Punished and Ruled by the Modern Virtue Pharisees

..................for whence,

But from the Author of all ill could spring 

So deep a malice, to confound the race

Of mankind in one root, and Earth with Hell

To mingle and involve, done all to spite

The great Creatour?.........

Paradise Lost - Book 3, lines 380-385

I recently read of an author for young people who castigated a fellow author for being ‘tone deaf’ regarding racial sensitivities in her work having then to issue an abject apology herself for using that term lest she had offended the tone deaf. Similarly, it is at our peril that we suggest that mental illness should have the ‘stigma’ of ‘abnormality’ attached to it. What does all of this mean?

When you notice the sleek, multi-coloured beauty of a goldfinch on the bird-feeder in the May sunshine you are looking at a success story. The very beauty of the creature tells you it is a product of natural selection and is one of the fittest who ruthlessly survived in order to pass its health on and guarantee the continuation of the species. Without this, no goldfinches for that is how Nature works. If we extend this to humans the norm of health and vitality must be something to be celebrated and prioritised as, without it, the species would not survive and human life would not be possible. Even those who diverge from, or are deficient in health would not be here, were it not for the robust general health of the species that bore them and created societies that protect the weak. And then, to look at the area which generates life itself, those who diverge from the sexual norm in terms of homosexuality or transgenderism would not be here at all were it not for the success of the normative sexual function in humans. 

At this point I’d better clear up what I mean by ‘normative’ as I can already sense the heckles rising at the riskiness of this idea. In using ‘normative’ I intend no moral connotations. In no sense is a homosexual or a transgender person necessarily morally deficient, being as capable of as much moral virtue (or vice) as the next person, virtue depending on personality rather than sexuality. But they do diverge from the teleological-biological norm (by teleological I mean acting according to the prime function ascribed by evolution - what it’s there for) in not using sex in ways that fulfil the main biological reason for its very existence – reproduction. And, because of this, it is also not surprising that they are not ‘the norm’ in the purely statistical sense. The majority of people, unthinkingly and without any particular prejudice, follow Nature and their nature in their sexual behaviour.  

Life depends on the function of Nature’s teleological norm being fulfilled sufficiently often to triumph over all genetic failures or deficiencies. Without that fulfilment none of us would be here to participate in this debate, whatever our standpoint. This being the case, you might expect that Nature (etymologically ‘what is born’) would continue to occupy a central place in our consciousness and culture. Put in place by an agency (evolution or God depending on your preference) that has nothing to do with us, it is the necessary starting point that allows all the other things, including divergences to flourish. The fact that this is a fact is the most remarkable fact of all. Nature’s ‘straight’ sex was necessary for gay sex ever to happen so straight sex is a necessary forerunner not just another equivalent choice among many. And yet, instead of celebrating Nature’s centrality we seem to have been hoodwinked into not noticing its presence or pivotal function any more. 

We suddenly and unaccountably wake up to find ourselves, instead, in the bind of feeling compelled to apologise for the thing on which everything else is predicated, a position no former age experienced.  That thing seems to have been displaced by being shoved off the podium or branded as a bestower of privileges of health we should be ashamed of. The centre is pushed to the periphery and the margins made the centre. To even suggest that good pitch is preferable to tone deafness or mental health to illness is the crime of ‘shaming’. All of the attention, now, is on the feelings of those who are deficient in respect to, or who diverge from, Nature. The kind of minefield this creates leaves us feeling powerless to extract ourselves safely from it. The normal moral dispensation appears to have been upended and replaced by something new and insidious. Why should this be? 

A new group of Virtue Pharisees have begun to use those who diverge from the norm in terms of health, advantage or ‘exclusion’ as a means to an end. That end is the ability to wield a bullying, tyrannical power over us and our culture. This power demands that we constantly placate it by adopting uniformly prone and apologetic attitudes at all times. It achieves this by behaving as if there is a vacuum and not a real something at the heart of things, that something being healthy Nature, of course. Suddenly, only the unfortunate and disadvantaged have significant existence. It then sets up a competitive hierarchy of apparent humility, selflessness, solicitude and thoughtfulness towards the disadvantaged. Just as the original Pharisees dared people to sin against their ensnaring array of complex laws the modern Pharisees dare us to fail to exhibit the proper concern for the disadvantaged, the penalties being severe in terms of social standing. In this way the world is controlled and kept in its place through the exercise of fear.

There are two types of Modern Pharisee, each with a different motivation depending on their relationship with Nature. Firstly there are the timid, bloodless types, fearful of being and the life force in all of us. They tend to be the finger-wagging, censorious breed of hypocrite who inserts himself between us and the disadvantaged, castigating us on their behalf for our lack of concern for them. Many of these meanly punish, in those who are healthy and vital, their own fear of life by subjecting them and making them feel fearful and guilty. The second type of Pharisee is angry. He keenly resents the fact that his mental apparatus is dependent on a biological platform, that biology precedes the action of cerebration and not vice versa. He would have preferred that Nature could have been differently ordered from a tabula rasa according to his knowing-better, mental prescription. He is a petulant, aggrieved child infuriated that evolution or God presented him or her with a fait accompli. Indulging in a perpetual satanic tantrum, he wishes to be the power in heaven and  to avenge himself against a Nature which he hates and resents.

Of course the last thing most (there are exceptions) disadvantaged or disabled people want is to be pitied and patronised. Nor do they have a grudge against Nature or wish it to be dethroned as the norm or as a norm to be honestly celebrated. They don’t want our spurious solicitude and they don’t want us to pretend to be so unselfish towards them that we abandon taking any pleasure in ourselves. They are not dogs in a manger.

This piece curiously rejected by TCW on the grounds that I was advocating eugenics rather than simply describing evolution. They also suspected I wished us to treat disabled people worse than they are currently treated.