BLOG – ANSWERING THE LITTLE WHY GIRLS

Whereas explanations (and science) are attempts to describe how things are, justifications (and religion) are attempts to describe how things ought to be.

by John Tyburski

Copyright © I Need Politics, Tony Alexiou. All rights reserved.

First published at I Need Politics on May 23, 2014

A certain sweet little girl I know is completely caught up in the relentless habit of asking why. Mostly I am happy to answer, but sometimes I am not, even though something in me says I ought to feel like answering every time. This inner struggle drove me to search for the circumstances that determine whether or not I feel like explaining things like why there are 365 days in a year or why I parked in this spot versus one of eleven other empty spots. Meanwhile, recently (and fortuitously) an acquaintance in an unrelated conversation uttered an assertion extremely relevant to my conundrum: “Science is how you like your coffee; religion is why you like it that way.” A light came on, a little girl grinned, and I fell in love with this simple statement. You see, it captures a fundamental truth… about answering “why?”

There are myriad ways to answer “why?” yet only two distinct categories in which these answers all reside: explanation and justification. Today we have the best explanations in history for natural phenomena while our understanding of human relationships remains woefully inadequate. We may present reasons for our words and actions in our efforts to explain ourselves, but justifying what we say and do is different in both process and purpose. At the very moment a chosen word or course of action is featured against the backdrop of all other possibilities, an appeal to morality is made and a justification emerges.

Whereas explaining is, at its most basic level, a value-neutral process, justifying words and actions always involves an appeal to a moral code. While explanations are composed of reasons, justifications are made out of value judgments. Whereas explanations (and science) are attempts to describe how things are, justifications (and religion) are attempts to describe how things ought to be. It is absolutely possible to wax lyrically about why one has said A or done X without ever identifying the alternative words B and C or actions Y and Z. On the other hand, it is impossible to justify the utterance of A without at least implying why neither B nor C was spoken; that Y and Z never happened is often the foundation for why X occurred.

Although they may overlap when conditions are right, the spheres of explanation and justification are distinct. Reasons and explanations may help form legitimate justifications. However, when the will is wrong, reasons and explanations are prone to be nothing more than excuses and may not serve as acceptable justifications for inexcusable words or actions. The evidence for this assertion may be gathered from anyone paid explanations for an apology debt (countless wives are nodding in approval). Therefore, although we may have abundant reasons to include in our explanations, we are never justified in giving an unkind word or action. Some things in life are really that simple!

Moreover, because we are (or at least should be) aware of our often unkind nature, we ought to resist wrong reasons and unkind words and actions simply because these things introduce adversity into relationships. When we recognize that our reasons do not meet the criteria of kindness and righteousness, then we have an obligation to offer apology for our words and actions. Without apology and forgiveness, there is no hope for restoration of relationship.

It follows that one needs a moral code in order to form justifications; there are many from which to choose. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount might be worth looking at. In a recent essay for the Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Essay Series, Steven Pinker, in his attempt to explain morality without an appeal to a moral law giver, reiterated in more verbose terms The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. It is arguably a great start worth rehearsing daily, regardless of one’s world view. If everyone could perfectly adhere to this principle, then problematic justifications would not exist.

Sweet little girls who ask why may or may not be a driving force in our intellectual and ethical pursuits, but I suspect they are. Mine has taught me that to be kind and describe how things ought to be is a much greater challenge than to simply make excuses and describe how things are. Now that I have realized this distinction, I endeavor to provide more acceptable justifications. These will undoubtedly remain far outnumbered by my apologies, but justifying a lack of effort by reasoning that to do otherwise is difficult is no more acceptable to a child than to anyone else. In fact, we can all do better and for the sake of little why girls, let’s try.