Chris Cuomo talk at UT

So, today I sat through an entirely engaging conversation under the title "Why Christian Values are not Ethics" by a Dr Chris Cuomo, of the University of Cincinatti. This was, in fact, so engaging that I dropped the other five posts I want to make or finish on this weblog, to talk about it.

She offered the point of view, and I do hope I'm not butchering it, that religious values (Christian as she uses something Dan Quayle said about Murphy Brown as a backdrop, along with the current political climate) do not constitute ethics. Her primary thought (and this is quite shortened) is that one's values are not necessarily thought out constructed ideas, but rather are often ideosyncratic beliefs. These beliefs do not necessitate ethics, simply because for a value to become an ethical idea it needs to have the rigors of a method applied to it, to find validity or truth content, that has a universal nature. She offers philosophical methods as ways to transform these values into an ethical conception. The motivation for this transformation comes from an understanding of respect for the other, (she uses Levinas to build this, duh, the word "other" and Levinas just flow together). Thus with the motivation of respecting the other in mind, people will be able to move towards a grip of ethics. This grip will allow individuals with different values to communicate and form a civil society. Reading this over, let me say again, that I have left out much of her argumentation, and don't have the skill to recreate it all here.

I totally buy this - I think. It seems quite clear to me that what one values, doesn't necessarily translate into an ethical system, and I also agree that an ethical system needs to be something that diverse individuals (the beauty of humanity really, the diversity) are able to harmonize on. Dr Cuomo mentions that this will allow society to flourish, and I agree. If we can find a common thread to agree upon with ethical issues, then clearly we can avoid all the back and forth whining that happens to follow debate. In fact, it would open up the way for society to critically think* and therefore flourish.

One thing that I noted is that this has a parallel to the way one looks at democracy. If democracy is simply defined my majority rules, we have the old mob rules. Instead, most democracies provide for the minority to have certain inalienable rights, and therefore be protected from an abusive majority. This seems to reflect, first of all, a respect for humanity (the others) that is the motivating force in Dr Cuomo's system. We also, in a democracy, have individuals coming from unique background, trying to reach common decisions. Just as people with unique values come together through a method (whichever it may be) to formulate ethical principles. I also propose that a democracy is a flourishing system.

From this parallel, I think one could find an interesting new definition of democracy from Dr Cuomo's work.

I think that's all I wanted to say.

edit : I have not informed Dr Cuomo of this post, and I probably should in good faith and respect. Please take what I've said as an interpretation that stems from me and allow any errors to be my fault, not the fault of Dr Cuomo's work.