I was driving down the beautiful Mt Ousley road the other night when I switched my radio to Triple J’s Hack program. The topic for the night was explicit text messaging and MMSing, and the legal ramifications for the youth engaging in it.
One of the discussants (I surmised him to be a teenager from one of the catholic youth organisations) said something to the effect of
“What our youth need is not more laws, but greater discernment and moral fibre”
At which point one of the other experts (who sounded much older) began openly mocking, interrupting the young speaker. “Moral FIBRE,” he scoffed.
The presenter handled the situation well, but when given the chance to speak, the older speaker said
“I do not believe in any such thing as a lack of moral fibre. As a humanist I believe it is inherent”
This gobsmacked me.
It seems self evident to me that, even if humans do possess the ability to make moral decisions, we choose not to exercise it most of the time – which says very little of our inherent “moral fibre”.
Humanist interventions for social problems tend to revolve around harm-minimisation, education, and legal liberalisation. I do not deny there is a place for these things. However, the perspective from which they proceed is an incomplete one.
The dogmatic denial of the inherent corruptness of human nature can only lead to well-intentioned adjustment of social facade. If indeed the very human-ness of humanity is corrupt, this presents a much deeper problem to address when we see social brokenness.
Posted by joelrizillio
Posted by joelrizillio