The Problem with Solutions
What seems like a contradiction in terms is actually a handy tool for analyzing almost everything people do, whether in isolation, in relationships, in society in general, or as a political body. The mechanism which produces the “problem with solutions” can be described behaviorally and seen in action everywhere. A quick look at ethics will produce the realization that there is a problem with such behavioral solutions. And finally, it needs to be made clear that Christian teachings oppose such behavior.
The mechanism which produces the problem:
Behaviorism is hardly a Christian enterprise. The doctrine of B.F. Skinner and other behaviorists tends to everything opposed by Christianity. But its relative success despite its error is evidence of its power as a descriptive tool. Of course, the reason it is so powerful is that it does effectively describe reality when people are acting more like brute animals than the rational animals described by Aristotle, which unfortunately happens to be the vast majority of the time.
So most of the time people (yes, including myself) are motivated simply by whatever stimulus their environment is giving them. Often, that fact is innocuous. It rains so people find a way to stay dry. Cars speed up so a driver on a cell phone speeds up with them, or rushes to stay ahead of the pack, or slows down to stay on the fender of another car. It is all the same behavior which would be apparent in any other animal species. Original describers of this kind of behavior in humans (like Thomas Hobbes) credit two driving forces for it: aversion to pain and attraction to pleasure. But they are too generous. Even a casual observer can see that aversion to pain motivates practically all of it, including what looks like attraction to pleasure. Epicurus realized this fact (in different terms) and so pursued not the active hedonism of obtaining pleasure but the passive hedonism of finding serenity by living without fear (the principle motivator of pain aversion in his way of seeing the world) and without the need for things that appear to bring pleasure or bring it only temporarily.
So when a problem presents itself a subject is motivated to eliminate the problem, or more primarily, to eliminate the presentation of the problem. The old joke is:
The patient says to his doctor: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” And the doctor’s reply: “Well, don’t do that!”
Of course, not “doing that” does solve the presenting problem, the symptom, but it does nothing to take care of the actual problem.
The scope of this mechanism is as broad as the range of problems facing humanity. How individuals, groups, and societies handle problems like these is largely governed by it:
- loneliness
- an alcoholic spouse
- an unhappy marriage
- an unpopular leader
- poor attendance, support, or sales for an organization
- hunger and homelessness
- a crisis in the financial sector
- rising energy costs
- terrorism and insurgency
Obviously, this tiny sample of issues does not even touch the garment’s hem of this issue’s scale, but it does show how broadly it is distributed. In every one of the cases listed, the popular, knee-jerk reaction produces a perceived or temporary relief from the symptom, but misses the real point of having a problem to begin with.
The ethics which reveals (again: yes, ethics is a singular noun) the problem:
The claim that there is a point to having a problem is a mouthful, and requires more justification than this post allows, but it amounts to recognizing that the world is driven not by cause, but by purpose. That purposive perspective is inherent to Christianity but either ignored or rejected by most people in trans-Atlantic culture. In a world with intelligent purpose, then, the assumption when a problem arises is not simply that something went wrong and needs to be covered up or amended, but that there is a message or lesson in every facet of existence, including problems, which points not simply to the elimination of the problem but to the purpose of the intelligence behind what is happening. The perspective of Pragmatism, the American philosophy, is that whatever solves the problem is what is right. But if right is real (that is, if there really are some things that are right and other things that are wrong) then Pragmatism is false and the point of existence is to do what is right rather than simply to do what works. (By the way, the post on my sixth commandment of a Christian worldview makes this part of the case.)
In ethical terms, both pragmatism and utilitarianism dictate problem-solving strategies which, though driven by results result either in temporary solutions or even exacerbated problems, and because driven by results produce behaviors either ignorant of or purposefully ignoring what is actually right or wrong. So a lonely man is tempted to pay $6.95/hour to chat with or simply watch a new and very temporary “friend” online, or to drink a bottle of reality substitute to help him get to sleep. Or a wife lies to her husband’s employer so her husband will not lose his job because he has a hangover. Or a driver is compelled to solve the problem of hunger by giving money to a homeless man on the side of the street. Or people expect government to put a price cap on climbing fuel prices. The list could go on almost boundlessly. But none of those solutions asks what is right. And because of it, regardless of their effectiveness dealing with the presenting problems (which ranges, by the way, from none to negative) none of them address the most important question of human behavior: “Am I doing what is right?”
Christian teaching regarding the problem:
Aside from the purely ethical problem of pragmatism is also a Christian teaching which proscribes it. This Christian teaching is the point of what is sometimes mistakenly taken to teach pacifism in Matthew 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Three things in particular stand out in this section of the Sermon on the Mount. The first two have to do with the arguments contained above in this post, but the third with the overall point of it from a Christian perspective. First, none of the behaviors advocated have anything to do with producing a result–that is, the result of a changed circumstance or environment. Turning the other cheek may simply result in another red cheek. Giving up a “cloak” along with a “coat” may simply bring the person back for more. The passage is not about a better way to get results. As it turns out, the results may be better, but that change is not the purpose of the commandment. Second, the purpose of each behavior is to be complete (perfect) after the pattern established by God in heaven. There is no more (no other, in fact) real basis for moral absolutes.
But third, and most importantly for this entire post, behavior is most Christian when it is defined not by circumstance (good or bad) but by the presence of Jesus and the transformed character of His follower. “Do not resist evil” has nothing to do with tolerating evil. It means that a believer’s behavior is not defined by its contrast with or opposition to what is wrong but by its conformity to the transforming presence of Jesus. Christian behavior is for, not simply against, or simply a reaction to something else.
So when problems confront an ethical person she does not simply try to solve the problem. Rather, she takes the painful stimulus as a spur to re-examine whether what she is doing is right. If it is, she continues through the pain. If it is not, she adjusts not in order to eliminate the pain but in order to return to or arrive at what is right. And when a problem confronts a follower of Jesus, she does the same thing, keeping in mind that her purpose for being is not to avoid pain, but to imitate the one she follows.
So enough with solutions. After all, the problem is not the problem!
