In his new book THE RIGHTEOUS MIND, Jonathan Haidt does not explicitly discuss the Catholic anti-abortion crusade. Nevertheless, he makes sweeping generalizations that would dismiss the centuries-old Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory upon which the Catholic anti-abortion crusade depends. But will his sweeping generalizations persuade Catholic anti-abortion zealots to give up their moral theory? Probably not.

::::::::

Duluth, Minnesota (OpEdNews) March 21, 2012: In my lifetime, the debate about legalized abortion has raged. The Supreme Court of the United States legalized abortion in the 1973 decision known as Roe v. Wade. But the debate about legalized abortion rages to this day -- more than three decades after the Supreme Court decision.

Now, for the purposes of focusing the present essay, I am going to focus on the debate about legalized abortion in the first trimester. My own position is that legalized abortion in the first trimester is morally acceptable. Abortion in the second trimester and the third are separate issues that should be discussed in separate essays.

Recently Jonathan Haidt's new book THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: WHY GOOD PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED BY POLITICS AND RELIGION was published. (Haidt is pronounced "height.")

Long ago, I had come to the conclusion that both opponents of legalized abortion in the first trimester and supporters of legalized abortion in the first trimester could be characterized as being righteous about their respective positions. To put it mildly, both the opponents and the supporters of legalized abortion in the first trimester think that they are right: They each understand their position to be right and the opposing position to be wrong.

At first blush, the title of Haidt's book makes it sound like it will contain important information that I might be able to use if I want to argue against the opponents of legalized abortion in the first semester. So I'd better check what Haidt has to say.

Now, Haidt says, "Beware of anyone who insists that there is one true morality for all people, times, and places" (pages 316).

But this is exactly and precisely what the Catholic tradition of so-called "natural law" moral theory regarding sexual morality claims. I am here categorizing the church's opposition to legalized abortion in the first trimester as part of the church's sexual-morality claims. (Disclosure: I come from a Roman Catholic background. For a number of years in my life, I was a seminarian in the Jesuit order, so I have studied Roman Catholic moral theory.)

But nowhere in his book does Haidt give any indication of understanding, or even knowing about, the centuries-old Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory. So has Haidt actually studied this tradition of thought, or not? If he has not, then he is making a sweeping generalization about something that he has not studied seriously. But if he has studied this tradition of thought, then shouldn't he provide some evidence that he has studied it before he dismisses it in such a sweeping way?

But let me return to the abortion debate. If I were to follow Haidt's advice to "[b]eware of anyone who insists that there is one true morality for all people, times, and places," then I would not engage in debate with, say, the Catholic bishops about legalized abortion in the first trimester, because they base their objections on the Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory. But if I beware of them because of the moral theory they hold, then I will not debate with them about legalized abortion in the first trimester. Hmm.

It seems to me that if I don't debate with them, I am thereby removing myself from the public arena of debate about abortion. This seems to me what following Haidt's advice would seem to mean.

Haidt also says, "But anyone who tells you that all societies, in all eras, should be using one particular moral matrix, resting on one particular configuration of moral foundation, is a fundamentalist of one sort or another" (page 316). But just how is this way of categorizing people supposed to help those of us who would like to see Catholic fundamentalists change their position regarding legalized abortion in the first trimester?

By Haidt's definition of a fundamentalist, Pope Benedict XVI, the American Catholic bishops, and most conservatives American Catholics today are fundamentalists, including Catholic "natural law" moral theorists who hold doctoral degrees in Catholic moral theory and who teach undergraduates and graduate students Catholic moral theory and publish articles and books about Catholic moral theory.

But shouldn't Haidt at least tip us off that he does know just how extensive this Catholic tradition of thought is among American Catholics today, if he does know? And if he doesn't know, just how is his freely given advice supposed to help us address the abortion controversy in the United States today, a controversy in which conservative Catholics play a major role?

Now, when Catholics learn Catholic doctrines (or teachings) based on this tradition of thought, they are being indoctrinated in this tradition of thought. Catholic doctrines are taught in Catholic grade schools, Catholic high schools, Catholic colleges and universities, and Catholic seminaries to seminarians studying for the priesthood. As a result of the extensive indoctrination of American Catholics in Catholic doctrines based on the Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory, many American Catholics today are among the most zealous antiabortion zealots in the United States. But Haidt does not seem to know anything about this well-established, centuries-old tradition of moral reasoning. Nevertheless, he is willing to caution us to beware of people who says the kinds of things that Catholic "natural law" moral theorists do as a matter of fact say.

As noted above, if we were to follow Haidt's advice and beware of fundamentalist Catholics, then the argument used by the Catholic fundamentalists would not be joined.

But if their argument is not joined, then we could presumably present our own line of argument in favor of legalized abortion in the first trimester. Our line of argument might win support. However, our line of argument is not likely to win support from Catholic anti-abortion zealots. So if our line of argument does not manage to reduce the number of Catholic anti-abortion zealots by winning them over, then they will continue their anti-abortion campaign.

If Haidt or anyone else were to undertake to argue against the Catholic anti-abortion zealots, wouldn't Haidt or another person have to understand the arguments upon which Catholic anti-abortion zealotry is based? If you don't understand their arguments, then you are going to be reduced to saying something like this: "I don't understand why you are saying what you are saying against abortion, but I disagree with you about abortion." Granted, some people might say this. But if someone were to say this, then I would say that that person has not joined the argument presented by the Catholic anti-abortion zealots.

An argument is joined only when the opponent directly and explicitly contradicts the position being opposed. I will use the terms thesis and antithesis to illustrate how an argument is joined.

Thesis: "John Doe is guilty as charged."

Antithesis: "No, John Doe is not guilty as charged."

Haidt's sweeping generalization, quoted above, in effect sweeps aside the Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory. But Haidt has not joined the argument in favor of the Catholic "natural law" moral theory. Indeed, he does not give any evidence of having studied it.

But if the line of argument advanced by Catholic anti-abortion zealots were joined, then some of them might be persuaded to think differently about legalized abortion in the first trimester. For an informed effort to join the line of argument used by Catholic anti-abortion zealots, see Garry Wills' book HEAD AND HEART: AMERICAN CHRISTIANITIES (2007, pages 515-530).

In short, Haidt does not appear to be tuned into the real world regarding the abortion debate.

Now, I want to switch from the abortion debate to a larger question. I have outlined how extensively many educated Catholics have been indoctrinated in the doctrines of the Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory. Does Haidt actually believe that Pope Benedict XVI, the other Catholic bishops around the world, and all conservative Catholics around the world today would be persuaded by his book to give up all their training in the centuries-old Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory and embrace Haidt's position?

Now, there is a division of opinion among American Catholics. Perhaps you noticed that I referred to conservative American Catholics. Those Catholics who dissent from the church's official teachings regarding sexual morality, including abortion in the first trimester, are at times referred to as dissenting Catholics or liberal Catholics. But liberal Catholics do not need to read Haidt to find out that conservative Catholics are fundamentalists, because they already know this. So apart from terminology about fundamentalists, what, if anything, would liberal Catholics learn from Haidt's book? Would liberal Catholics learn anything from Haidt's book that they could use to argue for new ways of thinking about Catholic moral doctrines? I doubt it.

For an informed attempt to reconstruct Catholic "natural law" moral theory regarding certain issues of sexual morality, see Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler's book THE SEXUAL PERSON: TOWARD A RENEWED CATHOLIC ANTHROPOLOGY (2008).

In short, Haidt's book seems to be aimed at a non-Catholic audience. But I hasten to add that there are other Christian traditions of moral reasoning. And there are Christians who see themselves as standing in their respective Christian traditions of moral reasoning. See, for example, Gary Dorrien's magisterial book SOCIAL ETHICS IN THE MAKING: INTERPRETING AN AMERICAN TRADITION (2011). But Haidt's book seems to be aimed primarily at people who do not see themselves as standing in an established Christian tradition of moral reasoning, Catholic or non-Catholic.

But this brings me to a far more troubling possibility regarding Haidt's book. For the sake of discussion, let us consider the possibility that Haidt does indeed know about the sweeping claim of the Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory -- the claim that Haidt himself sums up as claiming to be the "one true morality for all people, times, and places" (page 316). If he knows that the Roman Catholic Church teaches this, then he knows that he is writing against the Catholic Church, but he does not say that he is writing against the Catholic Church.

If we are to be concerned when anti-Semitic views are expressed, then shouldn't we be concerned when anti-Catholic views are expressed, especially when the author does not explicitly advert to the Catholic position?

But I have allowed that it is in the realm of the possible for someone to argue explicitly against certain Catholic teachings, as Garry Wills does and as Salzman and Lawler do. But to argue explicitly against certain Catholic teachings is argumentation. Pro-and-con debate involves thesis and antithesis. In the thesis/antithesis terminology that I am using here, Haidt is advocating the antithesis position from thesis position advanced by the Catholic Church. But in Haidt's way of writing without explicitly mentioning the Catholic tradition of "natural law" moral theory, the thesis position against which he is arguing remains a generalized thesis, not a thesis particularized to the Catholic Church. That is, he does not explicitly name the Catholic "natural law" moral theory as one example of the thesis position against which he is arguing. Nevertheless, Haidt's antithesis position is implicitly anti-Catholic. I see this as a problem. But I do not see explicit argument against the Catholic position as a problem, provided that the Catholic position is explicitly named as the real adversarial position against which one is arguing and fairly and accurately summarized.

Here are two recent books about anti-Catholic attitudes: Philip Jenkins' book THE NEW ANTI-CATHOLICISM: THE LAST ACCEPTABLE PREJUDICE (2003) and Mark S. Massa's book ANTI-CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA: THE LAST ACCEPTABLE PREJUDICE (2003).

Next, I want to turn to deontological moral theory. People of religious faith and people who have no religious faith could in principle embrace deontological moral theory. For the sake of discussion, let us suppose that people who have studied philosophy extensively and are committed to deontological moral theory were to read Haidt's book. Would reading Haidt's book lead them to give up their commitment to deontological moral theory, so that they would embrace Haidt's position instead? I doubt it.

In his book RENDER UNTO DARWIN: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S CRUSADE AGAINST SCIENCE (2007), James H. Fetzer works with deontological moral theory to work out his position regarding legalized abortion (pages 95-120). In other chapters of this book, Fetzer does engage in forms of argumentation in which the arguments advanced by the Christian right regarding evolutionary theory are joined and debated in pro-and-con debate.

In conclusion, if you have no prior commitment to a tradition of moral theory, you might find Haidt's book interesting, but I would encourage you to read other books as well such as the books I've mentioned above. However, if you have a commitment to a tradition of moral theory, you might find Haidt's book stimulating and perhaps even thought provoking in places, but you might also figure out ways to criticize it in places.

Authors Website: http://www.d.umn.edu/~tfarrell

Authors Bio:

Thomas James Farrell is professor emeritus of writing studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). He started teaching at UMD in Fall 1987, and he retired from UMD at the end of May 2009. He was born in 1944. He holds three degrees from Saint Louis University (SLU): B.A. in English, 1966; M.A.(T) in English 1968; Ph.D.in higher education, 1974. On May 16, 1969, the editors of the SLU student newspaper named him Man of the Year, an honor customarily conferred on an administrator or a faculty member, not on a graduate student -- nor on a woman up to that time. He is the proud author of the book WALTER ONG'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CULTURAL STUDIES: THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE WORD AND I-THOU COMMUNICATION (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2000; 2nd ed. 2009, forthcoming). The first edition won the 2001 Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in the Field of Media Ecology conferred by the Media Ecology Association. For further information about his education and his publications, see his UMD homepage: Click here to visit Dr. Farrell's homepage.

On September 10 and 22, 2009, he discussed Walter Ong's work on the blog radio talk show "Ethics Talk" that is hosted by Hope May in philosophy at Central Michigan University. Each hour-long show has been archived and is available for people who missed the live broadcast to listen to. Here are the website addresses for the two archived shows:

Click here to listen the Technologizing of the Word Interview

Click here to listen the Ramus, Method & The Decay of Dialogue Interview