Moral Optimism v. Moral Pessimism

From my perspective as both a millennial and a high school Campus Minister and theology teacher, I witness a lot of relativism. I see a lot of sentiment toward admitting some vague semblance of absolutism that is quickly qualified with "but I would never expect that of someone else" or "but I would never tell someone they have to do that or believe that."

This is nothing new. I've written before about how humanity invents new ways to enable our misbehaviors rather than change, how sometimes morality and decisions aren't so much right v. wrong as much as it is right v. righter, and how the coherency of Church teaching can help Catholics be good dialoguers from a middle ground.

More recently, my thoughts have gravitated toward morality as it relates to one's outlook. I am a pretty stubborn idealist, both motivated and flawed by my constantly high expectations of just about everything and everyone. So when it comes to morality, I am no different.

I believe in absolute truth. I believe that there is moral black and white, which though sometimes greyed by circumstance in its execution, is real and applicable to everyone in every place. So when it comes to living out morality, I think there's a way that we can all rise to moral goodness, doing the right things and making the right decisions. Sure, it must proceed from humility and repentance, but I think it's possible to be constantly moving in the right direction, toward good and God.

However, this isn't the reality for everyone. And I don't think it's even the reality for all moral absolutists or all Catholics. I think lurking within morality, both absolutism and otherwise, there is another difference. I want to call it moral optimism v. moral pessimism.

I think there are moral pessimists who believe that there are certain things that are out-and-out wrong yet at the same time will admit these things' certainty and accept their inevitability. These folks might prefer to be called something like pragmatists or realists, but either way, the sentiment is clear - some wrongful behaviors, even if absolutely immoral, just happen and there's nothing to do about it.

On the other hand, I think of myself as a moral optimist. In addition to believing that there is an absolute right and wrong, moral and immoral, I also think that behavior can change. I think individuals can have conversations, interactions, and experiences that impact their choices and actions. I think society can undergo transformation that peels back immoral behaviors.

An obvious example would be sexual morality. I have found that an inarguable premise in discussion is "people are going to do have sex anyway." As a result, the availability and affordability of condoms, contraceptives, and abortifacients as well as abortion medications and procedures is a no-brainer - this behavior is irreversible and endemic in society, so there needs to be ready access to these things to counteract the consequences of sex.

Honoring both pragmatism and idealism, I'd say that yes, today, most people are going to have sex whenever they want, regardless of their knowledge of their partner's history, their awareness of their own medical status, etc. However, I think on a larger scale and over a longer term, this social inevitability can be impacted such that over a longer arc perhaps fewer people will be sexually promiscuous and more people will reserve sexual intercourse for marriage. It has to do with taking a stand to change one's own behaviors and paying witness to the actions and words one shares in one's community and relationships.

On another front, inequality and basic human rights and needs present another opportunity. Most people would agree that humans should not be going hungry, thirsty, naked, or shelterless. However, some people accept that a certain amount of the population will just suffer these things while others commit more earnestly toward fighting it.

A moral pessimist may say there will always be homeless people, lines at the food pantry, and needs for clothing drives. These people may give charitably but accept the inevitable presence of the needy. However, as a moral optimist, I will instead indefinitely seek to partner with the marginalized needy people to connect them to people and things that will provide for their needs. I want to help those who go wanting, work to get them more stable, and continue that work such that my colleagues and me and those who get themselves stabilized can keep partnering with those in need. I want to educate and form young people to discover and identify the root causes of marginalization and inspire society to work toward reforming those things that lead us throw people away.

Do you think you're a moral optimist? A moral pessimist or pragmatist? Something in between?

I think there is danger is moral pessimism/pragmatism/realism. While we must acknowledge present realities in order to respond to them earnestly, I think it must involve a degree of optimism to be true to what God calls us to be as sacraments of His love in the world.

I think we must say Yes, this evil exists, but it doesn't have to be like this or stay like this. I think we must ask How does Christ call me as a Christian and my community as the Church to be His hands and feet for one another?

The love of God must originate in a person's heart and then be conveyed toward others in actions and words, so the desire to pursue and actualize what is good has to start with one person being the hands and feet of Christ for good and then letting that ripple outward as the goodness spreads.

Our faith is founded on a beautiful coherence of truth from the revelation of God, and we do not need to dismissively accept moral evils as certainties in the world. The love of God is the most radical thing this world has ever experienced, and we can live it out by insistently being a force for good in our prayers, thoughts, words, and actions.