THROUGH UNTRUE

Shame is a normal human emotion. It reminds us that we have inherent limitations, our capacities have boundaries, and our personalities have rough edges. Shame, therefore,  opens the possibility for change, learning, self-acceptance, and self-improvement.

It is unfortunate that today, being shameless has become fashionable. Many people spit, urinate, or dump their garbage anywhere they please. Young people use vulgar words to embellish their language. Crooks and thieves in government shamelessly profess their innocence despite the glaring evidence of their crimes. Many wealthy people, influencers, movie stars, and celebrities remorselessly flaunt their perversions as though these were worthy of emulation. 

Moral anarchists assert that there is no reason to be ashamed of anything because there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. Everything is just a matter of taste.  Quoting the Latin dictum, “De gustibus, non est disputandum,” they contend that taste is relative. 

But if taste is relative, then context is of prime importance. There are general standards that compel us to consider the proper context in which we manifest our behavior. For instance, we have not read of any tribe, no matter how primitive, applauding its members for farting loudly in the middle of a solemn ceremony. Farting is normal, but not always appropriate. If manners, language, and social behavior lose all sense of appropriateness, then belief in the objective foundations of truth and morality is eroded.

Consider the Paris Olympics' opening ceremony featuring drag queens posing like Jesus and the 12  apostles at the Last Supper. This ignited a heated controversy, with critics calling the organizers immoral and brazenly irreligious. Let us consider it from the perspective of taste.

Regardless of the organizers' intentions, their depiction of the Last Supper was done in bad taste. Capturing the audience's attention and focusing it on the organizers' expression of diversity, inclusivity, and solidarity was decidedly inappropriate in the context of the Olympic Games. Many viewers were offended, not because they are moral bigots, but because their attention was "stolen" by a calculated, self-serving act. But as expected, the organizers apologized, tongue-in-cheek, and justified their action by their high regard for tolerance.

But how do they understand tolerance? Traditionally, you are tolerant if you recognize the existence of divergent views about reality, as well as other people’s right to have beliefs or practices different from yours. But for the organizers, tolerance demands not only recognition and respect but also acceptance of what they consider true, even if this means imposing this on others. So, while parroting tolerance, they are intolerant of those who disagree with them. 

We can assume that the organizers and their extremist followers represent a minority within the French population. After all, the French generally pride themselves on their good taste in culture, arts, literature, and fashion. However, the silence of the majority seemed to have empowered the minority to dominate public discourse, spread their ideology unchallenged, and normalize what was once considered abnormal. 

Thankfully, Christian netizens took up the cudgels against what they perceived as an inappropriate encroachment of extremist ideologies on the Olympic Games. They swamped social media with an avalanche of negative comments against the organizers of the opening ceremony.

One lesson the history of civilization has taught us is that the loss of good taste produces, not more freedom, but moral depravity and shamelessness. Taste must be based not simply on one's strong preference for a particular version of reality.  Bad taste is a species of bad morals.