That title sounds like one of those reality shows about car chases or wild animals – “When Animals Attack!, Part 17″ or something…
I’m an eco-friendly guy to a degree. I don’t recycle everything possible or buy those cool looking light bulbs for every light in the house. But I try to recycle when the opportunity affords and practice energy and water conservation. We don’t make a huge deal of it at our house. We have recycling bins at our church office and I use those. But something happened the other day that really angered me. Claire Grace came home after preschool and began to lecture me about the plastic bottle in the trash can. She then proceeded to tell me about the inevitable destruction of all rain forests and how we needed to do something about that as a family right now! Let me remind you that CG is still 4 years of age (at least for a few more days). Four! That’s a little early to be looking for numbers on the bottom of plastics, isn’t it? So, I told her not to worry about the rain forests and recycling so much. Right now, her main job in life is to “have fun with reckless abandon.” Before you taunt me with accusations of morose parenting, let me explain my logic. You may find it commendable in the end.
Claire Grace got her urgent messages about the environment from two places: public television and preschool. Part of my response to her was to relay the often missed fact that people take various stances on the issue of the environment. Last time I checked, people have a choice to be eco-friendly. Yet, that’s not the message she was receiving. She was being indoctrinated. Come on, Sam – that’s a little harsh isn’t it? Well, look at it this way. Along with the basics of what it takes to care for the environment (something certainly worth knowing), CG was also getting a healthy dose of valuation without really asking for it. Morality was attached to the message of environmental conservation. So, she assumed that my decision to throw a plastic bottle in a standard trash can was an immoral or unethical decision. The inherently right decision would’ve been to find a recycling bin. We use this lingo all the time with secular/social/philosophical themes. After all, we need to “save” the earth, right? Yet, no one likes to point this out…mostly because we get enough righteous indignation from folks without asking for it.
Sadly, those who attach moral significance to the “right to choose ” in one agenda will completely disregard it in other scenrios. The same “choice” of individuality that was denied me by my daughter where going “green” was concerned is forced down my throat when it comes to abortion, for example. Women have a choice. And when the issue of gay marriage comes up, I’m denied that same right to choice used to support abortion when I disagree with same-sex unions. Funny, huh? I’ve never really met the “freedom of choice” police, but evidently that freedom only applies in pre-approved situations. I’m waiting for my manual to arrive in the mail so I can be up to date on which decisions have already been made for me.
I’m a minister. I believe in Jesus Christ. I also believe Christians have a responsibility to the environment. Though I would like for you to believe in Jesus, I cannot make you. It’s your choice. It may surprise you to know that I am totally okay with that. I am constantly amazed at those who malign religion and those who want to “legislate” morality. Yet they have no qualms about applying a similar level of religious “fervor” to their own fashionable cause. All I’m asking for is the same professional courtesy I give you. Please don’t indoctrinate my daughter. She can make the choice to be “green” for herself one day.
I guess it just goes to show that we are all religious about something…
Hey Sam,
I will disagree on this point. It is possible for us to be obligated to be green. Insofar as our choice to be green, or not, affects the global (and future) community, it is fine for society to place a moral ought on our choice because society’s well-being is involved.
Now in response to your hypocritical-”choice” indoctrination situations. A woman has a choice, because her choice only affects her (and contestably, her possible offspring). Homosexuals have (should have) a choice to marry, because that choice affects them, not the community around them.
And where people argue against those two situations, is when those actions (supposedly) affect other’s and their rights/well-being. In the case of abortion, they argue that the fetus has rights being affected. For homosexual marriage, I don’t know what they argue; perhaps that it ruins the institution of marriage or the family structure, whatever that implies.
So in short, I would argue that society can place an ought on you, and in a sense, take your choice away, due to that possible choice affecting people other than you.
Now I will agree that a four year-old doesn’t need education in that way. For now, she should be too busy being NOT worried about the world.
Hey Chris –
An “ought” on society? Sure. But, as you said, a “moral ought”? I’m not so sure about that.
We encouter opportunities to resist impeding upon the safety and well-being of others all the time. Yet, we often do this anyway. Breaking the speed limit is a perfect example. We can all agree that speeding endangers the well-being of others – and if caught it costs us money. But rarely do you hear anyone imply moral/religious convictions to speeding – it’s not morally “loaded” like enviromentalism is for many who believe in it strongly.
Eco-friendly speeches, commercials, and dialogue actually morally condition their convictions fairly often. I’m fine with legislating some environmental protection. But I’m not for moralizing it any more than I am for attributing innate depravity to speeding.
There’s also a slippery slope regarding what consitutes behavior “affecting” those around us. Who decides when environmental concerns move past the earth and begin to affect us as humans? Or is the earth “alive” enough to warrant moral behavior? Everyone’s standard would be different.
Thanks for commenting – you make some great points.
Sam
Sam,
It doesn’t appear we’re too far off on our thoughts then. And like you said, it appears our difference lies in my definition of “moral”. I’m not going to argue for my definition (because I’m most likely mistaken), but I’m curious how you’re using it, and perhaps how you think I’m using it that is different from yours.
Hey Chris-
I don’t think we’re far off either. Due to the inescapable conclusions of my “line of work,” I generally tie the definition to the Judeo-Christain ethic. Most of the time this lines up with a general/universal code of conduct that tries to do the “right thing” by people.
People should want to do the right thing, but outward conformity rarely affects the inward conscience of someone. Allowing humans to make the moral choice often means they are acting upon that intrinsic understanding of goodness. Forcing to recycle and choosing to do so stem from different factors. To me, the choice is more permanent and merely ouward conformity. Same with speeding – you want people not to speed because it’s dangerous and stupid, rather than because they might get pulled over.
Sam
“Forcing to recycle and choosing to do so stem from different factors.”
Intention. Yes. I understand where you’re coming from, and I agree.
Sam, like you, I would be nearly infuriated if my daughter mercy came home and started lecturing me about recycle issues and saving the rain forests – way, way too early for all that jibberish. (though I do think what is being done to the rain forests is (and the rate at which it is being done) is quite disheartening.
However, I do think Christians above all should be some of the biggest Earth day fans/supporters out there since, well, we have the creation mandate (Gen 1:28). And, last I checked, it’s still in place. That said, like you I do not think that mentality should be forced on anyone though we can teach and encourage such support of the creation mandate in sensible ways (and of course living by example helps). Due to a lot of bad eschatology Christians have been among the worst polluters.
I agree completely Brian. “Spirit-led” Christianity involves those things precious to the Spirit of God. One of those things is obviously his creation. It’s never too early to point that aspect out to a four year old, but way too early to make their environmental decisions the product of fear. As with most things in Christianity, love frees us to act in God’s interest while fear/legalism forces our hand to conform without addressing the heart.