The rhetoric is starting to get a little heated, and one blogger has already apologized for stepping over the line. There’s going to be more and more temptation to bring out weapons of rhetorical mass destruction as we get closer and closer to GA.
I’m not a delegate, but if I were, I would be sorely tempted to vote against whoever pulled any of the following, regardless of their position:
- Saying that UUs on the other side are paying mere “lip service” to our ideals.
- Saying that our ideals, or especially any of the P&Ps, “clearly” indicate we must take one course or another.
- Saying, or even implying, that UUs on the other side are racist, deluded, ignorant, or any other insult favored by liberals.
The toughest ethical problems aren’t a choice between a good alternative and a bad alternative. The tough ones are when you have to figure out which is the better of several goods, or even the better of several bads.
The hard reality is that GA in Phoenix in 2012 is exactly one of those tough ethical problems. All the rhetoric needs to start with the assumption that this is a tough one, and that there isn’t a clear cut answer. We’re a pretty bright and a pretty well intentioned bunch, and if this was an easy one, we’d have reached consensus about it from the get go.
Thanks, MC. The reminder I needed most was the first one. I get frustrated when we want to make big statements that don’t have much impact, but it’s good to remember that our statement-making comes from our good intentions.
Right on. I think anyone who is going into GA with their mind made up and set in stone over this is doing everyone a disservice.
Some people out there seem to be firmly in one camp or the other, without hearing from others. I know I’m leaning towards voting against the amendment to move GA, but I’m by no means set in stone yet. [There's only one thing I'm set in stone on (the presidential search committee - that's getting a loud no vote from me) going into GA.]
Right on the mark. It’s hard to dial back the rhetorical fervor when it reaches a certain point, but we need to try. And this situation really is a tough one.
The toughest ethical problems aren’t a choice between a good alternative and a bad alternative. The tough ones are when you have to figure out which is the better of several goods, or even the better of several bads.”
MC – you are my hero!
[...] one of those tough ethical problems. All the rhetoric needs to start with the assumption that this is a tough one, and that there isn’t a clear cut answer. We’re a pretty bright and a pretty well-intentioned [...]
Does the “Standing On the Side of Love” frame work for an issue like the Az Law given your three bullets?
The work of SSL has a broad consensus among UUs. I’m trying to suggest ground rules for how we try to persuade each other when there isn’t a clear consensus.