Your Tears Say more Than Real Evidence Ever Could
Here is an excerpt from a Simpsons episode I watched today. This is from the episode when Homer is accused (falsely) of sexual harassment. These lines are cut out of syndication, so you either have to own the DVD or have seen the episode when it aired originally. A Sally Jesse Raphael figure is interviewing a crying female who obviously has no connection to the accusations against Homer, and here is the dialogue:
Woman: [weeping] I don’t know Homer Simpson, I — I never met Homer Simpson or had any contact with him, but — [cries uncontrollably] — I’m sorry, I can’t go on.
Sally: That’s OK: your tears say more than real evidence ever could.
I find today that many people, especially younger people, base most of their decisions on emotion. A sad and gripping testimony, or being “made to feel bad” is often more solid evidence than the facts. I have been asked, “how can the Church say two people who love each other so much can’t get married?” or “how can the Church hurt somebody’s feelings like that?” While I too am moved to sadness by strong, emotional, testimony, I also feel it is important for us to consider that one person’s emotional experience doesn’t necessarily negate reality, or in the case of religion, Church Teaching. It is difficult to live in a society where hurting someone’s feelings = being in the wrong.
When a few batches of the amino acid L-Tryptophan were contaminated in the early 1990s, one woman was paralyzed from the contamination. She gave an emotional testimony of why supplements should be regulated like drugs before Congress. Many in Congress were moved by her testimony. While it is sad that she got a hold of a contaminated version of this amino acid, and the Japanese manufacturer involved should have been held liable, did the 99% of people who have had no safety issues with supplements deserve to lose the right to their health promoting pills? Does one emotional testimony mean that suddenly the proven safety record of supplements becomes called into question? I find the same often happens with gun control or other “controls.” For instance, a strong emotional testimony of a mother (who foolishly left a loaded gun near a child) crying about losing her child to a gun accident is likely to make us think twice about gun ownership. “Think of the children!!” we always hear. However, the fact that gun accidents among children are extremely rare (much more rare than drowning even) and that millions defend themselves with guns (most simply by brandishing it) aren’t negated by one event, no matter how awfully tragic.
Perhaps all of this is the result of relativism (there is no right or wrong, so “feelings” become the new standard of the the rightness or wrongness of an act), or perhaps the self-esteem movement (I am ok, you’re ok, we’re all ok!), but nonetheless, those words “I feel” have great power of persuasion these days. Even worse, hurting someone’s feelings is seen as heartless, and even morally wrong. Now don’t get me wrong, I show up as an “F,” a feeler, in the personality tests, meaning a person’s emotional reaction IS important to me, and I often do make decisions based on how others will feel. I also believe that Christians are called to consider the feelings of others, who are humans with dignity, when we make decisions. However, emotional appeal cannot trump reality. If a student doesn’t do the work, makes no effort to try, and just can’t comprehend the class concepts, no matter how much I may wish otherwise, he deserves an “F.” Descartes said “I think, therefore I am,” but the new objectivity seems to be “feelings,” so in modern society perhaps the new phrase is “my feelings are strong, therefore I am.”
