Delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Church, Fort Myers, Florida November 9, 2003

1. This morning, I want us to think about ethics. In particular, I want you to consider why and how you decide one thing is right, another wrong. The ability to choose is essential to what it means to be human. It is what makes us free beings. It is also what makes being human so very difficult. For the ability to choose rightly also requires the ability to choose wrongly. How do we decide one from the other?

To complicate matters more, what you may think right, I may find wrong. If life were clear-cut, if we were all of one mind, there would be no question. As it isn't, as we aren't, the need arises for some manner by which we not only decide what to do but decide that our deciding is proper. That, in a tough nutshell, is what ethics is all about.

2. Secondly, I want you to consider in what way does the phrase Unitarian Universalist modify the word ethics? Put differently, how are Unitarian Universalist ethics similar to or different from, say, Christian ethics, Muslim ethics, Jewish ethics and plain, old everyday ethics? For instance, consider this: A Unitarian Universalist might say that a woman controlling her destiny is a good thing. This becomes the justifying argument - the ethic - by which you might then declare: abortion is a moral right. Similarly, a Unitarian Universalist - in contrast to a Muslim - might declare the Burkha wrong because it violates the worth and dignity of women.

Likewise, as a Unitarian Universalist, you might say that war is wrong because it destroys the human community. From this, you could choose a pacifist way of life. Yet, unlike the Quakers, most Unitarian Universalists are not pacifists. Most of us argue that there are so many variables involved with war that, in some instances, it can be justified, in others not. Isn't this the point in the debate over Iraq? But what value or principle helps us sort it out? Do we adapt the Catholics' just war theory, or something else? Back now to the initial question: what does a Unitarian Universalist ethic look like, sound like? Is there anything in our approach that is unique, if at all, when compared to other social and religious groups?

Is there a Unitarian Universalist code of ethics? Should there be?

In a moment, I'm going to give you some ethical questions to ponder. Then we'll take some time for a conversation together to hear how you think about these things. But first, I need to call two issues to your attention:

1. First, it helps to distinguish a secular from a religious ethic. Secular is a word that specifically means "not religious." The dictionary says secular refers to worldly or temporal life. This, I suppose, suggests thinking that religious has something to do with other-worldliness. I object, but understand the point.

A better way to think of it is that secular specifically applies to the social agreements that a society goes by. These agreements are a mixture of social mores - we agree to wear clothes on the street - and laws -of which there is a never-ending supply.

Social agreements are best if they are broadly based and truly reflect the consensus of society. Some evolve over time. Others are the result of our democratic process. Generally, secular values are utilitarian: what works best for most people most of the time is to be preferred.

A religious ethic might be understood as less tied to cultural norms and more concerned with transcendent or ultimate values. It is not necessarily at odds with a secular one. Unlike some Muslim countries where secular and religious law are one, or others, say China where religious values are explicitly not part of social values, the United States is a mixed bag. In some ways religious ethics drives society; in others, it has no bearing.

However, to the extent that religious values are transcendent - that is, more than mere social agreement - they can be at odds with social values and trouble follows.

Because of his religious convictions, Martin Luther King, Jr. led the social transformation of our secular civil rights laws. Unitarian Universalists, though not Christian per se, were among the most ardent advocates of that cause. We, too, were inspired by a transcendent principle of universal human liberty.

By contrast, most Unitarian Universalists supported the secular law when it came recently to removing a sculpture of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court. Here our transcendent value of religious liberty was consonant with secular values about separating church and state.

This muddle is why the secular/religious debate goes on and on.

While there probably is no religious way to clean streets or build skyscrapers - things easily understood as secular - arguments about accessibility to housing or health care are not so easily segregated. You could make the case for fair-housing laws or universal health care from either a secular or religious vantage. How do we decide on the best approach? And who should decide? To muddle the point further, consider how rare it would be for free-market capitalists to think of themselves as operating on a religious principle. Yet, Adam Smith, the patron saint of a market economy, saw it as the best way to establish a moral order in keeping with God's will.

My, all this is confusing. For now, just notice that most of the time, we Unitarian Universalists get along fine following the secular arrangements of life. Yet, there are pinch points, many, many pinch points where our religious values seem called for, where mere utility and practicality just doesn't feel right. There are times when we want to invoke our faith. Can you name them for yourself? Are there any points on which we Unitarian Universalists, together, ought to stand? (I'd really love to hear your answer to that one!)

2. The second issue I want you to notice is that rarely are moral issues a matter of simple right and wrong. More often, we must judge between competing goods or the lesser of two evils. The issue of abortion, clearly, is one of two goods: protecting innocent life versus a woman's self-determination. An example of choosing among the lesser of two evils is what seems to happen nearly every time we enter the polling booth.

More broadly, any time we do a cost-benefit analysis, we are trying to balance goods or evils. Setting tax rates is a common example. Or consider requiring pollution controls on an upstream business that might make it uncompetitive versus letting it dump its effluent into the river thereby endangering the drinking water of the towns below. Which is the right choice, and why?

Closer to home, our Unitarian Universalist principle of interdependence is often in contention with our commitment to personal liberty. Presently, Unitarian Universalist congregations wrestle with this as they adopt codes of conduct that balance freedom of expression with the need to be an emotionally, spiritually, and physically safe congregation. By what calculus do we come up with the "right" balance?

My point: rarely do we have clear-cut right or wrong questions to deal with.

Ok, enough philosophizing. Now, I'm going to present you a series of ethical problems. As you hear them, ask yourself: What is the right thing to do here and why as clearly as you can. It is the "and why" part I particularly want you to be prepared to share in our conversation this morning. So, you might want to make notes. Think as well, does your "why" have anything to do with your religious commitment as a Unitarian Universalist? For example, would an atheist make the same judgement? Would a Jew? And so on. Here we go:

1. Last week, Lee County Sheriff Rod Shoap got into a whale of trouble for loaning a deputy's uniform to his buddy Mike D'allesandro for a Halloween party. Most agree, it was a dumb decision, possibly illegal. Was it right or wrong? Is this no big deal, or a serious matter? Why?

2. Speaking of Halloween, I am reminded that children around the world delight in the Harry Potter stories. Yet, some Christians fear it legitimates witchcraft, sorcery and magic. Do we Unitarian Universalists worry about such things? If not, why not?

3. More seriously, Governor Bush - a devout Catholic - recently signed a hastily passed law giving him the authority to keep severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo on a feeding tube - in direct violation of her husband's wishes. This tragic situation is not unusual but rarely dealt with so publically.

My colleague, Rabbi Bruce Diamond, quoted in the New-Press, said, under Jewish law, Terri's parents and the state were violating the sanctity of the marriage contract. Jewish morality, said Diamond, clearly left the question to the husband. Does a Catholic, honoring his religious values, have a right to impose them on a Jew? We Unitarian Universalists do not have a Torah. How would you argue for or against the state's intervention?

4. Last week, in Washington state, Gary Ridgway pleaded guilty to strangling 48 young women in the Seattle area during the 1980's. He has the distinction now of being the deadliest convicted serial killer in the nation's history. In a news conference, the county prosecutor noted how hard it had been to decide whether to prosecute Ridgway for seven murders they could link him to or spare him the death penalty in exchange for information on the other killings so that victims' families might have some solace. Was this the right thing to do?

5. Also last week, Nate Haasis, a 17-year-old quarterback asked that the last pass of his high school football career not be counted toward granting him the title of conference all-time passing leader. Apparently, his coach had worked out a deal with the opposing coach to let his losing team acquire the ball one more time before the game's end so that Haasis could throw a pass that would break the record. When Haasis figured out what happened, he felt it his integrity was at stake and that it was disrespectful of others to keep the record. Did Nate Haasis do the right thing? And why? Is integrity a religious value?

6. At a nearby Unitarian Universalist congregation, even after a certified audit, a member accused the Board of Trustees of dishonestly handling the church's finances. The complainer cited no facts to support her accusation.

While the Board defended itself, things got hot. No one from the membership stood up to challenge the member's accusation. Do Unitarian Universalists adhere or not to the 9th Commandment against bearing false witness? Was the complaining member's action moral? And what of those who remained silent, how should they be judged?

7. Last summer, Richard A. Grasso was forced to resign as the New York Stock exchange's chief executive after he received nearly $140 million in deferred pay and retirement benefits. No one accused Grasso of any specific wrong. Was his ouster moral?

8. One more: Florida is home to many retired people who come here because of favorable weather and estate tax laws. Congress proposes repealing the federal estate tax law, which applies primarily to people with assets in excess of $1 million - about 2% of our population.

Bill Gates, Sr. and Warren Buffet, both billionaires, are leading the resistance to this change. They argue that its repeal will deplete the national treasury of some $30 billion each year. They argue as well that it violates the Founding Father's desire to protect our society from a controlling aristocracy.

As most estates are too small to be effected, the adoption of this plan will enrich even further the nation's wealthiest 1%, who already control more than 1/3rd of our nation's wealth. What moral argument would you put forth in support or in opposition to this redistribution of wealth? Is there any Unitarian Universalist teaching to guide you?

Well, I think that's enough. Most of these are rather writ-large examples. You can find dozens more in today's paper. But you and I, every day, face similar moral quandaries: Should I return the extra change the clerk gave me? Should I just say I don't want to come to your party or make up an excuse? Do I confront my bar buddy over his racist joke? Do I go the other way when I see a frustrated parent harshly disciplining a child in the grocery aisle? By what values will I live? Your religious life is a daily question.

In my first sermon with you, I called for us to practice the kindly virtues. I gave you several moral rules which included:

• 1. Honor each other's integrity.
• 2. Work to make our time together safe.
• 3. Be moved by compassion.
• 4. Be kind.
• 5. Be forgiving.

As questions of ethics always include accountability and truth telling, I should add:

• 6. Speak truthfully.
• 7. Accept responsibility for your actions.

I think those are cardinal virtues.

Yet, as I conclude, I want us also to remember the wisdom of Jesus: "Judge not, lest you be judged" and "let the one without sin cast first stone." In the world of ethical theory, an ethic of justice must be tempered by an ethic of care. Accountability and compassion go together.

Within both, ethics of justice and ethics of care, is the deep and abiding respect for persons in all their strength and frailty. That is the beginning and the end of our Unitarian Universalist theology and, I believe, a Unitarian Universalist ethic. What do you think?

I look forward to your comments. Many blessings, Amen.