Struggle-Free Morality

Michael Kinsley is the kind of writer who not only makes the rest of us look bad, but makes us seriously considering switching to another profession and leaving the floor to him. In today's column, he asks why Bush seems to have one standard of life when it comes to stem cells and another when it comes to Iraqi civilians.

"it is hard — indeed, I would say it is impossible," writes Kinsley, "to reconcile Bush's absolutism over allegedly human life when it is a clump of unknowing, unfeeling cells with his sophisticated, if not cavalier, attitude toward the loss of innocent human life when it is children and adults in Iraq."

Of course, as Kinsley notes, supporters of the president say that the loss of innocent life in Iraq — euphemstically referred to as "collateral damage" — is worth the goal of bringing democracy and freedom to that country. But couldn't you also argue that the use of stem cells in scientific research is worth the goal of finding cures for diseases that afflict millions?

It's a legitimate question, and one worth debating. But that's the thing. There is no debate for the president. He is very clear. One is absolutely wrong and the other is absolutely right. No discussion. And that's what bothers Kinsley, and should bother the rest of us, the most.

"A commander in chief who must face life-or-death questions such as these deserves a bit of sympathy. I would sympathize more with Bush if his answers weren't so preening and struggle-free. It is wonderful to be so morally pure that you won't allow a single embryo to be destroyed in the quest for medical cures that could save lives by the thousands. You are way beyond Gandhi, sweeping the path ahead to avoid stepping on an insect: Insects have more human characteristics than a six-cell embryo.

"And regarding Iraq you are quite the man, aren't you, 'making the tough decisions.' A regular Harry Truman, consigning thousands to death in order to bring democracy and freedom and peace to millions. But Truman actually produced democracy and freedom and peace, whereas you want credit for your hopes. That's not how it works. If you want to be the hard-ass, you get judged by results. And you can't be Gandhi and Truman at the same time."

Bush has the kind of faith — confident, free from doubt, absolutely certain — that most of us would love but know is incompatible with being human. I hope and pray every day that I'm doing the right things and following God's will. And I'm certainly not making decisions about whether or not to torture individuals. But even so, I must always be skeptical that I'm too eager to reconcile my actions and desires as consistent with God's will.

We're human, we're flawed, we make mistakes. It happens. But we can't fix those mistakes if we allow not one question of doubt to cross our minds. What we get then is convenient — not consistent — morality.