Caveating Ourselves to Death
the submission of truth to the cultural virtue of tolerance
It is not uncommon to hear a litany of exceptions and ambiguities preceding a moral or normative claim made by anyone on the internet. Life and people are both very complex, and our thinking should reflect that reality. The danger comes when one precedes a truthful statement with so many caveats that their final declaration is practically negated. As an avid reader and long-time dweller of online bookish/reader spaces, a prominent example arises in the discussion of smut, or more plainly, pornographic literature. Videos and essays analyzing the explosion in popularity of smut often go something like this: “The prevailing idea that everyone should just read whatever they like, often phrased in the comment ‘let people enjoy things,’ is anti-intellectual and has negative consequences for our society, BUT, I think people should be allowed to read whatever they want.”
The rational criticism of ‘just let people enjoy things’ is completely negated by the caveat “but I think people should be allowed to read whatever they want.” The current zeitgeist of cultural virtues places abject acceptance (often mislabeled as tolerance) at the top of the hierarchy. This necessitates an acceptance of the ‘just let people enjoy things’ attitude, which, for someone with even an inkling of reason and common sense, creates a cognitive dissonance that is hard to acknowledge. Absolute acceptance of all behaviours necessitates moral relativity, making it impossible to claim that one type of media is better or worse than another. It also becomes logically incoherent for one to claim that certain actions, beliefs, or practices should not be permitted for the sake of the common good.
In online Catholic spaces, a similar litany of caveats often precedes truth claims. While a belief in moral relativism makes such statements irrational in a secular context, for the Catholic, I fear overnuancing too often distorts the truth.
“When I say X, that doesn’t mean that I think/don’t think Y.”
example: “When I say abortion is wrong and evil, I don’t mean that there aren’t situations where women are forced to have an abortion or that a woman who has had an abortion can never receive forgiveness and healing.”
This statement is true, both factually and morally (it is a fact that some women are coerced into having abortions, and it is morally true that women who have had abortions can, of course, receive the grace and forgiveness of our Lord). Yet, should it not be the responsibility of the listener or reader to, with Catholic charity, assume the person claiming abortion is evil also believes the aforementioned statements? Without evidence to the contrary (i.e., if the speaker/writer outright says they believe women who have had abortions are incapable of receiving grace and forgiveness), it is uncharitable to presume that a statement of “X is evil” equates to “People who have committed X sin are beyond God’s grace.” Or “I hate anyone who has committed sin X.” It is the responsibility of the consumer to read, listen, or watch with a disposition of charity, and to use common sense.
This is not to say that people do not have a responsibility to provide arguments for their beliefs, but rather that one does not have a responsibility to provide caveats for everything one says. The one making the truth claim has a burden of proof, not a burden of providing all possible outliers and exceptions to avoid hurting people’s feelings.
This is exemplified in any discussion in which one mentions statistical averages, as seen quite often in online gender discourse.
Statement: “On average, women are physically weaker than men.”
Caveat: “Of course, this does not mean that all men are stronger than all women, or that women can’t be strong.”
Caveating a statistical average1 with all possible exceptions to the rule is to dabble in cowardice. It is anti-intellectual and unnecessary to provide every possible statistical outlier to a claim. If one has evidence to back up their claim, no further nuancing is necessary. The point of contention, if any, must be with the conclusion one draws from the data, not the data itself.
example: If someone said, “On average, women are physically weaker than men, THEREFORE it is justifiable for men to assault women,” the issue is the conclusion drawn, not the data itself.
As Catholics, we are called to speak the truth in love. That does not require us to list every wonderful gay person we know, every morally upright atheist, and every pitbull that hasn’t eaten a toddler. Unless a deeper, intentionally more nuanced conversation is taking place, it is sufficient to say that homosexuality is wrong, atheism is false, and pitbulls are dangerous. For Catholics who already believe in The Truth, charity, clarity, and prudence must prevail. We must not let the cloud of nuance obscure the truth, nor can we assume ill intent of a person simply because they did not provide in-depth nuance and exceptions to their claim. We are called to speak the truth with charity and to always have a defense for our beliefs.2 Defending the truth does not require caveats.
sources cited when necessary, but I believe we should allow common sense to prevail. Perhaps that is foolish of me.
1 Peter 3:15