Big Questions: What is the right thing to do?

Everyone on the chartered jet was jubilant.  The plane was filled with Georgia Southern football players, coaches, mangers, trainers, and a bunch of fans (including my family) who were fortunate enough to accompany them to Tacoma, Washington for their first Division I-AA National Championship game in 1985. And, we were so joyful with our win our rival Furman University ended with a last-minute pass from Tracy Ham to Frankie Johnson. 

The flight attendants busily served those who were of age (and perhaps some who were not) with the drinks they ordered.   Unfortunately, the food was served much later, and some of the team members were celebrating a bit too much.  They seemed to find it amusing to harass the female flight attendants.  Coach Erk Russell heard some of the remarks from his front row seat.  I watched as he stood up with a stern look on his face.  He walked back to where the players were – stared at them and said, “Do Right!”  That was all that was needed.  They settled down immediately. 

I had heard Coach Russell share before that he had only one rule for behavior of the team – and that was to “Do Right!”  He shared that most of the players knew by the time they came to college what the right thing was to do – so they did not need to have to have more specific rules.  I was not sure that I entirely agreed with him.  But it surely did work on the plane that evening.  Even the fans behaved a bit better.

But it’s not always so simple to know the right thing to do, is it?  Philosophers, theologians, psychologists, biologists, and others have studied this, of course - specifically studying how and why we may make the decisions that we do make when we have a moral dilemma.

What is a moral dilemma.  The most famous example is probably the Heinz dilemma.  Here is one version used by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg:

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors said would save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? 

Now forgive me for getting into my teacher mode – but this is the kind of information I taught in my Human Growth and Development class at Georgia Southern back in the day.  Kohlberg did a long-range study following his participants through different ages to see how they answered this and other questions.  (Some of his methods were later criticized – and I’ll share about that later.)  In any case, his findings are probably still the best known and used to show how people tend to move through stages in developing their morality.  And it’s not the ANSWER they give to the question – is the reason they shared for why they gave the answer they did. 

Kohlberg concluded that there are three levels – each containing two stages of moral development.  Here is a chart with how the responses to the Heinz dilemma would be categorized by Kohlberg.

 

#	Level	Stage	Heinz should steal the drug, because	Heinz should not steal the drug, because
1	Pre-Conventional	Obedience	It is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.	He will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person.
		Self-interest	He will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he has to serve a prison sentence.	Prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife's death.
2	Conventional	Conformity	His wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.	Stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
		Law-and-order	His wife will benefit, but he should also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.	The law prohibits stealing.
3	Post-Conventional	Social contract orientation	Everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law.	The scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
		Universal human ethics	Saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.	Others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

 

Later psychologists replicated his study using other stories and a wider age-span.  They concluded that we must pass through each of these levels and stages though few of us get to the last one – at least in what we actually do – not what we say we will do. 

Piaget, Kohlberg and others will tell us that a young child is just not developmentally able to base their decision making on the kind of moral reasoning that would put them at the post-conventional level.  And – many adults are not either. 

Now what their choice WOULD be – is often determined by the environment – and what they were taught as they were raised – and the laws on their culture and their religion, too. 

We all face these dilemmas.  Maybe not one like Heinz did – but we all get “in a pickle.”  When I taught elementary school, I would play a pickle jar game with my students – and put in dilemmas that they might actually encounter, then ask them what they would do and why – and we’d talk about it.  I changed some of the situations, but did the same game with my college students at Georgia Southern.  I won’t bring out the pickle jar for you – but you know you’ve been “in a pickle” many times. 

Now I told you that I was going to let you know that some believe Kohlberg may have missed the mark a bit – as we all do.  For one thing, he used only boys in his longitudinal study – no girls. 

Along comes Carol Gilligan  She did her own studies and wrote a book in 1982 called – “In a Different Voice.” 

Gilligan proposed that women come to prioritize an "ethics of care" as their sense of morality evolves along with their sense of self while men prioritize an "ethics of justice."

She also indicated that women go through levels and have transitions between each level. 

Now she got some criticism as well – because, of course, it will be different with different cultures and more.

But the thing is that we do develop our moral decision-making ability – and of course, this is greatly affected by our experiences in life.

One of the most famous moral dilemma’s in American Literature is shared in Mark Twain’s novel, Huckleberry Finn. 

You may remember that Huck had befriended Jim, an enslaved man who had escaped from Miss Watson.  And Huck and Jim were on the river to freedom for Jim.  Now Huck’s morality and his conscious of what was right and wrong were based on what he had learned as a white boy living in a rural Missouri where folks considered enslaved people to be property.  He also learned that it was wrong to steal someone else’s property.  So, as they made their way, and were getting closer to the border where Jim would be free, his conscience started to really bother him. 

Here's a quote from Huck, himself about this:

Jim said it made him all trembly and feverish to be so close to freedom.  Well, I can tell you it made me all over trembly and feverish, to, to hear him, because I begun to get it through my head that he was most free – and who was to blame for it?  Why, me.  I couldn’t get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way….  It hadn’t ever come home to me, before, what this thing was that I was doing.  But now it did, and it stayed with me, and scorched me more and more.  I tried to make out to myself that I wasn’t to blame, because I didn’t run Jim off from his rightful owner; but it wasn’t no use conscience up and say, every time.  “But you knowed he was running for his freedom, and you could a paddled ashore and told somebody.” That was so—I couldn’t get around that, no way.  That was where it pinched.  Conscience says to me:  “What had poor Miss Watson done to you, …that you could treat her so mean?” …. I got to feeling so mean and so miserable I most wished I was dead. 

Now, as his conscience bothered him more and more, Jim made a plan to say he was going to paddle up the river pretending he was going on a reconnaissance mission, but really planning to turn Jim in.  And as he paddled off on the raft, Jim was shouting to him.  “Pooty soon Ill be a shount’n for joy, en I’ll say, it’s all on accounts o’ Huck I’s a free man..Jim won’t ever forgit you Huck:  you’s de bes’ fren’ Jim’s ever had; en you’s de only fren’ old Jim got now.”

Well, to make a longer story short – Jim just couldn’t turn him in, though knew it was the right thing to do – to turn him in. It wasn’t that he thought at some higher level of moral reasoning.  He still would say that to turn him in was the right thing.  And he commiserated, again, over a later opportunity to do so.  But he loved Jim, so he did what all of US would think was the right thing – and did not turn him in.  His Sunday School lessons led him to know that his actions would lead him to go to hell.  But with all the gumption a 13-year-old boy can muster, he declares, “All right then, I’ll go to hell.” I’m not sure what Kohlberg would say about Jim’s reasoning – but I’d say that LOVE won. 

Thankfully, unlike Huck Finn, I don’t believe in Hell.  But I have had other folks who say they love me worry that that is where I’m headed.  If that was the case, I think their ideas of who’s to hell might make me a winner – in good company!!

Now I have something to tell you that may sound a little self-serving since I’m a Unitarian Universalists minister, but I’ve decided to share it anyway. 

I think that being involved in Unitarian Universalism, exploring ideas and situations with all of you, other UU ministers, and reading books and articles recommended by other Unitarian Universalists has shifted my thinking over time to something that, frankly, is better.  I don’t know if I’d still make it to the top of Kohlberg’s chart – or Gilligan’s --- but that’s not what is important to me anyway.  I just want to try to do the right thing.  And being with you folks helps me to be  more accountable to that effort and to – I hope – make better choices.

I’ll close with the slide of the proposed values  that we agree to especially lift up as Unitarian Universalists.  Now of course there are other values that are important to many of us – but the article 2 study commission felt that these were values that we especially need to lift up as UUs – perhaps because they may not be lifted up in Huck Finn’s Sunday School class or – seemingly – by many state legislatures and more.  And these are all values that are important to me – with of course, that central value guiding all of us – which is LOVE. 

How do we know what is the right thing to do?  It’s hard sometimes.  No doubt about it.  But we can all make that attempt to let Love guide us.

(Sing)

Love will guide us, peace has tried us,

Hope inside us, will lead the way

On the road from greed to giving.

Love will guide us through the hard night.

If you cannot speak like angels,

If you cannot speak before thousands,

You can give from deep within you.

You can change the world with your love.

 

May it be so!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Questions: Are We Free to Choose?

 

Are we really the Masters of our Fates – the Captains of our Souls?

 

Whether or not we have this Free Will (as it’s often referred to) has been the subject of debates among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and more – at least since words have been written down – and most likely for before then.  And folks, like many of the Big Questions we’ve explored, there doesn’t seem to be agreement on the answer – even in the 21^st century.  The possibilities seem to fall on a continuum – or perhaps it’s more complicated than something linear – but for this sermon, we’ll proceed as if that’s the case.  Most of our proceedings on any subject matter are done “as if” some assumptions are so, aren’t they?

I looked to several resources to examine this topic including the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, that Twenty Questions book that has been at my bedside for months, and internet sources – including Wikipedia and more.  I’m not going to interrupt this sermon to share which source my information came from.  So, here’s a little of what folks, including me, have been thinking about this subject.

According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is - may be difficult. But, basically, to say that humans have free will is to say that they have the capacity to choose their actions. 

Now, let me attempt to take you down this continuum road to Free Will.

On the side furthest away from Free Will is what many might refer to as hard determinism or scientific determinism. the view that all events (including mental events) have a cause. In other words, all states of affairs, both physical and mental, are conditioned by their causes and are describable by scientific law. In a deterministic universe, there is no free will, no miracles, and no chance events.

The reason some refer to this as scientific determinism is that it seemed for a long time that science backed up this view.  There was a cause for everything – even if we didn’t understand it yet.  And for things we still don’t understand – well, maybe science hasn’t figured it out yet.  At one time there were magical explanations for rainbows.  But now we understand what causes them. Similarly, we know a lot more about evolution and DNA, etc.  Some of you are old enough to remember the twin studies done back in the 60’s.  They found these identical twins that had been separated at birth for adoption (from back when they used to do that) and studied them as we as fraternal twins separated at birth and found that the identical twins were significantly more likely to have made the same or similar life choices.  Some of these twins got together and went on talk shows.  I can remember that some had married spouses with the same names and smoked the same brand of cigarettes and more.  Of course, they emphasized how they were alike – not how they were different.  But it did lead to some credence that perhaps we are hard wired to lean toward certain choices.  Of course, evolution has hard wired us to eat lots of sugar because our hunter gatherer ancestors had to get as many of those good calories as they could to survive.  That doesn’t mean that we can’t CHOOSE to do differently.  It is hard to turn down that chocolate though.  These deterministic views were adopted by psychologists like BF Skinner who saw all our behaviors as the results of rewards and punishments.  He could predict what those mice were going to do very well.  But now there is NEW science – Quantum Physics – which seems to weigh in against determinism.  And who knows what may be next. So, let’s continue on our this road I have us on.

Also, at that end of the road is something called Predeterminism.  It’s more of a theological viewpoint.  On this doctrine events throughout eternity have been foreordained by God or some other supernatural power in a causal sequence. The metaphor of God constructing and winding up a clock (the universe) and letting it run until the end of time is often used.

Moving on down the road we come to: Soft Determinism.

This is the philosophical view that all physical events are caused but mental processes are uncaused. Choices have only to do with mental processes and have no actual effect in the external world. On this view, what we can control is not what happens in the external would but how we think about what happens in the external world. Our choices are often restricted to "willing the next moment in spite of its inevitability" or simply to be willing to "let it be."  I have some folks share with me that things that have happened were “meant to be,” and I just have to think more positively about it.

A little further down the road is Fatalism.  The big things – like birth and death – are determined.  There is a TIME you are going to DIE.  But some choice still exists. Here’s a quote from one of the internet encyclopedias that provides a good example:

Suppose, for example, by means of some kind of revelation I learn that I will die from burns at 10:02 AM in the local Mercy Hospital on Saturday morning. On the one hand, suppose as soon as I learn this, I get in my car to get to the airport to get as far away as possible, but on the way to the airport, my car is hit by a tanker and I suffer intense heat. After being transported to the hospital, I linger on and then die at the appointed time. On the other hand, suppose I did not take the risk of traveling to the airport and go home and intend to stay under the bed until Sunday. Unknown to me, however, there was a wiring fault in the house, and the house catches fire and so on. I would have choices in such a situation, but the fated event would occur anyway.

Another kind of determination along this road that includes free will is predestination. Many persons who hold this doctrine is compatible with free will in the sense that God knows in advance what will happen, but we freely choose and, by coincidence, choose according to God's plan.

Then we come to Indeterminism: The philosophical doctrine that denies determinism is true. More specifically, not all events (either mental or physical) are determined by past events. There is a certain amount of free play between events, possibly due to chance, free choice, or chaos. Some events are caused, and some events are not caused.

We have not made it all the way to Free Will yet folks.  Next on this imaginary roadway is CHANCE – like tossing a coin – which some say can be predicted to some degree of accuracy by calculation – but for the most part – it’s that part of life where most of us say, “Shhh – It Happens.”

Then, at last, we make it to the philosophical (and sometimes theological) view of Free Will:  the doctrine that some of our choices are uncaused.  Free will results from the absence of causes, conditions, or other necessary determinations of choice or behavior.  Now most of us who proclaim free will – do acknowledge limitations.  I cannot flap my arms like a bird flaps its wings and fly.  I am bound by the laws of nature.  However, some folks did figure out how to work within the laws of nature so that Greg and I will be able to fly to London. We are also sometimes constrained by others who have imprisoned us or oppressed us and we are constrained by resources and more.  But within some limitations that we accept, we choose to believe that we can make choices.

Now that continuum is one way to explain the spectrum of possibilities.  There are other words that are also used – but this is sermon, not a textbook.

Regardless of the terminology used, usually when Free Will is discussed, you will also find a discussion of responsibility.  My 20 Questions book provided this example:

Take the case of a criminal who was raised in a slum, surrounded by poverty, crime, and drugs. He went to school in which the most academic activity was writing graffiti on walls.  He was abused as a child, beaten up as a teenager, and harassed as a young adult.  His acts of violence, his defense attorney argues, was nothing but the product of his environment and his upbringing.  It is society’s fault; he is not to blame.  The prosecutor is incensed. Thousands of children grow up in similar circumstances, she argues, and they do not turn to crime.  A person is free and responsible for what he or she does, she concludes, and crime must by paid for.  There are many other similar court cases.

Which lawyer is right? Certainly, we are heavily influenced by our culture and environment, especially in our developing years.  And a world that allows children to grow up in these circumstances may bear some responsibility, too.  But most of us sitting on a jury would probably not let this man go free if the prosecution provided strong evidence that he committed the crime.  We may ask the judge for leniency in the kind of sentence that he was given and attempt to encourage programming in criminal justice institutions which might lead to rehabilitation. 

We also see children that are given too much in their early years. No one ever says “no” to them. They have all the choices they can possibly make granted. The outcomes for these children in the real world are not good either.  They have learned no responsibility.

If we choose to adopt a free will philosophy, then for a healthy life for ourselves and others, we have to adopt a philosophy of responsibility as well. 

Now, here is another caveat to that statement, though.  What if a person has some neurosis or mental illness  -- and though the conscious part of the individual wants to always make the right choice, the unconscious neurosis seems to make that a negative choice.  Is this person responsible? Our legal system does have the possibility of “non-guilty by reason of insanity.”  But aren’t most murderers mentally ill? Or are they just evil?

You know – I didn’t watch all the trial of Alec Murdaugh.  I did see highlights. And I know the jury came back with a guilty verdict – although I’m not sure the evidence was all there to prove guilt.  But even thinking that – I was glad to see him go to prison.  Because he seemed to be an evil man – whether or not he killed his wife and son. 

In reality, this whole discussion, though – of “Free Will” is one for people of privilege.  For those who live under suppression or who live in extreme poverty and are trying to figure out where they will sleep on a cold night or whether they will say the wrong thing and be beaten up by those who have power over them and more – those folks aren’t thinking about philosophical questions like this.  They don’t have the time or energy.  They must think about survival.  I just want to lift that up as we sit here and contemplate all of this – because I realize how privileged I am to be able to write a sermon on something like this. 

I became much more interested in choice back in the 80’s when I was attending an educational conference in New Orleans with my then husband Fred Page, where we were presenting some of our research.  The main speaker for this event was Dr. William Glasser, who was famous for writing a book on Reality Therapy.  His newer research had broad implications for education and that’s why they had him at this conference.  He explained it so well – that I knew I had to buy the book to learn more.  At the time his book was called “Control Theory.”  He later changed it to “Choice Theory”.  Our library did not have it and the little bookstore in the Mall that Teresa Winn’s parents owned did not have it either – but they ordered it for me. 

As I read through this big book, it was like being in therapy – which I desperately needed because of the difficulties in my marriage at the time.  Although I did not plan to ever leave my marriage, it did help me understand that I had choices – especially in how I thought about some things.  There were things going on in my husband’s life that I desperately wanted to change.  I wanted him to love ME – not be enamored with his young graduate assistant.  This book helped me to choose to let go of that desire and focus on other things that would help me have a good life – like my other family members, my research, my teaching, my department chair responsibilities, my social justice work and more.  I do not remember the specifics of the book – but I remember one passage well.  Dr. Glasser was sharing about what he told a patient – let’s call her Sue.  I don’t remember her name.  He said that she needed to tell herself often this message.  “Sue can only control her own life. Her happiness depends not on what others do, but on what she does.  And the sooner she learns this, the happier she will be.”  Well – I changed Sue to Jane and wrote those words on lots of slips of paper and taped them on my mirror, the refrigerator, the steering wheel of my car, and on my office wall.

I sometimes still recite them.  Jane can only control her own life.  Her happiness depends not on what others do, but on what she does.  And the sooner she learns this, the happier she will be.

I learned them and I lived them. And I got so much better. Sadly, as I took more control of my happiness in these ways, my husband just got more and more depressed that he was in a marriage with someone like me – but didn’t believe he should end it.  So finally, I was so worried about him and his well-being, that I ended it and told him he should be with her.  She was married – so it took a bit for him to get there, but he did, and we were both better off. 

Are we the masters of our fates? Are we the captains of our soul?

Not completely. – But we can all get up every day and ask for the Serenity – to what? – to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things that I can

And the wisdom to know the difference!

May it be so!