________
Unrelated but in the news. If you would like to check out
If you read the Bible, the sovereign God was never tolerant of sin. From God's view point we are but a speck in time, thinking we are in control yet we are surely not. I don't care about anyone elses opinion except HIS. I will stand by the King in my day of reckoning, all the people who think they can tell God about moral equality will stand alone. Does anyone know what happened to the people who worshipped false gods? including themselves and their self love? Well a whole heck of punishment. So live your life just the way YOU want to.....have your equality of anything you want...enjoy yourselves but don't be surprised when you stand before God and He says,"Be gone, I never knew you."
ReplyDeleteIn the Bible, polygamy was acceptable. So, does God approve of it? Please... if you want to let a 2000+ year old book set your morals, go ahead, but it shouldn't define our laws.
DeleteHave to say I agree with Anon 10:10 wholeheartedly . It's a tough word, but I believe it to be true. Amen!
DeleteAnon 10:10, I'm not sure where you're coming from. I'm not worried about people who have religious beliefs. I have them, but I usually consider them private. What I'm discussing here is political philosophy and this critique of liberalism that I'm discussing is truly what's being discussed these days.
DeleteThe more subtle points I'm making are that individual human beings are the only ones qualified for human rights status. Groups of human beings do not have innate rights the way individual people have them. And when the group's choices make individuals suffer, the groups cannot claim it is their right. All of the individuals in the group have their own rights, but groups of individuals aren't entitled to top priority when it comes to rights. Individuals should have that status.
So to conclude, if a group, like a religious group, harms the human rights of any individual, they can't claim that their right to freedom of religion justifies doing such harm.
For a vivid example, look to the FLDS or any other group that demands the right to practice something that is demonstrably harmful. In the latter part of the 20th Century, tolerance of GROUPS was considered paramount. But philosophy has shifted and we now recognize that if the group as a whole has "rights" that come at the harm to any individual, there is no justification. 40 years ago, we wouldn't have tried to cross cultural barriers in an effort to protect the rights of individuals. We have simply learned that it's a mistake to think of groups having rights in the sense that individuals have rights.
When group rights are paramount, individual rights always suffer.
Our nation was made under one god. There is no world without religion. I prefer to stay in the good ole USA and pray the good lord gets me through this world.
DeleteAs far as the Politicians deciding who gets to marry-I think it should be up to each individual.
No, we dont know what happened to the people who worshiped false gods. When they died not a one of them bothered to come back and tell us. We have no clue, we have to make stuff up and assume they got punished. But really we dont know
ReplyDeleteAMEN! anony 2:15 a.m.
DeleteI don't mind when people say they BELIEVE something with all their heart but no one FACTUALLY KNOWS any of this god/jesus/allah/name your god of choice stuff for sure! :)
Eyewitnesses, Scripture which has stood the test of time. Extra Biblical writings....you pick
DeleteMarriage predates Christianity and has taken many forms. Abrahamic religions have always practiced it as a man and his property (or properties) I live in a country ruled by a secular constitution, not a religious one, hence, your christian and other religious dogma does not rule the law. Consequently, as a country progresses in education and science, religion no longer holds a stranglehold on marital norms. Polygamy has been encouraged and sanctioned by Judaism, Christianity, and the late comer, Islam. As religious superstition and fear gives way to compassion, secularism, and reason, polygamy and child marriage will become obsolete. Define marriage for yourself according to sexist and archaic texts if you wish, but do not define it for anyone else-that is not your business, nor your right.
ReplyDeleteWhy cling so tightly to the conservative pillars Anon 4:24? Relax a bit and see where open discussion takes you.
DeleteDid you even read my post? I do not support nor advocate conservative principles or views.
DeleteI don't believe he defined marriage at all Anony 4:24! Where are you reading that? If anything, what I read was DO NO HARM TO OTHERS, which, in some religions, like polygamy, is inherent by their rule of polygamy. I think you missed the boat on this topic -he not stating anything that isn't common sense.
DeleteIf anything, it is an athiest point of view that points to religions having pre cursors to harm.
Anon 4:24, I've only made a secular argument that covers everyone. Our most important concern is the balance between our human rights, which is what I refer to when I say "justice."
DeleteI encourage everyone to read exactly what I write and take me literally. It will clear up the misunderstandings.
I agree with Troy's original post and I also agree with Anon 4:24.
DeleteWhether we can see it or not, law in most western nations is founded on religious (in this case, Christian) principals. Individual rights are all well and good as long as they fall in line with these religious principles. As some countries move to a more secularized framework, it becomes harder to defend abuses of individual rights in the face of group rights. In the US, from what I can see, the influence of church on state is remarkable. The very idea that freedom of religion trumps individual rights may be rejected in theory but certainly not in practice. Individuals who fall outside the 'religious pale' are often denied their right to live as they choose regardless of the fact that they are not affecting anyone else's rights to live the way they choose.
I am not a religious person, but I am an ethical, moral person. Studies have shown that human societies do not need religious belief to create morality (and from our collective morality comes our collective perception of others' right to rights and thence our legislation protecting those right). Since not everyone in my country or yours believes in the same god or word or god or any god at all, moving towards a system based on secular ideas of morality allows us to step outside the biases of one belief system and create a framework founded on the individual rights of all humans, not just 'people like us'.
I think though there are a lot of differences between the way fundamental Mormons and Muslims practice polygamy, around 97-99% of Muslims do not practice polygamy. However I would imagine it is the opposite figure for Fundamental Mormons. I really do not think it is helpful to lump them together.
ReplyDeleteNo, there are a lot of differences, but Muslim polygamy also comes at the cost of individual human rights. I have a colleague who is an expert on the problems of Muslim polygamy in New York. If anything, it allows the men to be even more abusive than in Mormon fundamentalism.
DeleteOne thing we can say about every society: There aren't enough women for all of the men to practice polygamy. Biology simply doesn't work that way. When the sex ratio moves away from 1:1, that's a good reason to expect that human rights are being abused in that society.
A behavior can never logically-justified as deserving the status of "right" when it's impossible to provide an opportunity for everyone to engage in it.
I don't think allows men to be 'more abusive' because muslims do not live in closed small communities like those of the FLDS or the kingston group.
DeleteAlso in Islam if women work their husbands are not entitled to a cent of her money, which is the opposite of fundamentalist mormons where we see that women are expected not only to provide for their own children but also for their sister wives and their children. Time and time again in Fundamental mormon women talk about the financial burden and oppression their suffer, whereas it is a condition of marriage that muslim men be able to provide for his wife in a way she has been accustomed to or has agreed to. He does not have the right to marry another woman without being able to support her.
Due to the lack of men and women socialising together, there isn't 'husband shopping' as some commentators have labelled it. A man can't be flirted with at the local mosque and then married. There isn't also an obligation to engage in polygamy like Mormon fundamentalists. This means both men and women are not seeking to be in polygamous relationships as a way of reaching heaven or attaining a certain level of piety.
In Islam there is also no confusion over who the children belong to, whereas the fact that the children in mormon polygamy have to call all their father's wives 'mom' undermines one of their real mothers fundamental rights, that of recognition. I understand what you are saying about ratios, but those ratios are true worldwide but not in specific areas. For example polygamy was traditionally more common in times of war when lots of men died and a lot of women and children needed supporting. There are times when the ratio is not at all close to 1:1 and polygamy is important and many women actually seek it.
I don't agree with you about the definition of a 'right', children have different rights to adults because they have different needs and capabilities.
The fact that not all people on planet earth could engage in a polygamous relationship does not mean that it cannot be a 'right'. Especially when it is something that not all people would necessarily want to or feel a need to.
There is no doubt that muslims can abuse polygamy and not follow the rules clearly set out in their religion, just like monogamous or women can similarly disrespect their own marriages. I think though that the huge differences between the guidelines set out for Muslims to practice polygamy and Mormons is so great that it is not appropriate to mention them together. Obviously, you disagree,
True it may not be our right, but it is not our right to judge others. That also is in the bible.
ReplyDeleteThe question I have is - Who's then will protect the rights of the children when they have no voice and their mothers fear eternal damnation????
No Name
Just because you don't have a religion necessarily means you would harm a child! the point is to do no harm.
DeleteOh, but judging the behavior of others is well within my rights. The Bible may discourage it, but let's face it: All of us make judgments when it comes to the behavior of others. It's part of learning how to be a moral person.
DeleteWhile not a Christian, I can appreciate proverbs in the Christian tradition like "Judge note lest ye be judged." I don't interpret the proverb to mean that we should never judge at all. If we didn't do that, then why do we depend on judges in the legal system?
I'm not looking to prove or disprove anyone's faith. My point is that above all else, protecting the individual from harm is the top priority. Tolerance is vitally important, but it should never get in the way of protecting individual human rights.
I have a minor in religious studies, taught by mainly "libral "professors and all would agree in Judiasm, Isalm and Christianity marriage is between a man and woman. (defined in those religions). II personally believe it is not the governments place to define what is or isn't marriage. It is dangerously close to defining what is right in other family values such as how many children you can have, IMHO. Unfortunately the government will have to decide this issue since our tax system and other areas revolve around single/or married. If gay marriage is defined then yes I believe polygamy may be next.
ReplyDeleteMy religious beliefs are the same as anon 10:10 and I have no problem feeling that way.
I don't agree with the implication that giving marriage rights to two people regardless of gender opens the door for marriage rights in polyamorous or polygamous situations. I do agree that the tax code is one of the reasons for a distinction. changing federal tax laws to remove gender assumptions is a whole lot easier than figuring out tax, estate, custody etc laws that are complicated by large marriages.
DeleteI don't believe states will approve polygamy; there isn't enough acceptance within any one state's populous IMHO.
Praise God! Anon 12:04......knew I would get a few people angry but this is all over the Bible..This is God's opinion, they can read it for themselves!
DeleteBut no matter how much they agree on the Abrahamic conception of marriage, that doesn't justify forcing everyone into their mores. People who don't follow the Abrahamic traditions, and even some who do, will argue that their position is the right religious belief. Questions like this can never be decided and should thus be part of one's private faith. Public moral concerns refer to violations of human rights and justice. Those principles cover problems like murder, theft, fraud and a variety of other injustices. In fact, it is through these principles that we can successfully argue that your individual right to freedom of religion is part of your right to be free from harm. Don't be too quick to dismiss the philosophical underpinnings of the subject. Tolerance or individual rights? That's my question. They are mutually exclusive. One must take priority over the other.
DeleteInsightful piece. Will have to think on it. You draw me into things I never have really thought throughly before.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what those that have a better understanding of all this think... Would approval of gay rights mean a more likely approval of polygamists rights? If I am reading correctly, not so because of the law change.
ReplyDeleteAlso, gay marriage is one kind of monogamy. It would not be a huge inconvenience to other people who are looking to marry according to their own preferences. We can't rightly expect gays to marry heterosexuals. Allowing them to marry among themselves would not create imbalances like we see inherent to patriarchal polygamy. People could all just choose from the pool that suits them. But polygamy is not a sexual orientation. No society has the ability to regulate justice in polygamy. Injustice is built right into the system when it is the man marrying multiple women but the reverse is utterly forbidden, as in the vast majority of polygamy world-wide.
DeleteIt's really easy to analyze an argument like this as a dichotomy while we are all comfortably sitting in the United States. But the reality is that, things are not always black and white, especially not in other parts of the world or even here at home.
ReplyDeleteI spent sometime in refugee camps in the Middle East a few years ago, and really found myself struggling with accepting cultural norms vs. my white, western educated, feminist values. I constantly questioned who has the correct notion of women's rights. Is it me, that guy over there or the woman sitting next to me? I did not meet any polygamists, but I did meet women who had suffered a lot of the things we frequently discuss here, such as forced marriages, child brides, etc. Whenever I asked someone about her rights being violated, I was almost always reminded, regardless of the woman's education level or marital status, that Human Rights and all it entails is a concept created by Western Society (i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights),and what women really want is the right to choose! Women don't want someone else coming in and saying... "MMM that clothing, definitely a symbol of oppression so you shouldn't wear it, but that's OK you didn't know because you are oppressed." When in reality, the "oppressed" woman may in fact prefer to wear the conservative traditional clothing for a hundred different reasons we may never know. What is good for one woman, may not be good for another,so I don't think we can simply say you are either tolerant or you are pro-human rights. What we (proponents of human rights) really need to champion is transparency, equal education and resources. Providing women with the necessary tools and education, will only further empower the individual and create a sense of agency that is essential to choosing one's own path in life.
Now this is not to say that I think we should just turn a blind eye to what's happening in fundamentalist communities in the United States. In fact, I think quiet the opposite. I'm really upset we haven't done more!! Recently I've been reading "Church of Lies," and "Under the Banner of Heaven," and it's very apparent in both books that the majority of FLDS women have zero agency. In situations like those in the FLDS community, we as Americans should demand that these women have access to equal education, resources and transparency, but as we have seen over the last few decades, the government is not willing to enforce human rights or champion the cause domestically. While most people will say that we ignore the atrocities in the polygamist community because of the "Short Creek Disaster," I think it also stems from the lack of de jure equality that women have in the United States. Sure, de facto we are equal, but legally we are not. The constitution may grant us the right to vote, but does it say we are equal to men? No...it doesn't...that's what the Equal Rights Amendment was for and that was struck down years ago. Additionally, the United States has never ratified (only signed) the "Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women," which is the main document that sets the standards for women's equality in the international community. I find it a little disturbing that the majority expects a certain standard to be upheld when it comes to sub-cultures,but we don't really even reach for it ourselves. SO maybe the way to really enact change is not to fixate on what/how/why we (the majority) legitimize and accept the actions of sub-cultures like the FLDS, but instead to examine what we as the majority accept and demand of the principles of equality.
I think this is a great piece! I've really wanted to discuss this for awhile. Maybe next we could discuss the F word (feminism), it's goals and how they relate to polygamy. I think Janelle would be a really interesting case study!!
Thank you for taking the time to give it some good thought. I actually think we agree on most points, but remember that you're making a "descriptive" case where I'm making a "prescriptive" case. You can give me terabytes of data about how things are in the world, but what I'm discussing is the things ought to be in order for all of our ideas to work together. I can't get discouraged by people telling me that "this is just the way people are." For all the people you mention, the recognition of their human rights would be the very thing that would solve their problems. Lastly, my ideas are definitely not entirely Western and the very concept of Western/Eastern is highly ambiguous outside "Western" societies. But much of my style in making these arguments comes from philosophy that arose in India. It's called cosmopolitanism and it holds that if human rights exist at all, every human being deserves to have theirs protected by their various groups. I don't advocate foreign military intervention except under the most extreme circumstances, but if a culture condones or prescribes a behavior that puts individual rights in jeopardy, that is the thing we can't tolerate and that's one of the few places where we can draw a clear line. (note again: this is philosophy. I'm looking for the answers to the problems we have right now. Change takes time, but it does occur and it does have to start somewhere. What I've done is provide some ideas about the theories we use to justify human rights.
DeleteIt's a shame we don't live in a more peaceful world.
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this. I have had words with a few people when trying to explain to others why I am so against polygamy. And I finally just give up. We are expected to be so tolerant nowadays of others beliefs that no one wants to speak about things that might make them look intolerant. Now it will be easier for me to explain to people that human rights should trump religion if people are being abused.
ReplyDeleteTo make things simple, tolerance, while vitally important in society, must give way when someone's human rights are being abused. when that happens, we can't accept that the rights of the group to practice their religion are more important than the individual rights that are there to protect us all
ReplyDeleteIt's not right to ignore human rights abuses simply because we have to be tolerant of a group practice. Some group practices really do harm people at the individual level and we have to make sure the least powerful members of any community aren't suffering due to the behavior of the most powerful.
When it comes to freedom of religion, it has three major elements:
1. Freedom OF religion. This is what we're accustomed to saying when referring to the right to one's choice of religion.
2. Freedom IN religion. Within a religion, a person should never be forced to adhere to any rule. To force some behavior in the name of religion is to infringe on someone's right to practice their own belief.
3. Freedom FROM religion. If one does not accept one or more religious beliefs that are held by others, no matter how many, one should not be forced to behave according to the norms attached to those religious beliefs.
There are some moral principles that are universal, regardless of the culture in which someone resides. These principles include human rights, which everyone deserves no matter where they are. In many places human rights are not protected, but that doesn't mean that people living there don't deserve to have liberty and be free from harm. That's presumed in ethics. Political regimes don't create human rights. We have created these concepts independent of government and long before any government could take the time to implement them.
None of this suggests that anyone's religious values should play no role in their political beliefs. But law cannot favor one religion over another. Law must be neutral. Everyone has their individual right to practice according to how they believe, but there is too much diversity to let any single group hold priority over the others. This also means that coercive religions like the FLDS (and the AUB too) should not be treated with exception when it comes to following the law. Religion has never been an excuse for breaking the law. If that were the case, we'd have no justification for holding groups like Al Qaeda responsible when they commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah. We'd also have to release Warren Jeffs. After all, he claimed he was simply following his religious beliefs.
When human rights are being abused, that is the point where we can take no more. That is where our tolerance must end and the criminals must be held accountable. If human rights aren't a cause for worry, then tolerance is the rule. It's a subtle difference in priorities, but it makes a big difference in public practice.
This is not the proper place for strong political debate. This place is for discussion of the Browns and polygamy in general with the hopes of having some good laughs and a few insights. But for debate, we're much better off going to http://www.cosmophilosophy.com/#!the-principle-flaw-of-liberalism/c2433 or to my Facebook page "Philosophy and Polygamy," which is open to everyone. If you don't do Facebook you can post a comment on my my own site, and you can do it anonymously. It will just need moderator approval before it gets posted, like this place. I urge you to join me there or on Facebook and explain any problems you see with what I've been trying to express. You can also contact me directly via through my website.
Now, let's keep this place the way it is and not weigh it down with heavy political debate!
Cheers to all, especially the Browns. Everyone deserves the means to be happy--everyone.