Cakes and conscience

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, December 22, 2016
(Slightly revised July 1, 2017)

Cakes and conscience

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or so the saying goes.

In view of Christian bakers in the U.S. and Ireland being sued enormous sums of money (e.g., $137,000 U.S.) for not making gay wedding cakes, some persons clearly not only want to have their cake and eat it—but also wish to force others to bake it for them!

Let's look at three popular arguments in favour of using the law to coerce Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, and let's assess those arguments.

Keep in mind the bakers are conscientiously objecting to using their artistic talent to affirm or celebrate what they believe is immoral. They wish to exercise freedom of speech—freedom not to be compelled to say/ express something they think is false or wrong.

Argument 1: The Christian bakers are discriminating against gays.

Assessment: Nope.

Yes, the bakers choose to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings, but, no, the bakers are not discriminating against gays in general.

The bakers serve gays in day-to-day business by serving cookies, pastries, cupcakes, birthday cakes, etc. But the bakers refuse to participate only in what seems to them as contributing to the celebration of a particular event—a same-sex marriage ceremony—which goes against their moral conscience. The bakers are refusing to use their creative talent to make a message with which they disagree.

This means gays are here not being discriminated against as a class as, say, blacks have been discriminated against as a class. It's not as if gays are not being served at all at a lunch counter.

Again: Only a particular type of event—a same-sex wedding—is not being serviced and celebrated by some (a few) bakers. (Significantly, there's no shortage of other bakers who are ready and willing to bake the desired cakes.)

In other words, the oft-assumed racial discrimination analogy is faulty.

Surely, in a tolerant and pluralist society bakers should be free to refuse some business on moral grounds.

Think about it. Don’t we think a Muslim baker should be free not to bake cakes celebrating pornographic images for a stag party? Or a Jewish baker should be free not to bake a cake celebrating the pork industry? Or a black baker should be free to not to bake a cake celebrating the Ku Klux Klan? Or a gay baker should be free not to bake a cake for an anti-gay celebration at Westboro Baptist Church (of “God hates fags” notoriety)?

Answer: We do think they should be free not to bake such cakes.

Argument 2: When somebody opens a business that serves the public, they should serve all of the public.

Assessment: Yes and no.

Yes, ideally, it would be nice if all the public were to be served. But, no, life isn't always sugar and spice and everything nice.

Surely, we should allow some limitations to make room for religious/ moral conscience if doing so isn't a huge burden on the public. After all, we live in a diverse society.

Think about it (again). In a diverse society it's important that we don't force a Muslim baker to go against her conscience, nor force a Jewish baker to go against his conscience, nor force a black baker to go against her conscience, nor force a gay baker to go against his conscience, nor force a Christian baker to go against her conscience, etc. It's called tolerance.

Argument 3: If you're not going to bake gay wedding cakes, then you shouldn't become a baker in the first place.

Assessment: This argument tells us that if anyone doesn't agree with gay ideology, then any conscientious objections will not be tolerated. In other words, pro-gay ideology is trump.

But whatever happened to freedom of conscience? Whatever happened to tolerance and live-and-let-live? Whatever happened to pluralism and diversity?

Folks, life in a diverse pluralist society won't always be easy. Let's not force people to violate their moral conscience when there are many other, less oppressive ways to get a cake.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Additional reading:

• Controversial cakes, Apologia, April 16, 2015.
• About cakes and conscience, Winnipeg Sun, December 24, 2016.

Thoughtcrimes

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, June 9, 2016

Thoughtcrimes

“Recent history shows us that the conscience can be so corrupted and manipulated that today's unthinkable becomes tomorrow's thinkable with remarkable speed.” – C. Everett Koop & Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (1983)

Like Winston Smith, the protagonist in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, I entertain politically incorrect thoughts. What follows are a few of those thoughts, some of which may soon become illegal to express. They're disconnected and perhaps disconcerting—read at your own risk.

● “Physician-assisted dying”: euphemism: not merely medical help to let terminally ill die peacefully and painlessly; includes active killing of another who requests suicide, whether terminally ill or not; positive attitudes associated with the acceptance of medical help when death runs its course are transferred (without argument) to other cases wherein doctors kill; effective in manipulating opinions of public that feels rather than thinks.

● Wittingly or unwittingly, able-bodied persons who would choose physician-assisted suicide if they were seriously disabled and suffering communicate this message to people who are presently seriously disabled and suffering: We would rather be dead than be like you. Hashtag: Culture of Death.

● May I suggest a new psychological disorder for the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)? PHOBIA OF BEING LABELED PHOBIC. This is a fear of or aversion to expressing disagreement on radical public policy issues (e.g., men in women's bathrooms) because one wants always to be liked and appear “progressive” (or “on the right side of history” or “2016-ish”); in adults the dread of being called “phobic” may be so intense that paralysis results, even as children are put at risk; in democracies, fascist-leaning politicians and ideologues exploit this fear to halt critical discussion or keep it from getting started; formerly known as cowardice.

● My pipe tobacco pouch has warnings from Health Canada. According to researcher Thomas Coy, “The risk of HIV from sexual contact for MSM (men who have sex with men) was approximately 150 times greater than the heterosexual male population in 2010.” Coy adds: “According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) the risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times greater than for men who do not smoke.” Should Gay Pride Parades display warnings from Health Canada, too? (Further reading: Is promoting same-sex sex wise? Be sure also to read my replies to my critics.)

● Gens Hellquist, executive director of pro-gay Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition (in a 2009 statement): “There are all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our [gay] community… We have higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community….”

● Bruce (“Caitlyn”) Jenner is not a woman. He is a “feminized” man, i.e., a man trying to look like a woman.

● According to Bill C-16, “gender identity” and “gender expression” are to become part of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Canada's Criminal Code. But Facebook, which had 58 gender identities, now has “unlimited” gender identities. So which identities and expressions should be included in the HRA and CC? What about the 52-year-old Canadian man who identifies as a 6-year-old girl?

● If my feelings about myself are sufficient justification for my identity, then why stop at transgender (i.e., identifying as a woman in a man's body)? Why not trans-age (an adult identifying as a child)? Why not trans-species (identifying as a dog or cat or dragon in a human body)? Hashtag: The emperor of subjectivity (as sole criterion for objective truth) has no clothes.

● Promote “diversity”?  But wait. There is diversity due to God's abundantly variegated and good creation AND there are diverse forms of brokenness due to the Fall/ moral rebellion. That is, there are diverse goods and diverse bads. Which “diversity” do you mean?

● Ethicist and theologian Russell Moore: “John the Baptist lost his head for saying that Herod could not have his brother’s wife. Some now will be targeted as culturally unacceptable because they tell Herod he can’t BE his brother’s wife.”

● “Dear world: Did you not read my book? Sincerely, G. Orwell."  - Facebook

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Controversial cakes

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop (Lakewood, Colorado),
  was sued by a gay couple for refusing to bake them a cake
 celebrating their same-sex wedding.

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, April 16, 2015

Controversial cakes

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or so the saying goes. Apparently, in view of the hoopla over gay wedding cakes, some persons not only want to have and eat their cake but also wish to force others to bake it for them.

I've heard (at least) two popular but poor arguments in favour of legally coercing Christian bakers to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, and I'd like to show why I think those arguments are poor.

Argument 1. Because these bakers refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, the bakers are discriminating against gays.

Assessment: Well, yes and no.

Yes, the bakers discriminate against gays by refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings, but, no, the bakers are not discriminating against gays in general. The bakers serve gays in day-to-day business by serving pastries, cupcakes, birthday cakes, etc. But the bakers refuse to participate in what seems to them as contributing to the celebration of an event—i.e., a same-sex marriage ceremony—which goes against their moral conscience or religious view.

In other words, gays are here not being discriminated against as a class as, say, blacks have been discriminated against as a class. Rather, a particular type of event—a same-sex wedding—is not being serviced and celebrated by some—a few—bakers. Significantly, there's no shortage of other bakers who are ready and willing to bake the desired cakes.

Surely, in a tolerant and pluralist society, a few bakers should be free to refuse some business on moral or religious grounds.

Think about it. A Muslim baker should be free not to bake cakes celebrating pornographic images for a stag party. A Jewish baker should be free not to bake a cake celebrating the pork industry. A black baker should be free to refuse baking a cake to celebrate white supremacy. A gay baker should be free to refuse baking a cake for Westboro Baptist Church (of "God hates fags" notoriety).

Argument 2. But because they're Christian bakers, if they're asked to bake a gay wedding cake, they should walk the "extra mile" and bake two cakes—even if they think same-sex marriage is sin. After all, Jesus says that if a Roman soldier asks you to carry his pack one mile you should carry it two miles.

In reply, notice that carrying the soldier's pack isn't a case of celebrating the Roman occupation, but creating a wedding cake is a significant part of the marriage celebration.

So, if one believes, as the Christian bakers (in the news) believe, that same-sex marriage is immoral (and deemed as such by Jesus), then the appeal to the "extra mile" principle runs amok. To be consistent one would have to agree to encourage other sins.

Think of it this way. If you're a Christian baker and you think incestuous marriage is wrong, you'd have to (according to argument 2) agree to bake two cakes to celebrate incest if you're asked to bake one.

If you're a Christian videographer and you think pornography is wrong, you'd have to agree to offer to make two porn films if someone asks for one.

In business in general you'd have to agree to two unscrupulous deals if someone asks for one.

In other words, before the "extra mile" principle is applied, the circumstance to which it's applied should be determined to be moral or immoral. That should be settled first. Those who apply the "extra mile" principle to the bakers assume that the moral issue has been settled—but this is unfair to those whose conscience and moral reasoning say otherwise.

Folks, life in a tolerant and pluralist society won't always be easy. Let's not force people to violate their moral or religious conscience when there are many other, less oppressive ways to get a cake.

Phone ahead—this way nobody will have to walk an extra block, let alone an extra mile.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Loaded language

www.slideshare.net/MissMayfield/logical-fallacies-12116451

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, January 15, 2015

Loaded language

Language can be abused, especially when it's loaded with emotion.

Philosopher Trudy Govier explains (in The Practical Study of Argument): “Through the use of emotionally charged language, a mood and attitude can be set without providing arguments, reasons, or any consideration of alternate possibilities.”

Govier is quick to point out that completely neutral language is “probably impossible” and “too boring to be desirable.” Nevertheless, when the emotional associations of language do more work than is justified by evidence, there may be problems.

One such problem is the perpetuation of bias. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) humorously illustrates: “I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool. I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.”

Govier calls this Our Side Bias. According to Govier, “It is often tempting to employ double standards when using language so as to use positive (or pro) language when describing your own side and negative (or con) language when describing the other side.”

Here is a light-hearted sports example (from Govier): “We have star players, but they have prima donnas who can't work together.” “We have aggressive players, but their players play dirty.”

More seriously, Govier discusses terrorism. Those who support the Palestinian cause might describe Palestinian suicide bombers not as “terrorists” but as “fighting oppression,” “liberation fighters," or “martyrs.”

Govier rightly points out that failure to acknowledge loaded language may be an obstacle to understanding violent conflicts.

However, Govier doesn't ask (but I will): Is one nation's terrorist simply another nation's freedom fighter and vice versa? Is Our Side Bias wholly relative?

Enter the need for careful thinking.

Consider this: in general, the soldiers of “our side” (e.g., Canada, Britain, U.S., France) tend to be discriminating in their targets. The goal, usually, is to strike against opposing soldiers/armed insurgents and avoid civilian casualties, even though this goal is, tragically, not always achieved; yet it’s severely criticized when not achieved.

But evidence clearly shows that Palestinian suicide bombers are not so discriminating: their goal—typically—is to destroy civilians. (Think, too, of ISIS fighters.)

So, on the one hand, civilians tend not to be targeted; on the other hand, they are targeted. This is an objective moral difference that shouldn't be dismissed by uncritical acceptance of Our Side Bias.

More generally, when loaded language is used in place of argument—when argument is needed—fallacious reasoning occurs: an unjustified bias occurs, whether it's Our Side Bias or not.

To illustrate, here is a Canadian political example (which I heard in last year's discussion of Manitoba's anti-bullying legislation, Bill 18).

“We ought to approve all sexual orientations and gender identities in order to promote diversity.”

Really?

Here “diversity”—difference—is assumed to be a good. Clearly, in today's climate of political correctness the word “diversity” carries much positive emotion. But is mere difference a sufficient condition for moral approval?

We should of course respect and accept all people, because each person has intrinsic worth (and because each person is made in God’s image).

But we should also pause, and think: Should we accept and affirm all our sexual dispositions and urges to behave in various ways?

Aren't some behaviours harmful to one’s self and/or others?

Think about serial rapist (and murderer) Ted Bundy. He had sexual urges that are different. But, surely, Bundy was bad.

Pedophiles have urges that are different, too.

(Theological note: There is diversity due to God's abundantly variegated and good creation AND there are diverse forms of brokenness due to the Fall/ moral rebellion, therefore not all diversity is ipso facto good.)

In other words, merely appealing to “diversity” as a justification of a moral position or public policy is to use loaded language. Because some differences are good and some bad, what needs to be addressed is the nature of the difference, not the mere fact of difference. Further argument is needed.

Whether we're discussing sports, terrorism, or diversity, beware of loaded language!

(Hendrik van der Breggen teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Thinking about Diversity: Theatre, Fallacy, Bill 18, Lady Gaga

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, April 18, 2013

Thinking about Diversity: Theatre, Fallacy, Bill 18, Lady Gaga

Several weeks ago I had the pleasure of seeing the play Schoolhouse, authored by Canadian playwright Leanna Brodie and performed at Providence University College, the school at which I teach philosophy. It spurred me to think deeply about diversity.

Before I begin, let me say (brag) that the play, a fictional story about a rural one-room school in 1938, was done with excellence. I am confident that the cast and crew of Providence’s production of Schoolhouse made all who are affiliated with Providence proud. The acting and stagecraft were superb.

In Schoolhouse, in a song by a likable character named Milton, Brodie ably presents an instance of the false dichotomy fallacy, a fallacy that seems to darken the minds of those inclined to ostracize and bully others.

(The false dichotomy fallacy is the mistake in reasoning wherein two alternatives are set out as if they are the only two alternatives, but in fact there is a third, unnoticed alternative. That we tend not to notice the third alternative leads us astray in our thinking.)

“Everyone should be like me,” sings Milton. The moral gist of Milton's song is that if you’re not like Milton (i.e., not like me or us), then you’re bad—and thus a target for “othering” or bullying. Enter the dichotomy that either you’re like Milton or you’re bad. However, as Brodie makes clear in the play, there is a third (and fourth, etc.) alternative: i.e., there are many good people who are not like Milton!

Brodie is correct in her critique of those whose thinking (narrow-mindedness) is mistakenly limited by the two alternatives—the false dichotomy—implied by Milton's song. For this, Brodie is to be commended.

But let’s leave Brodie’s one-room school and fast forward from 1938 to 2013.

For many today “diversity” makes mere difference a sufficient condition for moral approval. For many today the mere fact of difference seems enough to justify a moral position or public policy as good.

Think of Manitoba’s proposed anti-bullying Bill 18 and its call to respect “human diversity,” including the unqualified diversity of “all sexual orientations and gender identities.” (Note: The word “all” is in the bill. Think about what “all” could mean.)

Or think of the popular song “Born This Way” in which Lady Gaga celebrates various diversities, including sexual diversity, “'cause God makes no mistakes.”

Diversity—difference—is assumed to be a good.

But is mere difference a sufficient condition for moral approval?

To harken back to Brodie’s Schoolhouse, the contemporary popular understanding of diversity in effect says this: “if you’re not like Milton (i.e., me or us), then you’re good,” which is logically equivalent to “either you’re like Milton or you’re good.” (For first-year logic students: “If P then Q” is logically equivalent to “Not-P or Q.”1)

Now we should ask: Is this a new version of the false dichotomy fallacy? Is there an unnoticed third alternative?

What about those who are not like Milton and are not good? That is to ask: What about persons who do wrong or have propensities to do wrong such that their wrongdoings and propensities for wrongdoing are different from our own wrongdoings and propensities for wrongdoing?

Should we respect and celebrate their actions and propensities? Should we respect and celebrate the construction of personal identities that are given over to such actions and propensities?

And (to be consistent) should they respect and celebrate our wrongdoings and propensities for wrongdoing? Should they respect and celebrate our construction of personal identities that are given over to wrongdoing?

To be sure, we should respect and accept all people, because each person has intrinsic worth (and because each person is made in God’s image). No bullying should be allowed, period.

But we should also keep in mind that respecting and accepting all people doesn’t mean that we should accept and affirm all the behaviours of all people, nor does it mean that we should accept and affirm all their (our) dispositions and urges to behave in various ways.

Why not? Because not all behaviours are good—some behaviours are harmful to one’s self and/or others. (The Christian God, who makes no mistakes, calls such behaviours sin.)

Think about serial rapist (and murderer) Ted Bundy. He had sexual propensities and urges that are different. But, surely, Bundy was bad.

Pedophiles have propensities and urges that are different, too. So do people who are prone to alcoholism, temper tantrums, lying, thievery, greed, gossip, gluttony, etc.

In other words, the appeal to “diversity” as a justification of a moral position or public policy requires further thinking. We should ask: Is acting out on a difference good for one's self or others? Or not?

When we think of diversity, then, we need to keep in mind that what is important is the nature of the difference, not the mere fact of difference. Clearly, some differences are good, and some differences are bad.

With all due respect to Lady Gaga, “born this way” doesn't mean we ought to act this way.2

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Notes

1. More slowly, and with colour, for the sake of clarity: “If P then Q” is logically equivalent to “Not-P or Q.” Where P is not-like-Milton and Q is you're-good: "If not-like-Milton then you're-good" is logically equivalent to "Not-not-like-Milton or you're-good."

2. Acknowledgment/confession: I got the idea for my last sentence (about Lady Gaga) from Daniel Kuebler's "Memo to Lady Gaga: 'Born This Way' Doesn't Mean 'Act This Way'".