Sandusky and Moral Absolutes

Judging from the comments on the New York Times website and on various internet news sites, the news of Coach Sandusky's conviction on child molestation charges has raised cheers. I can't find one comment that defends the man. Even Penn State students and their families have remained remarkably quiet after the ruckus regarding Joe Paterno's firing. One family member said they "had moved on" long ago on Happy Valley. An acid reply on that comment was merely, "I imagine you would want to."

Despite Happy Valley's desire to put the matter behind them, it's not going anywhere soon. That's because this case represents one of the very few--if not the only--moral absolutes we have left. What I mean by "moral absolute" is something that we all know and agree to be morally repugnant. Pedophilia and various sexual offenses are about all we have left we can agree on.

In ages past, there was a list of things that everyone agreed, more or less, were "wrong" or at least socially undesirable. Murder, adultery, and theft were among these. But they hardly look like absolutes anymore.

Nowadays, the commandment not to kill comes with a set of asterisks. In some states, killing is legally allowable if you feel threatened. Similarly, adultery is no longer an absolute, merely the source of tabloid interest: how much is the divorce going to cost? Stealing, as in ponzi schemes and corporate manipulations, seems to be codified into certain professions and we have yet to see those responsible for the frauds that nearly brought down the world's economy serve any time in jail.

The times--they are a changing.

Now, not all of this bad. Good riddance to the persecution of homosexuals in the name of religion. Good riddance also to female mutilation and forced marriages. Good riddance as well to inquisitions and killing in the name of gods who seem merely capricious and hostile to human beings.

But what is left when these things are gone? Those who might point to US Constitution as a moral imperative now must face the fact that the supreme court of this country which interprets the document has now become just one more political voice. No absolutes there anymore. To quote the constitution is to sound merely quaint or ignorant these days.

Yes, as we change as people, as we become more diverse, everything has been put on the table. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot: our certitudes have fallen apart and will not stay in place. In the face of this, we find ourselves forging new and perhaps unthinkable ground: Are the moral certainties of the ideas and ideals that have guided us still who we are as a people?

Normally, I have no patience with the Tea Party and its adherents because they would like to impose the old monstrosities back on us. But I do agree with them on one point. Once the moral certainties started to crumble, it was a slippery slope. I happen to think such is a good thing. They do not. Unfortunately for them, the world is changing and history is not on their side.

Yet, the question of what matters is a powerful one. What do we agree on that can bring us together in even the faint start of conversation?

It would seem that the Sandusky affair and his tragic victims are one thing we can agree on--at least if we are not pedophiles. This gives me hope. Perhaps one of these days we can have a rational discussion with one another and reach a new consensus on who we are as a people.