Seeing the Suffering We Cause

The South Carolina legislature is still considering a bill–passed by the State Assembly last week–that would require those who want abortions to see an ultrasound image of the fetus to be aborted. This proposal reminds us of the importance of seeing what we do. It is a good idea to make sure that the consequences of all of our actions are made visible. To make good judgments we need all the information we can get.

However, while it might seem reasonable that women should have to fully face what they are choosing to do in having an abortion, such a requirement is unfair. No one else is forced to confront images that show the consequences of what we do. But perhaps we would all be better off if we were completely honest about the suffering we cause.

Our daily lives are built upon a foundation of suffering, although our culture protects us from seeing it. To see, on a daily basis, the suffering caused by our lifestyle choices would be unbearable to many of us; but it might force us to change our ways. Imagine for a moment what life would be like if we were forced to confront the suffering that we cause every day.

Let’s begin with the most obvious example: war. Perhaps we should be required to see the death and destruction of the wars we support. Images of flag-draped coffins are not enough. We should be required to see the battle scenes, the carnage, and the dismembered bodies. Indeed, perhaps we should also be required to hear the screams of those killed and wounded. This should not only focus on our own dead and wounded soldiers. We should also be required to see the mutilated bodies and hear the dying cries of the women and children killed in the wars we fight. At the very least, these images should be on the front page of the newspaper and in the national news everyday. But a more forceful measure might require citizens to review the year’s casualties—perhaps via a DVD provided by the IRS—at tax time, since those taxes pay for war.

Maybe we should also be required to see the carnage of the slaughterhouse. Every package of hamburger sold in the supermarket should have on its label a series of photos that shows the process through which the cow is butchered. Fast food restaurants should have to display pictures of headless chickens with their necks draining blood next to the pictures of tasty chicken nuggets for sale. And in fancier restaurants, each menu should include pictures that show how veal or sausage is made.

A further proposal might require people who use cosmetics or medicines that are tested on animals to watch a video that shows how these products were tested. Women who use mascara or eye make-up should be forced to watch animals being slowly blinded by the application of these substances directly to their eyes. At the very least, drug companies should be required to disclose on medicine bottles the numbers of animals who were tortured and killed during the process of research and development.

We might also demand that citizens be shown images from crime scenes and prisons. The news should contain explicit images of murder, rape, and assault. That way we would know why we need to punish criminals. The news should also include regular updates about the living conditions of those in prison. In this way, we would know whether prisoners are actually being punished or whether they are really only watching TV and lifting weights. Finally, when prisoners are executed, the news should be required to show the prisoner’s march to the gurney and the process by which the lethal drip ends his life.

In considering these examples, I am not suggesting that any of these practices are wrong or right. It takes quite a lot of deep thought to argue that war, meat-eating and animal testing, the death penalty, or abortion are right or wrong. To reach good conclusions about these tough practices, we need detailed knowledge about them. But for the most part we lack this knowledge because the “wet work” happens behind closed doors, where we cannot see it or judge it.

Full disclosure is always helpful in making better judgments. However, unless we are willing to disclose the horrors of all of our practices, it certainly seems hypocritical to single pregnant women out for this sort of treatment.

Philosophy, the Pope and Interfaith Dialogue

The furor over Pope Benedict XVI's recent use of a text that appears to condemn Islam is a fascinating example of what happens when ideas are taken out of context.

I'm not Catholic. But as a philosopher, I have an interest in defending free-ranging philosophical discourse.

Indeed, philosophers have often been misrepresented and maligned by those who are more interested in power than in truth.

Socrates was killed when his ideas were taken out of context and used against him. The same callousness and ignorance is now being directed at Benedict.

Now, one might argue that since Benedict is the Pope, he is not free to engage in philosophical discourse and that he must be more careful with his words. There is some truth to this.

But when one looks at the lecture that is the focal point of this controversy, it is clear that Benedict was doing philosophy. He was engaged in a free-ranging consideration of a very large and complicated problem.

In the space of several pages, Benedict quotes the Bible and the medieval text that appears to condemn Islam. He also refers to Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Islamic theologian Ibn Hazn and Kant. And he discusses more recent developments in philosophy, theology and the natural sciences.

The remarks about Islam are really tangential to the larger theme of his lecture.

It is unfortunate that this larger theme is not the real focus of current discussion, because it is truly important for creating interfaith dialogue.

Benedict's general thesis is that the serious study of theology is the key to interreligious dialogue. Substantial knowledge of the history of philosophy, theology and religion is required to unpack the arguments that are made in support of this thesis. But the basic argument can be summarized as follows.

First, Benedict claims that God is reasonable. It is in this context that he claims that God would not approve of holy war. A reasonable God wants humans to use reason — not holy war — to defend him.

Second, Benedict claims that the modern world has forgotten this basic claim about the reasonableness of God. Benedict claims that modern culture puts reason in opposition to faith.

He lays much of the blame for this on the German Enlightenment philosopher Kant. But he also blames the modern sciences for the idea that the empirical method is the only method for finding the truth.

Third, Benedict claims that the only true basis for ethics or for a genuine human community is an approach that allows for a synthesis of both faith and reason. This synthesis is grounded in faith in a benevolent God who gave human beings the capacity to discover the truths of ethics.

Benedict's lecture concludes with the claim that a more serious effort at combining reason and faith is the key to intercultural dialogue.

These are important ideas that require careful and extended reflection. I should admit that I do not agree with all that Benedict says. But philosophical disagreement must engage an argument directly without misrepresenting it.

Unfortunately, respectful philosophical debate does not serve politicians and the media, who focus on provocative claims in order to create a stir.

This controversy reminds us that Benedict is right about the fact that reason is required to make progress in a world of diversity.

We need to give up holy war and focus on creating mutual understanding. We need fewer sound-bites and more reflection; less contention and more conversation.