By Selwyn Duke

To perpetuate anything worthy of the name "civilization," a people must be able to make correct judgments.  Oh, I know that j-word has become unfashionable, along with "punishment" and "sin" and a few others.  But don’t be fooled; don’t cede that illusory high road to the leftists, as most of their opponents do.   While they may proudly don the mantle of non-judgmentalism, remember that they render more judgments than most anyone.  They’re just different judgments. 

Were it not so sad, it would be comical that with respect to morality and in certain circles, judgment has taken on a negative connotation.  After all, in what endeavor is good judgment not a prerequisite for success?   We all know that if you want to be successful in investment or business, you need good judgment.  Then, would you want to be pulled over by a cop who had poor judgment?  How about being treated by a doctor who lacked the quality?  Does being at the mercy of an auto mechanic or stock broker with poor judgment appeal to you?  OK, then, does anyone really think that morality is the one sphere in the whole Universe in which honing judgment is not an imperative? 

In point of fact, the moral realm is the one in which  developing good judgment is most important.  For  that cop, doctor, auto mechanic or broker may have great knowledge of his field, but if he is an immoral person, how can you trust him to do right by you?   Nobody in his right mind would want to be at the mercy of a highly-skilled person of low character.  Besides, such a person is a rarity.  Because if you’re not moral, you’ll probably lack conscientiousness and a sense of duty, and without those qualities, it’s unlikely that someone will put in the time and effort necessary to hone his craft.  And then there is the deeper philosophical truth — one I can’t do justice here — that, since sin is psychological poison, it blinds you and skews your judgment.  (By the way, this is why it’s nonsense when people claim that a president’s character doesn’t matter, only his competence.  If he has poor character, it’s unlikely he’ll be very competent.)

Moral judgment is like other varieties in another way, in that it can always be improved and must be cultivated beyond childhood.  It would be ridiculous to think that because you’ve read a few criminal justice or medical books by the age of 16, your judgment in the field is superb, doesn’t need further development, and you’re ready to become a police officer or doctor.  So, again, do you really believe that the moral arena is that one area in which this doesn’t apply?

The truth is that, while our parents may try their best, very few of us emerge from adolescence with well-formed moral compasses.  Yet, despite this, most people today behave as if they are ready to moralize with the best of them by age 21 and see no need to cultivate greater wisdom in this all-important sphere.  (Of course, part of this is due to the fact that we have become moral relativists and thus believe that right and wrong are merely opinion, akin to a matter of taste.  And who can question another’s taste?)  In other words, we’ve lost sight of something people used to understand very well: The importance of developing virtue.   Virtue is defined as a good habit, as opposed to vice, which is a bad one.  And it can only be cultivated when we know what moral habits are and then resolve to practice them.

This brings us to the problem in the world today.  While man has always stumbled along, making mistakes, ignoring Truth and trampling others, the West very well may have the worst collective moral compass in the history of Christendom (and it’s no coincidence that it can’t rightly be called Christendom anymore).  The greater body of the people now find it hard to make moral judgments that an 11-year-old of bygone days would have found simple.   Thus do we ask questions that are, quite simply, stupid.  Do we allow our teenagers to drink and have sex under our roof so that we can ensure they will act wrongly in a safe environment?  How do we control an ill-behaved child?  Should we punish criminals or rehabilitate them?  Is homosexual behavior wrong?  The answers to such questions aren’t difficult, except for a morally confused people.

Apropos to this, there is currently a story in the news about a decision by the Menasha, Wisconsin, board of education to keep a profanity-laced, rap-oriented book in the Maplewood Middle School Library.  Here is what Peter J. Adams wrote in the Post-Crescent about the library media specialist’s (I wonder what kind of valuable credentials you must have to capture such a position) rationalization for retaining the trash:

In spite of its profanity, Maplewood’s library media specialist
Nancy Theiler spoke in favor of retaining the book, noting that racial
and cultural diversity only can be honored by having divergent
perspectives and teaching students how to make choices.

‘Intellectual freedom and the right to choose what to read are important rights to uphold,’ she said.

Yes, claims of intellectual freedom, the last refuge of the intellectually vacuous.  But I digress.  The point is that we shouldn’t have to ask whether or not a profanity-laden book  belongs in a school library.  It isn’t a difficult question, except for a morally confused people.  (If you want to read about the folly of exposing children to profanity, I treated the issue here.)

Now, since some in that category may read this, understand that I don’t flatly condemn you, just your judgment with regard to such matters.  We will be products of our parents and culture unless we do something that, lamentably, is rare: Rise above our conditioning, look beyond the borders of time and place and try to discern Truth, and develop virtue.  Of course, if someone will not even attempt this, then I may condemn him.

Touching upon another bit of topicality, we recently experienced the consequences of having politicians and judges with poor judgment.  I’m speaking of the recent California Supreme Court ruling legalizing faux marriage, something that even pagan civilizations (which sometimes accepted homosexuality in a measure) didn’t do.   I won’t elaborate further here, but, suffice it to say, "Should perversion be legitimized?" isn’t a difficult question, except for a morally confused people.

For centuries in ancient Rome, few if any questioned the morality of killing men for sport in the arena.  All over the pre-Christian, pagan world, slavery was practiced with no compunction whatsoever.  These people, like so many in every age, happily practiced evil, oblivious to the immorality of their actions.

Thus, some questions lie before us.  Do we want to be the Aztec ripping a sacrifice victim’s heart out while the latter is still alive because society accepts it?  Do we want to be the ancient Spartan enslaving Helots because society accepts it?  As G.K. Chesterton said, "A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it."  Most all of us will acknowledge the importance of being a good person, but too few of us know what good is.  And we won’t discover the totality of it in the norms of our nation, our father’s philosophy or a party platform. 

How can it be done?  It isn’t easy, but it starts with the recognition that we must constantly hone our moral judgment, every day, till we breathe our last.  For, as with everything else, the development of virtue isn’t a destination, but a journey.

                              Protected by Copyright