I was reading an interesting article on Christianity Today
that crossed hairs with situations involving morality, which happens to be one
of my favorite areas of research and understanding. But I have to admit that I
was very puzzled at the comments of some of the reviewers of the courts’
decision to finalize a dentist’s choice to fire his assistant, simply because
he was afraid of committing adultery with her. But before I begin giving my
critique of some of the commentators’ thoughts, there is something I should
point out at the outset. Iowa’s Supreme Court’s recognition of the man’s rights
to fire her seems almost independent of the notion of “doing what is right” put
forth by the people commenting on the man’s decision. There are precisely 6
mistakes I spotted in the commentators’ reasoning in how they were reflecting
over the man’s decision and the situation he was in.
Inconsistent
Action
The man and his wife’s reason for him firing his assistant were
for the reason that he would try to have
an affair with her down the road. People should be fired for what they did do, not what they would have done. Just because someone
would do something, doesn’t make him or her culpable. Many of us, at certain
times, would lash out at our bosses who come off as overbearing knowing that
would cost us our jobs, but nobody fires us because of that being possible or
that we would do such a thing. Someone
might say, “This situation is
different!” Not really because his responsibility to remain pure and have a
good marriage is ultimately a matter outside of his work place. His marriage
could in fact be in poor condition even if he had never been concerned about
having an affair with her. In fact, saying “If I had gone down to my buddy’s
apartment, I would have beat him to a bloody pole.” does not entail that I in
fact did such a thing. I would only be prosecuted for doing such a thing. There
are many criminals who haven’t committed certain crimes but would if they got
the chance. But nobody is locking them up simply because they would or they
could because they haven’t!
Misplaced
Concern
If the issue were about him possibly having an affair with
this woman, then why would the action be centered towards the woman? Clearly he
has shifted his strategy (from himself to the woman) to avoid having to make a
tougher decision (train his thoughts and eyes). Since the concern was about he
having an affair with her, he should have gotten his act together and changed
how he would look at her and think about her. It’s all too convenient to get
rid of someone simply because – even though he did nothing to you – your life
of temptations got increasingly more difficult.
False
Assumption #1
Michael McManus, the president of Marriage Savers, made the
following remark that illustrates my next point: We have to walk away from temptation; we just cannot court it, which
would be happening if she had remained. The best thing to do would be to show
compassion and help the woman find another job so she's not hurt by the firing.
Michael made a fundamental mistake despite his noble intentions in what he was
saying: Walking away from temptation, in this case, did not necessarily have to
include getting rid of the woman because there is no evidence that she in fact
was trying to seduce him. There are 2 different kinds of temptations here.
Temptation #1 is with the man being unable to control his eyes and thoughts
about his assistant and Temptation #2 is about the assistant coming onto him.
Walking away from temptation with respect to Temptation #1 would have been
changing the way he looks at her and thinks about her. Moreover, walking away
from temptation does not entail a literal interpretation in which one necessarily
physically walks away from a situation (although there are situations where
that is necessary – Joseph -). But to suppose that because this happens in one
particular situation, therefore it has to happen in all situations is to commit
the fallacy of composition (the whole set
of situations has the property
or attribute of needing to physically
walk away from temptation, because 1 event out of the whole set has that
property). To make it more practical, suppose you know someone who consistently
abuses your trust. Now in 1 out of say 20 situations you are merciful and don’t
penalize him for what he has done to you. Does that mean you are to be merciful
to him in the remaining 19 situations (we’re being hypothetical here; not
claiming this has actually happened) just because you were in the first
situation? Obviously not because some of the other situations might have
different factors that could render your decision differently from the first
situation and it would be presumptuous to think that the remaining 19
situations are going to have the same set of circumstances around them as the
first one did.
False
Assumption #2
He took action against her on the basis of his mental and
physical reaction to her presence there
instead of any action on her part
towards him. In other words, because he couldn’t for some reason take control
of his thought life (he was at fault – not her -) and was perhaps lusting after
her (not saying he was actually doing that – just a possibility), he decided to
– not change his beliefs about her and his eyes about her – get rid of her,
thinking he has established himself as pure. Well guess what? He hasn’t really
solved the problem because his internal struggles are still there and will be
there regardless of what kind of woman is there. And remember this is a work
environment where provocative dress isn’t going to be permitted because
employees have to dress uniformly. A woman is held accountable before God on
how she dresses in terms of how it affects us men in our attempts to be pure
with our eyes and mind. And a man is held accountable before God on how we look
at women regardless of how the woman is dressed. People can get fired
and even prosecuted because of sexual harassment. I have seen many attractive
females in the United States Army when I was in. If I were told to travel on a
convoy and have a female soldier guide me as I was driving, I would have to
carry that out regardless of how her physical presence made me feel. I would be
laughed at if I withdrew from the order simply on the basis of not being able
to control my thoughts.
Begging
the Question
This mistake in reasoning comes when one assumes the very
thing they are trying to prove or conclude. Greg Smalley says that the dentist
made the right decision because he needed to save his marriage. Needing to save
his marriage from what? Being tempted in his own thoughts is identical to his
marriage being in danger? Why should the woman be fired simply because the man
is afraid of having an affair with her? That question implicitly says that the
woman made no initiation to have an affair with him or any hints of
inappropriate conduct. That statement by Smalley just assumes there was a
danger of their marriage being interrupted by infidelity. It’s an inserted
assumption, not an argued assumption. Choosing to either have or not have an
affair with that woman was completely within his power because he is a free
agent.
Misplaced
Action
Taking legal action against someone (unless one’s rights are
in danger – racism, sexual harassment – etc.) is not to be taken on a par of
moral issues unless the violation of one’s rights has been indicated. If we
applied this man’s reasoning and decision consistently, then I should fire
someone at my job that makes it difficult for me to be patient (firing someone
because their presence makes it hard to uphold a particular moral virtue). No
one should be fired on those issues unless someone’s rights is at stake, but
because of their job performance or integrity has negatively impacted their job
performance (stealing from work, lying about reports, etc.) If this woman had
in fact violated moral or social conduct, then she would have been rightly
fired. But this man’s actions, irrespective of her actions, were unjustified
because they were predicated on an issue with him, not with her. If I am
working at an office and a very attractive secretary works in the same office,
I cannot reasonably ask that she be removed from my workspace simply because
her attractiveness (not dressing provocatively necessarily) is too much for me
to handle. Whatever action someone takes with her should be predicated on her
work performance unless she does something on the job that has a moral link to
it (doing special favors for her boss, taking him out on a date, flirting
inappropriately towards me).
So firing her because he and his wife were afraid he would
have an affair with her is simply unjustified. They can’t just get rid of
people who are attractive just because he could or would lust after them. If he
looks at her in the right way, regardless of how she looks, then he won’t
commit adultery. It would be entirely
different if she had tried to come onto him and had violated a policy in
separating work from friendship, if in fact that was a policy. If she had not
done anything inappropriate, then he has to square himself away because she’s
not the problem, he is. You can’t get rid of something X, if in fact, X is not
the issue but when you are the
issue.
Concluding
Remarks
I did my best to look over the article carefully before
drawing certain conclusions that I have drawn right now. For future reference,
unless someone has done something to you – indirectly or directly – you cannot
place the blame on him or her for a struggle you have. You have to correctly
identify where the issue lies and then take appropriate action towards it.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment