Rain Man, Jimmy Carter and the Polarization of Values

In the movie Rain Man there’s a scene where Dustin Hoffman’s character, Raymond Babbit proves his genius at mathematics by calculating incredibly complicated equations in his head. However, in the next moment he is unable to differentiate the price of a car and that of a candy bar. Everything, to Raymond Babbit is worth “about a hundred dollars”.

This scene gives us powerful insight into how differently Raymond’s mind works because the ability to determine relative value is so much a part of our lives. How could we face the myriad of decisions in our daily lives without evaluating the costs and consequences of those choices? A candy bar and a car are very different. They have different uses and sizes. They require different expertise and material to produce and are therefore given vastly different values, not just monetarily but emotionally, practically and socially.

To complicate matters even further, those values are not constant but rather flexible and situational. We judge them, not on absolute values, (a candy bar should be worth “x” and a car “y”) but rather on a sliding scale. For instance If you’re a billionaire, the $100.00 candy bar might be a good deal. If you’re desperate for transportation the $100.00 car might be just what you are looking for. A starving man might pay his last dollar for that candy bar and a rich man might not pay $100.00 for a Rolls Royce if he lives in a place where there are no roads.

We make hundreds of these decisions every day without thinking much about it and money isn’t the only value we are balancing. We balance time against pleasure, work against family and our personal desires against everything else. Every single person on earth makes his or her choices in a slightly different way. All it takes is a brief look around to see all the subtle variations and gray areas that these choices entail. Think about the people you know the best, your friends and family. How do they spend their time, money, affection and energy? In many ways, the choices we make, whether conscious or unconscious, are the sum total of our unique characters, our identities. After all what makes an individual an individual if it’s not their personal values?

But some values aren’t considered to be flexible and personal. Some values are considered universal absolutes – Commandments, carved into stone, which, when violated or ignored can lead to eternal consequences. They stand at the heart of our cultural identity and, not coincidently, at the center of our deepest conflicts.

We have been told that the world today stands at the brink of a clash of civilizations, an epic struggle between good and evil, where the nations and peoples of the world must all choose a side. There can be no compromise, no negotiation. In dealing with pure evil there are only two choices. Destroy it, or be destroyed by it.

The origin of this inflexible philosophy lies in the basic framework of our ethical structures. Unlike money, or time, the value of evil is not situational. The bible does not say, “Thou shall honor thy mother and father except when your mother is being a bitch”. Good and Evil are presented as rigid binary concepts, drawn in stark monotones of black and white.

Abortion is either right or it is wrong. Homosexuality is either right or it is wrong. Lying, stealing murder—These are absolutes, without room for equivocation or negotiation. A single, statement, photograph, cartoon or idea can cause world wide outrage because it violates some fundamental principle, some line which must not, under any circumstances be crossed. Saying something is “evil”, fixes its value in a universe of absolutes and this construct of ethical absolutism gives us no guide for choosing between two moral imperatives. In other words, all these sins are worth “about a hundred dollars”

Take, for example, the most divisive issue in American politics today, abortion. The lines have been drawn in this country between those who call themselves “Pro-Life” and those who call themselves “Pro-Choice”. The fact that they do not call themselves “Pro” and “Anti” abortion gives some insight into how complex our nations view of this issue is and how far apart the two sides are. In fact, if you listen carefully to their arguments you will get the impression that they are discussing two unrelated topics. One side views the issue as one of women’s rights, health and education. The other side sees it quite simply as a question of murder. No compromise has ever been found to satisfy these starkly different points of view. Consequently, political candidates, medical professionals and court appointees have done everything they can to avoid speaking directly on this topic because they know that any statement they make on abortion will automatically alienate one faction or the other. This happens regardless of their other opinions. A liberal democrat who happens to be pro-life is almost impossible to elect just as a pro-choice republican is sure to alienate the religious right. All of this is because abortion is perceived as a black and white issue, which forces all of us to pick a side.

The same can be said of Gay Marriage, Flag Burning, The War on Drugs and The War on Terror. These issues divide our country. They swing elections and, at times, reduce the national debate to name calling and issue baiting. And of course, these are the issues plaguing the relatively homogeneous American society. The conflicts are multiplied many times over when we are confronted with nations and peoples, whose cultural and ethical world views are vastly different from our own.

But is this binary approach to ethics the only possible system? Are we doomed to an eternity of these costly and unproductive battles between intractable points of view?
To answer this question, I would draw your attention to one of the most devoutly religious presidents of the last 50 years.

Jimmy Carter, in his book Our Endangered moral Values: America’s Moral Crisis, talks in great detail about the importance Christian teachings play in his life. He has always been a regular church-goer. He has taught weekly bible study for most of his adult life and has done extensive missionary work throughout Africa and South America. As one would expect, this Evangelical Baptist is strongly “Pro-Life”, believing that the early termination of a fetus is a serious sin. He was therefore placed in an extremely difficult position when he was elected President in 1976 just three years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion with Roe V. Wade.

He had sworn an oath to execute the laws of the land but his religious beliefs told him that one of those laws was wrong. It was a difficult dilemma and one that gave him many sleepless nights. In the end, however, it was his most basic beliefs in the American system of government that showed him the way. For democracy to work, it isn’t enough for the President to enforce the laws he believes in. He must be equally vigilant in enforcing the ones he does not believe in, even while he is determined to change that law. So, Jimmy Carter directed the Federal government to enforce Roe V. Wade despite the fact that he was personally opposed to it. However, he did much more than that.

His constitutional obligations forced him to ensure the availability of legal abortions throughout the United States but his religious beliefs forced him to do everything he could to reduce the number of abortions in this country. In order to reduce abortions without criminalizing them, Carter attacked the causes of unwanted pregnancy, poverty, teenage promiscuity, lack of education, lack of opportunity and lack of viable alternatives. He created after school programs, which focused on teenagers at risk. He promoted a national adoption system. He vastly increased funding for sex education, including the distribution of condoms, which is a sin according to many religious groups, but, in Carter’s opinion, was a far lesser evil than the widespread use of abortion as after the fact contraception. In other words, Carter did everything in his power to reduce the frequency of abortions while staunchly defending a woman’s legal access to them.

Did Carter compromise with Evil? Did he commit exactly the kind of sin that his religious upbringing should have warned him against? Personally, I don’t think so. I believe that what President Carter did was to strike a balance within his personal value system. He examined his religious views on life and conception and his secular views on democracy and the rule of law. Then, instead of being trapped in an impossible impasse, he looked for a third, non-binary course of action would maximize the positive elements of a free society while minimizing the negative elements.

This, to me, is an incredible model for ethical interaction. Instead of interpreting our ethical codes as rigid, black and white structures, we should consider them values, as flexible and situational as the price of a taxi or an hour of your time. We must endeavor to keep one eye on the question in front of us and another on the big picture.

For instance, I was raised Jewish and, in my life, have spoken to many Holocaust survivors. So, as you can imagine, hearing a Neo-Nazi explain how the Holocaust never happened, or worst that it didn’t go far enough, is deeply offensive to me. Personally, I would rather no such person should ever be allowed to speak in public. However, deep down I know that my rights to free speech are intimately related to his and if I want to keep them, not only must I allow him to say that which is offensive to me but I must doggedly defend his right to say it.

Dividing up the world into good and evil might seem like a powerful way to direct our actions but this oversimplification leads to more conflicts than solutions. The current situation in the Middle East is a perfect example of just how dangerous that kind of polarization can be.

We live in a complex world and we need a complex value system to deal with it. Attempting to solve the incredibly intricate problems that face the world with a rigidly constructed ethical code, is like trying to prescribe medicine from a textbook rather than from a careful examination of the patient. The decisions we face are rarely as simple as choosing between right and wrong. They are far more frequently questions of balancing many rights and many wrongs. Finding the best path through these mazes is difficult, but it is possible, if we look beyond the hyperbole, and open our eyes to what’s really going on around us. Only then can we follow the path of our personal values towards the greater good.

After all, for a blind man to miss all the subtleties of color in the world is tragic, but for a sighted man to refuse to see them, choosing instead to reduce this incredible tapestry of hues to a lifeless monotone -- Now that’s a sin.