Morality, Prudence and Law

The Boy Scouts of America have recently made it into the news for their decision (/non-decision) regarding openly gay scoutmasters.  The organization has, up to now, staunchly defended their traditional stance that one may not be both openly gay and a scoutmaster.  Whether the organization will stick with this policy will apparently be decided in May.  As usual, this post is not so much about the news itself, but will take a moment to explore some related concepts that underlie the situation.

Morality is a very misunderstood notion today if my experience as a professor of ethics is any indication.  Morality refers to ideas (or specific rules, if you care to make the distinction) of right and wring conduct.  A claim that something is moral is a claim that it is the right thing to do in a given situation; a claim that something is immoral is a claim that it is the wrong thing to do in a given situation.  Whether we act in accordance with morality as it is (rather than as we wish/believe it to be) will determine what kind of a person we will be--good or bad.  Our disposition toward morality will be a basis for God's judgment (Matthew 25:31-46) of our lives.

Prudence is another matter.  As one of the virtues, prudence means to be wise about how we conduct ourselves.  Prudence is not "pragmatism."  To be "pragmatic" suggests that we might do what is necessary to accomplish a goal without considering the moral consequences of the actions.  It is possible to be "pragmatic" and act in opposition to what is moral.  If fortitude is virtuous courage ordered to morally upright ends, prudence is virtuous ingenuity ordered to the same.  It is not possible to be prudent and support anything that is not moral.  Prudence instead finds the best way to accomplish morality.

The Law is, or should be, related to these two concepts.  The law, when it is good law, comes into being as a prudential reconstruction of morality together with a system of consequences (which should themselves be moral).  Good laws reflect the truth about what is moral, even though the law is not the same as morality.  Part of human development, even in the secular world of psychological study, is to grow into an appreciation of what the law is and then on to an appreciation of what the law is not.  If law were the final arbiter of what is moral, laws would not change. The law cannot develop itself; it must be developed by those who  see what is moral and can adapt the law to more closely resemble it.  Because the law comes into being by the agreement of individuals who may be right or wrong about morality, it is often prudent to allow individuals and organizations the freedom to make moral determinations for themselves.

Thus the paradox of "lived humility" comes into the picture again.  Humility requires an understanding that we are neither the arbiters nor even accurate judges of what is moral.  On the other hand, it also requires that we subordinate our own fear of sharing the Gospel to the evangelical directives of Christ.  What is truly moral did not come from us that we should be embarrassed to proclaim it to a world that disagrees. 

Let us pray that whatever the decision the Boy Scouts of America finally make, it will be in prudent support of what is moral. . . and that such decisions will remain legal.