On this morning's Today programme, there was a discussion just after 6am about the British Social Attitudes survey. I felt the characterisation of the two key results discussed was flawed.
First, it was suggested that the change in the proportion of people believing that practicing homosexuality was wrong, with "only" 36% now believing this (a remarkably high proportion, it seems to me) versus 62% in 1983, indicated that society had become more tolerant. But this is precisely wrong. Since, by definition, to be tolerant is a matter of how we deal with what we consider wrong or which impinges upon us in some way, we cannot become more tolerant by changing our moral opinions. What happens instead, is that if we come to believe that something we previously thought wrong is not wrong, the issue of tolerating or not tolerating it disappears.
Indeed, it seems pretty clear to me that society has become markedly less tolerant concerning practicing homosexuality over the past twenty-five years. The attitude of the majority view of society towards the minority view was much more tolerant twenty-five years ago (the majority that believed practicing homosexuality was wrong (62%) were much more accommodating towards the minority that believed it right) than it is today (the majority now makes no accommodation for the, rather large, minority believing it wrong – indeed, going through Parliament at the moment is a law to force religious organisations to employ those that live out lifestyles incompatible with the teachings of those religions).
The second matter that I felt was mischaracterised was cohabitation. Today reported that the increase in the number of people believing that it made no difference to children whether their parents were married reflected a change in moral attitude. But the question of whether it makes such a difference is a matter of empirical fact, and if there are moral facts they are not like this. The blunt reality is that it does make a difference whether one’s parents are married – that is not my opinion, and whether it is or is not a fact is quite independent of what proportion of people believe it. Furthermore, it would be perfectly possible for it to be immoral to cohabit even if it made no difference to the raising of children and, equally, perfectly possible for it to be moral whilst indeed making a difference to the raising of children.
I suggest the Today programme thinks a little in future concerning how it characterises such matters.
