Ethical Houston

Ex. 8:12-15

“After Moses and Aaron left Pharaoh, Moses cried out to the Lord about the frogs he had brought on Pharaoh.  And the Lord did what Moses asked. The frogs died in the houses, in the courtyards and in the fields.  They were piled into heaps, and the land reeked of them.  But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.”

In part two of Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict we explored the idea of covenant as a means of dealing with conflict and the basis for establishing reciprocal ethical standards.  But this may be putting the cart before the horse.  Theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr in his book Moral Man and Immoral Society takes a more radical position on conflict than many sociologist and academics.  He states, “the relations between groups must therefore always be predominately political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses….  The coercive factors, in distinction to the more purely moral and rational factors, in political relations can never be sharply differentiated and defined.  It is not possible to estimate exactly how much a party to a social conflict is influenced by a  rational argument or by the threat of force….Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflict, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself.”  Theologian Bernard Loomer also addresses the issue in terms of power inequalities and states that “we seldom relinquish our power voluntarily.  We loosen our grip and make our concessions only when we are forced to do so by some competing group that has acquired sufficient power to bring us to the negotiating table, as the history of the labor-management conflict and the modern women’s movement illustrate….We tend to trample on or remain indifferent to those people whom we feel we can safely ignore.”  Throughout history we see this phenomenon occurring over and over.  In the Exodus scripture we note that Pharaoh agrees to let the Israelites go to keep from having frogs throughout the kingdom.  But when Moses and Aaron leave the court he changes his mind and decides not to let them go.  That’s why it took seven plagues to get Pharaoh to let them go.  Even then he reneges on his promise and goes after them with his army, only to have his army destroyed.  Power is difficult for despot to relinquish.

            In order to understand this inequality of power we not only need to address the issues of economic and social power but also in-group, out-group relationships.  In-groups are those persons who form a power relationship that is dominant in the particular culture that it exists.  Out-groups are those who lack the power of influence of the in-group and are considered in some sense to be inferior to the in-group.  In the Pharaoh, Moses scriptures Pharaoh was the in-group and Moses was the out-group.  These differentiations exist in multitudinous ways where an in-group may be an out-group as it relates to another more powerful group and vice versa.  Even though Moses was perceived as being the weaker, because of his relationship with God, he was really the stronger. 

Because an in-group sees itself as being better and having more self-esteem and power over the other, ethical treatment of the out-group may suffer.  Ethical behavior of the out-group may also be affected.  In the arena of race relations a white in-group may feel itself superior to a black out-group and therefore snub or treat them with less respect and take advantage of them including doing bodily harm to out-group members.  The out-group may view this treatment as unjust and justify stealing, burning or otherwise breaking existing laws as punishment and “pay-back” for past grievances.

            In the instance the O.J. Simpson murder trial that ended in acquittal, most whites who saw the trial believed that Simpson was guilty while the majority black jurors and the African American public tended to believe he was innocent.  There were many in the black community who may have believed that he was guilty but that the acquittal was pay back for past injustices to blacks. 

            If there is an inequality of power in societies that effect ethics how then is it that some cultures and situations are able to make covenants that bolster relational structures?  Where then, does the concept of covenant in ethical conflict fit?  I suggest that there are steps that precede many conflicted power struggles before covenantal relationships can exist.  Some of the possible steps are as follows:

1. Out-group seeks to gain redress for injustices
2. In-group will not meet or recognize validity of out-group
3. Out-group continues to seek redress and to meet.
4. In-group uses force and physical or economic intimidation to suppress out-group
5. Out-group enlist secondary support from both inside and outside their group
6. Out-group uses demonstrations and economic sanctions against in-group
7. A breech occurs in the wall of support with moderates breaking ranks with in- group.  Moderates seek change to ameliorate and pacify out-group. 
8. The beginning of relational power sharing
9. Forming a permanent covenant

All during the process the out-group attempts to have a dialogue with the in-group or to forcibly displace the in-group.  In the earlier stages this does not happen and may take years for negotiations to begin in earnest.  At some point with or without a plan developed, the two groups form the semblance of covenant.  The covenant may begin with the in-group acknowledging that the out-group has a right to exist and to bring grievances.  Conversations may start and stop at every point of the negotiations.  And from the outside, constituents from both the in-group and out-group may do whatever they can to maintain the status quo, even when bloodshed occurs. 

The situation may be complicated when one or both sides engage in violence against the other side or when there exists a myth of entitlement such as the violence in Northern Ireland and in the Palestinian, Israeli conflict that has been fueled by both reality and myth that justifies further violence. (Def. myth—Attempt to state humanity’s faith or belief in the reality of experience and the meaning and value of that reality for life on the historical level.[Christian Word Book]) In both of these instances each side to the conflict are bound together by an ingrained historical myth that must be dealt with before change can occur.  Often the full impact of the myth cannot even be discussed either with the other group or with outsiders.  Much of the groups self is bound up in the myth.  In these instances there is little incentive to listen to the others point of view, their history, their myth or for them to treat the other ethically.  Their anger, prejudice and mythology are the glue that binds them together. And in a perverse way it binds both adversarial groups together in a seemingly endless Gordian knot.

In order to bring about change there needs to be a new story, a new created mythology that embraces the possibilities for living together in the future.  This has to come out of dialogue and will not have come about as the initial goal of that dialogue.  It comes about as a result of a continuing dialogue through each side telling their story and in the process, creating a newly constructed story.  

Coming soon—a process of creating a new story.