I spent my weekend in Cynthiana, Kentucky, a small town of 7,000 people located northeast of Lexington, Kentucky. As I spent time with the people of that town I realized how different, or rather, how similar those in the Blue Grass state are to mid-western Cheese Heads. While they may not wear unusual edible objects on their heads, the residents of this region of Kentucky are unbelievably loyal to their Kentucky Wildcat football team, which, not to be rude, is not that great. I’m reminded of the loyalty of the Cheese Heads to their beloved Green Bay Packers during the 70’s and 80’s where season after losing season was met with continuous sell-out crowds.

But as I read the post on riding in the moral Ferrari, it occurred to me that while Kentuckians are morally different than Wisconsites (I’ll let you decide which one is Berkeley), and any other state in the union, for that matter, there is also great moral similarity.

As I drove from Louisville to Lexington, the speed limit was seventy m.p.h., slightly higher than my own state’s, sixty-five. And yet, there on the side of the rode were numerous people who had violated that speed limit and been pulled over by the dutiful law enforcement. Cynthiana, being a small town, has more stop signs than stop lights, one of which I ran right through without even noticing it. I chuckled as I realized that I was in the middle of nowhere with not a car in sight, but later that evening as I was riding in someone else’s car I noticed that the driver stopped at that middle of nowhere stop sign, just as we do in Wisconsin.

It’s true, all of us, from whatever state, may not fully agree on the destination of the moral red Ferrari (see Dan Kelly’s earlier post), or the speed limit, or even the road (government vs. non-government, see Connor Ewing’s earlier post), but we do agree that there must be a car, a speed limit, with rules and consequences, and a road, regardless of which one it may be. While there may be those in philosophical schools somewhere in the world who claim that there is no such thing as morality, the very organization of our driving laws, the enforcement of those laws in our towns, and the value of undying loyalty to a team that gets beat by a lower level team, demonstrate that there is already a moral consensus in American life. Even this weekend as my wife and I enjoyed the use of cable in our hotel and watched HGTV, I was struck by the two gay men on the show who talked about adopting a child. We may not all agree on what defines a family, but we do all agree family is important.

Karen Rupprecht’s earlier post suggested that there is already a possibility of moral consensus on the local level, but I would also suggest that it is possible on an even larger level if we properly understand our task. We are not attempting to create moral consensus in a vacuum. Rather, we are attempting to build upon a foundation of moral consensus to create even more consensus, building on the idea that we all agree family is important to discuss what family looks like. That is really what the founding Fathers did when they wrote the constitution, even using words like “WE believe.” The American experiment is one of moral consensus, across religious, racial, and socio-economic lines. And that moral consensus, while more divided today than in Madison’s and Washington’s day, still exists. There is hope for American agreement on many of these issues because we already agree on much of the foundation. We may not agree with how we got there, we may disagree with what team to cheer for, but we do agree with the general rules of the game and the road, and can build from there.

The challenge is still great, but at least we do already have a starting point. Whether it be Berkeley or Branson, there is already some moral commonality to build upon.

When I was in college I had a suitemate named Paul who was not known for his subtlety but certainly for his undying loyalty to the Green Bay Packers, even referring to Green Bay as the “Holy Land.” One day Paul and I were discussing a friend of ours when I commented that this friend was a fan of those detested Chicago Bears. Paul responded by saying “that’s okay, we have all sin in our lives.”

Of course, Paul was joking…at least I think he was joking. Yet, Paul’s comment reveals a human tendency to treat our individual amoral opinions, attitudes, and loyalties as moral issues. We address rather mundane concerns such as which athletic team we cheer for, what restaurant or drink we prefer, and the like as if those selections are intrinsically moral. And while that may simply lead to comical responses like Paul’s, this tendency often causes us to view those with different viewpoints and outlooks as immoral. As we demonize others’ dissimilarities, we justify our negative treatment and slander of their diversity of thought by placing ourselves upon a moral pedestal above the immoral riffraff beneath us.

This is not to say that morality fails to impact our opinion of amoral topics. For instance, I detest particular professional athletic teams because of my perception that those teams in question are more likely to cheat and break the rules of the game in order to get ahead, no matter the cost. I have boycotted brands because of my knowledge of the way they treat their workers, their involvement in sweatshops, or because of the immoral views of the parent company. This is how our understanding of morality should be applied to the world around us. But to assume that a team like the Green Bay Packers is the one I should cheer for, not because I live in Wisconsin or because I appreciate a city-owned team, but because it is moral to do so is simply plain foolish.

Sadly, nowhere does this seem to be more common than in the realm of politics. An individual’s basis for morality should impact their vote and their political views. But it has become common in this heated election year to claim one’s own positions to be the moral view and to demonize the other parties’ viewpoints as immoral. Within in the last month I stood in my kitchen listening to a friend of mine attempt to make the political argument that inefficiency is immoral. Perhaps efficiency is economically valuable, good for individual growth and flourishing, but it certainly cannot be viewed as either moral or immoral. There are efficient ways to help the poor but also efficient ways to kill them!

Efficiency and a wide range of other political views are claimed to be moral or immoral while not having an intrinsic morality. Consider that both major Presidential candidates have attacked the other’s view of economics using the word “immoral,” which is ironic considering the morality of manipulating the truth is not addressed. Yet these various economic positions have little to do with the realm of morality. Sure, it would be immoral to say “As President, I promise to take everyone’s money for myself.” That’s stealing, which is immoral. There are some political positions in our nation that I would claim are immoral. But to claim that someone’s economic viewpoint is immoral because it is different is quite baffling. It appears to be an attempt to gain an appearance of moral superiority and demonize alternative options.

As one who works daily within the field of “morality,” I cringe whenever I hear someone claim that a differing political viewpoint on an amoral topic is ‘immoral.’ Here at Hang Together our underlying goal is to build ‘moral consensus for a united America.’ This is an incredibly arduous undertaking, a task made even more difficult if we attempt to gain a ‘moral consensus’ on amoral issues! Such an effort would be impossible, and quite frankly, a waste of time. Our attempts here are not to gain a uniformity of application and action but a consensus on ‘morality.’ We will be united even with in our diversity. Is that not what it means to be American? E Pluribus Unum…Out of the many, one…unity in diversity?

Within this election year, I have greatly enjoyed the way I have been challenged by people of many different political stripes to think about a plethora of issues from new perspectives. I hope that this continues throughout the year and I hope it can occur on a national level as well. Yet, nothing will staunch this flow of ideas and interaction of viewpoints like attempting to label our opinions as moral and the opposition as immoral. To do such would is foolish, slanderous, and simply wrong. Kind of like being a Chicago Bears fan.