The Perils of Random Rigor

Started by Insanis, May 17, 2021, 09:27:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Insanis

This peril doesn't concern rigorism or laxity, or any moral theology in particular. The word Æquiprobabilism doesn't have any use in this post. If one is highly rigorous, this is about deviations from it in particular instances, not about being rigorous itself.

What this is about is that suddenly and randomly being intensely rigorous in moral judgement is a trap. First, it is illogical, as it uses a rational understanding in an irrational way.  If we have a set of principles we apply, and then we apply them in a novel way for a particular issue, it can discredit those principles, or at the very least look ridiculous.

Secondly, it leads to other errors when those rigorous judgements are set as morally obligatory to other people and oneself. It creates unjust judgements, errors, and hypocrisy.

So we should all avoid random rigor. I am not saying we should be perfect examples of our principles in general. This is about extreme deviations in application of moral judgement, not minor fluctuations.

For example, I could say that buying anything made in China or from a Chinese company is directly materially supporting the CCP (which is true in an absolute sense), and thus, directly supporting abortion (forced abortions as well) along with many other evils. I could say this and it would be a short path to this conclusion, but it is dangerous to do, because it is setting a moral standard that is almost impossible to comply with and more importantly, it is wrong. The remote cooperation and support is far from us and the world has always had this issue. Look at the Roman taxes addressed in the scriptures. Rome's biggest error presented to the Jews was idolatry. They formed cults around everything, from each legion's standard, to the emperor himself.

Their tendency to put up standards and signs containing graven images and idolatrous beliefs was a huge source of conflict from the beginning of their occupation and administration of the region.

Yet, what does Our Lord say about it? Does He hold people to a standard to avoid any sort of cooperation? No, paying taxes with Roman money was not wrong and dismissed: it is Roman property so give it to Rome. What matters is within the person: what they intend and how they act.

Governments, public corporations, international trade, and other massively complex subjects always get entangled with grave sin. If we want to hold the moral position we are obligated to avoid any material support of any company or government which materially supports abortion, let alone every other vice and grave matter they tend to support, we are putting ourselves into a position where we must withdraw from almost everything and be almost entirely self-sufficient.

And even if we find a corporation which seems good or neutral, it is actually owned by its shareholders, which are almost always in direct support of some industry directly or indirectly complicit in grave evil.

And then there is the underlying superstructure of it all: governments and central banks, which make the least amount of commerce tainted with all the evil they support. At least the Romans were issuing (largely) silver coins that were just stamped with images (although, how this silver was sourced might be another concern). We are all using fiat currencies that have no intrinsic value and get their value entirely from the backing central banks and governments which issue them. Our use of them explicitly (it says on Federal Reserve Notes at least) supports the issuing authorities and powers and recognizes their power.

We must admit it is a bit of a luxury sometimes to have great control over our options. It can be quite distressing for someone with few options to be told they are morally obligated to do something that they are not in a position to do. Sometimes, people have to do their shopping at Walmart or Amazon and buy only the lowest priced items they need. Imposing an obligation to avoid it would be quite hateful.

In conclusion: It is good to exercise judgement and moderation in how we support or use any service or product, but to hold it as a obligatory moral standard in one instance, but not the next is illogical and can be uncharitable and undermine the whole moral argument in the process.

We are not called to build a fence around the law, and we shouldn't try. And we certainly shouldn't put a lot of random gates in that fence if we do. That just makes us look silly at best.