The eCrozier

Our diocesan candidates for the priesthood recently completed their General Ordination Exams. It’s a week-long set of questions designed for them to show proficiency in six canonical areas. Back in my day in 1983, the exam was much longer and far harder plus we had to walk six miles uphill backwards in the snow every day just to take them. And if you believe that, then I have prime Okefenokee swampland to sell you. Anyway, this year’s exam helped me recall one exam question I had back then. It was a moral theology question about the state’s right to require motorcyclists to wear helmets. The question got at the tension when we try to honor both individual and social agency as it relates to moral behavior. On one hand, individuals are the prime moral agents. It’s up to them to make the choice to wear a helmet and no state has a right to tell them otherwise. On the other, the state is the moral agent. It realizes that if individuals are seriously injured in a motorcycle accident because they weren’t wearing a helmet, then the state would probably be on the hook for a lifetime of medical bills and personal care for the disabled person. So, whose rights to moral agency should prevail in this discernment? Both have legitimate claims.

Today, for example, drivers over the age of 18 aren’t required to wear seat belts in New Hampshire (State Motto: “Live Free or Die!” – of course) even though all other states require them. Seat belt laws are one of the most successful public health campaigns in U.S. history. They have (as have motorcycle helmet laws) greatly reduced deaths and disabilities saving families from the loss of loved ones and their ability to contribute to the family’s welfare. One person’s right to be uncontrolled by the state is in tension with another’s right not to have to pay (in multiple ways) for a person’s reckless behavior.

In this flu season, a similar public health case could also be made for requiring flu shots. The human and financial costs saved from missed work, hospital stays, even death would be far more than the cost of the shots. So far, the Center for Disease Control estimates that in the U.S. over 10,000 people have died and another 180,000 people have been hospitalized during this flu season (far more than the Coronavirus in China). And what about gun laws? One person’s right to carry a gun could come into conflict with another person’s right not to be killed by that gun’s misuse. And what about those who oppose vaccinating their children, thus potentially exposing their children and other children to deadly diseases? Do those parents have such a right when it could come into conflict with the rights of others?  You see, these are all significant moral dilemmas when we try to honor both individual or social moral agency.

Since we in the U.S. aren’t a people given to deep moral reflection about much of anything, my hunch is most people simply head to their respective corners and defend their position without bothering to see the other side’s point of view. The Christian moral tradition most often leans to the side of what would be best for the well-being of most people, but even that can be sometimes complicated. I’m not suggesting that it’s always obvious which side to honor more. These are the difficult choices we face, which is akin to walking six miles uphill backwards in the snow every day.

+Scott