The Immorality of Morality

Ray Rice shouldn’t have done it!  Even I was taught that a gentleman never hits a lady.  To this day I remember the thrashing I got from my father after I struck my sister in the back with a roundhouse punch.

It did not matter to Dad that she had provoked me by digging her nails into my arm so hard that she drew blood.  He hadn’t even asked if she had done anything wrong.  The rule against hitting a girl was absolute.

This same sort of attitude arose in the Rice affair.  When pictures emerged of him knocking out his then girlfriend, a hue and cry went up.  He was a fiend who had to be punished.

That his girlfriend might have goaded him by taking the first swing was scarcely mentioned.  That the two could have been intoxicated at the time drew no notice.  These were not considered mitigating circumstances.  What mattered was that a much stronger man had knocked a woman out.

This event, which undoubtedly mirrors numerous others, was deemed national news because of who was involved and because it had been captured on videotape.   Both male and female commentators were incensed that the perpetrator got of so lightly.  A two game suspension, without jail time, was obviously not enough.

The conventional wisdom alleged that Rice received favorable treatment because he is a celebrity.  Clearly the district attorney and the NFL commissioner gave him a better deal than Joe Blow would have received.

But is this true?  In fact, it is not!  It does not even come close to the truth.  A non-celebrity, who did not have a criminal record (as Rice did not), would have received a slap on the wrist.  Rice, in contrast, lost his job and forfeited millions of dollars.

But even this was not sufficient.  The critics demanded that he be banned for life and that the commissioner who let him off be fired.  This was a sin of such a magnitude that only the equivalent of a blood sacrifice would do.

Yet consider the implications.  Do we really want to insist that everyone who commits any sort of crime must lose his job?  In addition to jail time and/or a fine, are malefactors routinely to be deprived of their livelihoods.  In an era, when we have been reducing the penalties for murder, this seems excessive.

Plainly, when people are in high dudgeon, morality becomes a lethal weapon.  What amount to lynch mobs engage in behavior that they might otherwise consider immoral.

Examples of morality gone haywire are legion.  Lest we forget, Adolf Hitler massacred millions in the name of morality.  As he saw it, he was protecting the rights of the German people from human vermin.  The Jews and Slavs deserved to die because they were taking bread out of the mouths of the master race.

ISIS too perceives itself as defending moral principles.  The organization has a right—if not a duty—to severe the heads of infidels.  Only in this way can the end of times arrive and the faithful receive their just rewards.

About forty years ago, sociological research revealed that domestic violence was initiated about 50/50 by men and women.  The men, however, finished the job because they had greater upper body strength.

Then, because a crackdown on intimate violence led to more men being arrested, the ratio changed.  Now women were twice as likely to be the initial aggressor.  Regarded as helpless innocents, they were given a free pass.

How does this help strengthen marriages?  If one side is always right and the other wrong, how does a couple arrive at an amicable settlement when they disagree.  Yes, men should not hit women, but neither should society deal with them as if they were monsters.

We must be moral, but we must also be wary of excessive moralism.  When it seeks vengeance rather than equity, it too can be a danger.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

No Honor

Honor!  What an old-fashioned word.  How antiquated an idea.  Surely modern sophisticates are aware that this was a ploy perpetrated by the elites in order to defraud the masses.  The goal was to get ordinary people to make sacrifices that were not in their interest.

We, in our world-wise ways, are no longer taken in by such manipulations.  We are not about to do something dangerous just because it is “honorable.”  And so honor has been disappearing from our universe, snuffed out in a whirlwind of cynicism.

But wait!  Some things happened a week ago that reminded me there are still a few honorable people in this country; people who are prepared to do the right thing even though it does not personally benefit them.

Last weekend Fox News ran a special on the contractors who were guarding the CIA Annex in Benghazi.  Their story was inspiring.  Their attitude was even more so.  Here were men who lived up to their commitment to protect and defend; men who put their lives on the line to do so.

When the bullets began flying around the U.S. embassy, they did not run and hide.  Their first impulse was to race toward the shooting.  They were determined not to let their colleagues die unaided.

Then, when superior numbers forced them to fall back, they made a stand worthy of the heroes of the Alamo.  Despite being out-gunned, and even when injured, they fought with stubborn professionalism.   Cool under fire, they kept the enemy at bay for hours.

These men did what they knew to be right.  Although they realized they might lose their lives, they honored their commitments.  The same can be said about the heroes fighting the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.  They too put their moral obligations before their personal comfort.

Dr. Kent Brantly not only volunteered to minister to the ill in Liberia, but when stricken with the deadly disease, he maintained his dignity.  Even though blood was seeping from his orifices—usually a sign that death is near—he kept his composure.

Then, after he recovered, Brantly actually contemplated a return to his duties.  Undeterred by his near miss, he placed his devotion to helping the downtrodden before his own interests.  A man of genuine belief, he would honor his convictions despite the danger.

How different this is from the spectacle we are witnessing in Washington.  Barack Obama and his minions are not above telling any lie or distorting any truth in order to gain a political advantage.  Being honest and doing the right thing is not part of their playbook.

The president of the United States is pledged to defend the nation and to protect the constitution.  But when the guns began to fire in Iraq and the Ukraine, his first impulse was to run for cover.  Unsure about what to do, he decided that the best option was to remain on the safety of the golf course.

Likewise when confronted with a choice between honoring the constitution or enduring a political setback, he jettisoned the constitution.  It did not matter whether he had a right to alter the immigration laws or ObamaCare, the question was what would get him the most votes.

As for liberal Democrats in general, they have grown so accustomed to obscuring for their president’s inadequacies, that they can no longer tell the difference between what is honorable and not.  However egregious the misconduct of their leaders, they find a way to excuse them.

Honor has thus been frittered away very cheaply.  Rationalizations, misconstruals, and downright lies have become the coin of the realm.  Too many decent people, in order to deny their ideological failures, have sold their souls to the devil.

Nevertheless, morality matters!  Honor matters!  Once these have been abandoned in the service of ambition or cowardice, they are difficult to reclaim.  Hence what today looks like a good bargain may tomorrow precipitate a catastrophe.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Catastrophe

The wheels have been coming off the Obama administration.  Domestically and internationally, policy failures abound.  At home, the IRS, VA, Immigration, and Obamacare debacles linger.  Abroad, ISIS, the Ukraine, and China present challenges that our president and his minions do not know how to address.

But things are worse than that.  Unless corrections are made, over a hundred thousand Americans will lose their employer-based medical insurance, the national debt will rise to unsustainable proportions, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will go broke, a roaring inflation will erupt and the economy will continue to limp along.

How bad do things have to get before people realize that we require major fixes?  The president and his allies are in a deep state of denial.  They have become so adept at rationalizing their mistakes that they have come to believe their cover stories.  They genuinely consider others to be at fault.

A couple of weeks ago, I read a book by Hugh Trevor-Roper about seventeenth century Europe, which got me thinking.  This was the period during which the Counter-Reformation was tearing the continent apart.  What struck me is that people back then did not make significant changes until a catastrophe was upon them—and sometimes not even then.

Thus while England was going through the paroxysms of its Civil War thereby reforming its central government, Spain circled the wagons to preserve the indefensible excesses of its monarchy.  As a consequence England prospered, while Spain declined.

Sometimes a catastrophe can be swift and wrenching.  A disaster, such as Germany’s total defeat during World War II, can be so unsettling that people are prepared to accept something new.  Sometimes if can take centuries of humiliation, as with China, before its leaders contemplate significant correctives.

What will be the case with the United States?   We have become so fat and happy, that we assume our position as the dominant super-power is preordained.  We also seem to believe that we do not have to improve on our institutions because they are nearly perfect.

Sadly, most Americas do not even pay attention to the news.  Many are content to collect their transfer payments from the federal government without straining their mental faculties to recognize that the wolf is at the door.

My father used to tell me that I should learn from his mistakes.  I was asked to heed his warnings and mend my ways.  Years of hard experience, however, taught me that almost no one follows such advice.  It is only when we ourselves encounter substantial difficulties that we are prepared to consider real alternatives.

To what extent is this liable to be true for our nation?  Will we be like the junky who becomes so addicted to heroin that he dies of an overdose before he can kick the habit?  Or will we be like the pothead who gradually gives up the weed as he matures?

In other words, will the binge we are presently on inflict so many wounds that a recovery is not possible?  Will we spend so much—so foolishly—that the capital needed to rebuild our economy will have been squandered?  Will we so weaken our military that small threats accumulate into insurmountable ones?

The process of turning our ship of state around is bound to be slow and laborious.  Nonetheless, the sort of instant gratification to which we have become accustomed is not in the cards.  Significant changes in cultures and institutions are always difficult.

The question that I earlier asked can thus be put another way.  Do we have the moral fiber to pursue so challenging a mission?  Has our pioneering spirit so completely eroded that we cannot tear ourselves away from our video games, Reality TV, and Caribbean vacations?

I hope so, but I am not sure.  Things are bad and getting worse, but can we stop our slide before the catastrophe is fully upon us.  The choice is, as usual, up to us.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Closet Racists

Let us do a thought experiment.  Suppose a black police officer shot an unarmed eighteen-year-old white male.  We do not know the circumstances, but the victim was almost twice the size of the cop.

Can you imagine that the surrounding white community—any white community—would erupt in the sort of violence we witnessed in Ferguson, Missouri?  There was a time, less than a century ago, when riots swept through white neighborhoods and blacks were lynched for petty offences.  But now?

Today most Caucasians are more sophisticated.  They are better educated and have developed more dependable self-controls.  Thus, were looting to break out in a town where they are in the majority, we would be scandalized.

Why wasn’t this the case in Ferguson?  Why has the media coverage been so constrained?  The answer I believe, is closet racism; racism that exists, but is not acknowledged.

No, I am not talking about white racism, although it has not completely disappeared.  Nor am I talking about black racism, which has become more virulent that its white counterpart.  Rather I am referring to media racism.

Blacks are understandably suspicious of whites.  Even Attorney General Eric Holder gave a nod to their sensitivities.  Accordingly African-Americans sometimes see racism where it is absent.

But the media, that is another matter.  How can reporters have been so “even-handed” as to portray the police the same way they did vandals and fire-bombers?  Why were cops wearing protective gear accused of fanning the flames of distrust merely because of how they were outfitted?

Allow me to digress.  Many years ago, when I was working for a newspaper in northern New Jersey, I was asked to cover the first Earth Day at Stevens Tech.  Once I arrived on the scene, it was apparent nothing was going on.  A relatively few students were milling around talking among themselves.  That was all.

After I made my presence known, however, things were different.  The “activists” suddenly sprang to their feet and began walking around.  They also started chanting.  In other words, this was a performance put on for my benefit.  The objective was to garner media attention.

Does anyone imagine that the Ferguson demonstrations would have lasted as long as they did if they had not attracted sympathetic notice?  Would there have been a raucous party in the streets if the marchers were not intent on obtaining their fifteen minutes of fame?

To some degree, the media coverage made sense.  The public has an insatiable appetite for scandalous details and the press and TV are in the business of attracting eyeballs.  But why the nature of the coverage?

Reporters are clearly obsessed with a need to downplay black misconduct.  Apparently the worst thing that can happen is that someone might label them racist.  Accordingly, they bend over backwards to avoid saying negative things about blacks.

Think about this.  A black thug, a young man with a criminal record, declares that the police officer in question reached out to grab Michael Brown by the throat and drag him into his vehicle.  How is this credible?  How could a cop, or would a cop, do this to a person twice his size?

And how did the canard that Brown was shot in the back survive when multiple autopsies showed this was untrue?  After all, it came from the same felon.

The media credulity that glosses over these absurdities owes to nothing less than racism.  Members of the press do not hold African-Americans to the same standards they apply to others.  Rather, they excuse behavior they would never tolerate elsewhere.

Why?  Evidently because they do not believe blacks have the same ability to exercise self-control as other Americans.  Yet this is racism!  In an attempt to protect blacks, journalists assume they are inferior.  How ironic is that?

We will never overcome racism in this country until we are honest about race.  To this extent, Holder was correct when he said whites are cowards when it comes to these matters.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University