The Morality of Morality

A friend posted a link on Facebook to this article. It details the divorce proceedings of a man who has been an active and outspoken advocate for a ban on gay marriages, and makes a point of saying that he was opposed to gay marriage because of his Catholic background, which makes the divorce he is now going through ironic because the Catholic church also opposes divorce.

Okay, so I totally agree that it's a shame to see such "inconsistent morality", especially in someone who has taken political actions based on moral (or religious) inclinations. However, I also think that to make a public spectacle of someone simply because they've failed to live up to their own moral code is just as much of a shame.

Nobody can be 100% moral 100% of the time, no matter what their particular moral code happens to be. Of course, when you make public statements about specific moral perspectives, especially as they concern heated social debates, you're just asking to be strung up the second you do something contrary to those statements.

So that begs the question: is morality all-or-nothing? If I am incapable of being 100% moral 100% of the time, should I abandon morality altogether? After all, without morals I cannot be scrutinized for immoral behavior; the measuring stick would not exist. People may say that there are some "universal morals" to which everyone must hold themselves accountable, but every religion (or lack thereof) has its own set of "universal morals" which hardly makes any of them "universal". If there are no universal morals, therefore, and the only morals I am responsible for maintaining are my own, why not just make it easy on myself and live the rest of my life without scruples?

What's funny about this to me is how blind people can be to their own moral violations while lambasting other people for theirs. People who would otherwise state that lying is wrong wouldn't bat an eye at telling a "white lie" to spare the feelings of a loved one. Someone that complains to you about a stupid driver that tried to beat a red light is quite likely the same person that passed you going 15 miles over the speed limit the day before. We "pick and choose" our moral incentives all the time, every day, and we don't even think twice about it, but that doesn't seem to stop us from blowing other people's transgressions out of proportion.

Jesus puts it this way, in Matthew 7:1-5 (from The Message translation; other translations can be found here):

Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor.

Now I can't make a post like this without finishing by saying: I'm not perfect either. I freely admit that I fail at following my own moral code from time-to-time. My religious beliefs are sometimes at odds with my social beliefs, and the issue of gay marriage is one of those areas that I can't always agree with myself on. Does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe. Probably. At least I can admit it. Can you?