The Power of Words

HS # 12   2016.7.5

The Power of Words

Someone once said,  “You’ll be the same person in five years as you are today except for the books you’ve read, the people you’ve met, and the places you’ve gone.”  Lots of truth to that. I just returned from a long-awaited trip to Scotland, and after visiting a wonderful country, I returned with a new appreciation of this one.  For one significant reason:  The U.S.A was built on the power of words.

The idea struck me while touring Edinburgh Castle which culminated in seeing the Crown Jewels of Scotland.  They are magnificent – a crown, a scepter, a sword, and The Stone of Destiny.  These items have been used throughout the centuries to symbolize the power and authority of the Scottish rulers.  The Stone – a 300 pound chunk of sandstone – was the object on which early kings of Scotland were bestowed as rulers, and it has been part of the coronations of England and Scotland ever since.  After 700 years in Westminster Abbey, England returned it to Scotland in 1996, but still calls it back to be set under the thrown when each new monarch is crowned.

Seeing these revered objects – all protected under thick glass, I was reminded of the novel, “The Lord of the Flies.”  Briefly, a small group of young boys is marooned on an island following a plane crash. Starting out well, rivalries and conflict develop, and a conch shell is arbitrarily used as the symbol of authority. Whoever has it, has the power to speak.

Rather silly, but that has been the method used throughout much of history. Consider the exalted pulpits used in cathedrals, the robe and cap of the pope, and, of course, the crown jewels of the rulers of many European countries. (Likely there are many more examples.)

How radically brilliant it was then for our Founding Fathers to reject all such physical symbols. Instead of a stone and sword protected under thick glass, we have the original copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence - words on a piece of paper - protected by bullet-proof glass and ready to descend into a deep vault at the first sign of danger.

Instead of placing a crown on the president’s head and handing a scepter, the President-elect says words - simple words of the oath of office. Repeating those 35 words is necessary and sufficient to become the next President of the United States.

Indeed, our faith in those words is so powerful that in 2009 when Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and President-elect Obama muffed up the oath of office,  they repeated it the next day – correctly.

How interesting this all is! The Founding Fathers are credited with establishing a new form of government – a republic where the power is held by the people, rather than a royal family or ruling class. The method of delegating that power – via elections of representatives and a president and oversight by justices - is also widely known as an historical innovation.  But along with these, it seems, the Founding Fathers also realized that the symbols of authority should not be objects, but  words.  They believed in the power of words.

It might be appropriate then that our two greatest presidents were instrumental in cementing this new faith. President Washington willingly gave up his authority as president after eight years in office when John Adams became the second person to say the oath of office.  This allowed for the peaceful transfer of power, prompting King George III to say of Washington, “If he does that, he shall be the greatest man in the world.”

And 66 years afterwards, President Lincoln reflected back on the previous century and looked forward with hope to exclaim that a nation so founded would long endure. At just one point in that speech Lincoln erred. He said  “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here . . . “ In that statement he was mistaken, since the Gettysburg Address, which I memorized as a fifth-grader and still recite, follows only the Sermon on the Mount on the TIME list of Speeches that Changed the World. Maybe even Lincoln underestimated how much we in the U.S.A. value the power of words. That’s a heritage in which we can all take pride.

Utilitarianism can help make good laws

HS 2016.6.7

Utilitarianism: Making Good Laws

Here’s a question to ponder: What is the relationship between morals and laws? Are laws merely legislated morality, as some claim? Consider this: Murder is both immoral and illegal, gossip is immoral but not illegal, driving on the left side of the road is illegal but not (inherently) immoral, and eating angel food cake is neither immoral nor illegal. Thus what is moral and what is legal seem to be somewhat independent of each other – one does not necessarily determine the other.   How then do we - should we - determine our laws?  Utilitarianism is a good place to start.  

Utilitarianism is the philosophical position that one should make choices so as to bring about the greatest good or wellbeing.  However, when enacting legislation there is often a tension between two goods.  For example, some states require motorcyclists to wear helmets, others don’t. Why?  Some consider freedom for the cyclist to be paramount.  Others are more concerned that the public not be burdened caring for an injured cyclist.

Notice that there is no formula for weighing the options. It’s a judgment call, and people will judge differently depending on their respective value systems.  All we can do is prevail upon the rational judgments and the empathy of others.

This past summer this principle was applied to same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court.   On the one side it was argued that folks should have the liberty to live in a state-sanctioned, life-long committed relationship with a person they love. For most people, that makes for good living. On the other hand, it was argued that the presence of such unions would be harmful to the greater society.  These were weighed in the balance, and lacking evidence for harmful effects to society, the Supreme Court chose for individual liberty.

Let’s now apply the principle to two current issues.

The State of Michigan and a couple southern states allowed for minors convicted of murder – some as young as 16 years old – to be sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.  Realizing that time in prison provides opportunity for reflection and maturity, the Supreme Court struck down the no-possibility-of-parole as cruel and unusual punishment.  The justices ruled that after serving a suitable sentence of punishment, the convicted should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated.

However, Michigan Attorney General Schuette has yet to comply with the ruling. Why?  Mr. Shuette doesn’t want the victim’s family to be subjected to the trauma of having the case revisited and the murderer (or accomplice) released.   How might utilitarianism shed light? We are bidden to ask:  Is it worse to keep a repentant and rehabilitated 45 year old in prison the rest of his life - perhaps another 40 years - at a cost of $30-40,000/year, or worse to put the victim’s family through the distress of having the offender released?  There is no formula; what do you think?

The second example to consider is the recent controversy concerning which public restroom transgendered individuals should use.  North Carolina’s answer is that persons use restrooms based on their sex at birth. The other extreme is that transgendered individuals, some of whom have a fluid gender which can change day to day, use whichever restroom matches their present gender identity. 

How might utilitarianism provide a compromise?  The North Carolina policy needlessly harms those who have had a physical change without increasing the welfare of any. Thus a utilitarian approach would allow those who have had a sex change operation the freedom to use the restroom that accommodates their new anatomy.

But it may also eschew the position proposed by the Obama administration. Why?

When the benefit to the minority is substantially greater than the cost to the majority (as is the case with same-sex marriage, e.g.), then the majority may need to bend to allow for the welfare of the minority.  But in the restroom situation, the cost to majority and minority is the same; either way, some are going to feel uncomfortable.  Therefore, the minority (transgendered folk) should not be granted the opportunity to feel comfortable if doing so denies that same thing to the majority.  The way to maximize the good (or minimize the discomfort) is to (regrettably) require transgendered folk to use the restroom that matches their outward appearance, or perhaps to use a single-person restroom.

As these examples illustrate, utilitarianism applied with reason and empathy can lead to compromise and commonsense laws.