Moral Discourse

 The Inverted Stream of Moral Discourse

By Mark Huenemann (Revised 17 Aug 2021)

Two people of the same religious faith hold diametrically opposing views on an important social issue. Neighbors vehemently disagree about key political issues. An employee is offended by a coworker’s bumper sticker. Individuals simply cannot understand how their friends can hold such wrong beliefs. Attempts at rational conversation make little progress because neither person seems willing to seriously consider the other’s viewpoint. In order to maintain harmony in families, work groups, schools, and neighborhoods people avoid sensitive topics and “agree to disagree.” Does this sound familiar?

Conflicting views on moral issues are as old as mankind. Individuals and groups throughout history have disagreed, debated, protested, legislated, and even gone to war over things like slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice, capital punishment, military conscription, abortion, alcohol and drug use, status of indigenous peoples, just war theory, nuclear power, animal rights, and a host of other issues. Today, the news media is largely divided into socially or politically liberal or conservative camps, and readers/listeners tend to consume news which reinforces their already-held beliefs.

Social media contain myriad discussion threads on moral issues, few of which ever give evidence of participants changing their positions. Often, posts simply repeat the same arguments over and over, adding virtually nothing to the debate. In our haste to state our own moral position or offer a rebuttal of a differing opinion we often fail to recognize that the things we argue about are “downstream issues.” That is, our positions on moral issues can be traced “upstream” to presuppositions and foundational beliefs which lead to certain moral conclusions.

Imagine a large river with many, many tributaries. Tiny creeks combine to form small rivulets, which together form streams, which feed into small rivers, which in turn combine to form the large river. Dozens or more or tributaries, coming from many different directions, all combine to make up a large, wide river which contains the water from all its sources. As an example, here are the tributaries flowing into just one section of the River Thames in England:

A person traveling on any of the navigable tributaries of the River Thames need only go with the current, which will take them to a larger tributary and eventually to the Thames itself. This is true irrespective of the tributary on which the journey is begun. If many people begin their journeys on multiple, distinct tributaries, all will eventually find themselves together on the mighty Thames.

Imagine an inverse image of a river and its tributaries. Rather than multiple tributaries merging to eventually form the final river, the river begins as a broad body of flowing water. As the river progresses, it divides into several smaller rivers, each of which splits into multiple streams, rivulets, and eventual tiny, isolated creeks. Now imagine the river is composed not water, but of people and their moral philosophies, beliefs and opinions (we’ll call it a “belief river”). As the river progresses, people diverge according to their moral beliefs and opinions. And at each juncture of the “belief river”, the people’s direction is determined by a key religious or philosophical question, and they follow the tributary that reflects their response to each question (examples of this follow).

Three points about the “belief river” and its [reversed] tributaries: (1) as the tributaries subdivide again and again, they become less recognizable as part of the original river and more separated from the other branches (2) for persons following any tributary to rejoin the larger river and/or move toa different one, they must first travel backward against the current to the point where it left the larger body of the rive (3) from this point on, we will refer to the river’s subdivisions as “branches.”

What might happen as people and their thoughts travel down this “belief river”? First, everyone begins at the broadest part of the river, which is the most inclusive. This is akin to beginning life as non-opinionated children. Soon, however, the travelers face questions which will lead them into one tributary/branch or another. Because religion is a fundamental part of human culture, many (but not all) questions will have a religious component.

Imagine joining a group of people as they begin their travel on the “belief river.” Shortly, you face the first question: Is there such a thing as reality? The vast majority your group will likely answer, “Yes, of course there is” and continue along the main river channel. A small number may say, “No, reality does not exist” or “I’m not certain.” These responses will divert them into a branch off the main river. Because their response is relatively rare, they would find themselves on a very small branch of the river.

The second question is related to the first: Is there such a thing as objective truth? Here the river will divide into two sizeable branches. From this point on, relativists will travel on one branch of the belief river, while those who accept the idea of absolute truth will follow another.

A bit farther down the river, we might encounter the next question: If the universe does exist, where did it come from? Some will attribute the existence of the universe to some intelligent entity, while others will say it occurred spontaneously. This will divide the group along two branches of the river, the sizes of which are proportional to the number of persons who expressed each of these differing beliefs.

Notes: (A) We have not yet arrived at any moral questions but are facing foundational questions which precede the formation of moral beliefs (B) The relative numbers of persons giving any particular answer to any question does not determine which answer is correct (the size of the branches reflects only the number of persons who join them). (C) For this discussion, we will frequently follow the branches that reflect the author’s beliefs but also attempt to offer examples of other branches.

At the juncture where beliefs divide regarding the origin of the universe, we might find ourselves on the branch aligned with the idea that the universe came into existence spontaneously, the result of non-designed random events. Those traveling this branch might agree that the galaxies, planets, and life itself develop without outside guidance from an initial incredibly dense mass. On that branch, a question that might lead to a further division into multiple streams could be “what was the origin of the original dense mass?”

In contrast, for those traveling the large branch of the “belief river” that contains those who believe the universe exists at the behest of an intelligent entity, the next logical question might be: What do you mean by an intelligent entity? Here the river might divide into several channels, including beliefs in a non-divine designer, a non-creator designer, a non-divine creator, a divine designer, a divine creator, etc. If you are traveling with me, you will find yourself in the river channel designated for those who believe in the existence of a divine creator (broadly speaking, a god or gods). The people in this channel might be described as religious, though that is an assumption at this point.

Farther down the river (along the branch of those who purport the existence of a ‘divine creator’), we face the next question: Does or has the divine creator interacted/communicated with humans? At this point, some will follow a branch will follows the belief that although there was some type of divine creator, he/she/it ceased interaction with the universe; the universe simply continues according to certain physical principles instilled in it at the time of its origin. At this point, we would discover an alternative branch (the branch that reflects the author’s beliefs) labeled “the divine creator has interacted/communicated with humans.” Those who choose this branch will their own set of subsequent questions and diverging river branches.

Note: A variety of factors affect the choices made regarding which branches are followed, including parents, teachers, peers, life experience, and more. We ought not assume that the branches followed are chosen in a purely rational or logical manner.

The ensuing questions encountered by those traveling the river with this author might include things like: Did the divine creator share some type of revelations with the humans it created? [yes] Are these revelations recorded in a ‘holy book’? [yes] If so, which of the known holy books do you accept as the creator’s revelation? [the Bible]. Bear in mind many individuals will have different answers to these questions, e.g., the identity of the ‘holy book’ might be the Veda or Shreemand Bhagavad Gita, the Tripitakas, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Torah, the Qu’ran, etc., leading those who choose them into the river’s branches of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam, et al.

Those who follow the river’s branches traveled by those who believe in various ‘holy books’ face additional questions. One might be: Does the holy book contain errors or is it completely accurate? Many respondents will affirm the accuracy of their chosen holy book, but there will likely be a significant number who do not. Again, answers to this question divide the group and guide them down differing branches of the river.

Other questions related to the holy book of choice might include: Can humans understand the content of the holy book(s) and, if so, how can they do so? Are the ‘truths’ contained in the holy book(s) universal, or applicable only to the culture and timeframe in which the book(s) was written? Can the truths of the holy book(s) be discovered by common people or are they open only to an exclusive set of religious leaders/scholars?

If you have followed along the river’s branches traveled by this author you are now on the branch of the belief river populated by those who profess that the Bible is the revealed word of the creator (God), containing universal truths discoverable by ordinary people. At least two questions remain, which will again divide the river’s travelers into separate branches: If the content of the holy book (the Bible) appears to conflict with your beliefs/positions on moral issues (a) will you invest the time and effort to comprehend the Bible’s truths within the context of their writing, or will you base your beliefs on a cursory familiarity with the book’s contents? (b) if after due diligence you conclude the Bible does conflict with your beliefs/positions on moral issues, which will take precedence – your logic, feelings, and opinions or the literal content and message of the Bible?

Ponder, if you will, the broad variety of questions that travelers on the “belief river” encounter, the differing sets of subsequent questions faced after each diversion into separate branches, the importance of the answers to these questions, and those answers’ implications for conversation with others about moral issues. It is not difficult to see why persons on one branch of the river not only disagree with those on another branch but find it hard to understand why or how the ‘others’ hold such beliefs. It is also understandable that someone who has traveled far down a branch of the river may be reluctant to reverse course and travel against the current in order to choose a different branch.

If the analogy of the “belief river” is valid, then it is not difficult to see why discussions regarding moral issues often include an attempt to convince others of the correctness of one’s own position without understanding the basis on which others’ beliefs rest. Persons with opposing points of view may simply be approaching an issue from differing viewpoints (they are, as it were, standing in different places and see things from differing directions).

Perhaps most importantly, consider how those on any branch, subbranch, stream or rivulet of the belief river, when interacting with persons whose positions on moral issues differ from their own, might benefit from a mutual examination of the ‘upstream’ assumptions and choices and the processes by which they were selected. This will not necessarily result in agreement on moral issues but may enhance understanding of the foundation on which our own positions and others’ positions rest. It may also shed light on what may be required for honest questioning and possible reconsideration of our beliefs regarding important moral questions.

For each of us, questions we ought to attempt to answer with care and honesty regarding moral beliefs and positions include at least the following: “What is the basis/root of my belief on this issue?” (from what ‘upstream branch’ does this belief emanate?), “To what extent have I examined the credibility of the basis/root from which my belief on this issue comes?”, “Am I confident each of branches my belief system has followed (and if so, why)?”, and “When discussing moral issues, how can I move conversations ‘upstream’ to better understand the basis for my beliefs and those of others?”