The Morality of Milk

What is moral?  Recently during a class I said that not knowing where milk came from was immoral.  Knowing where it came from (in the context of the conversation) implied knowing how to obtain it personally (to milk the cow, not just knowing that milk comes from cows) was the moral issue.  Such flippant comments are not unusual for me, but I actually meant this comment.  However, it was a student who asked how that rose to a moral issue.  Admittedly, while I meant it, I was unable to answer the question immediately.  72 hours later, I have my answer.  Miss Audrey Dang, thanks for the question.  This is for you…

“There is nothing queerer today than the importance of unimportant things.  Except, of course, the unimportance of important things.”

~G. K. Chesterton

            I want to begin by writing and thinking about ‘morality.’  Clearly it has something to do with codes of conduct, divinely inspired, divinely instituted, &c.  But, what are these rules?  What underlies them?!  Are morals merely arbitrary ramblings of God which we follow simply because He is God?  Or are they meant to effectuate something more in us?  Do they point to something deeper than producing a mere God-gloating satisfaction? 

            I dare say that God whispers morality into our hearts and writes them on tablets with His own finger not because He is bored and simply wanted to legislate.  He made us for something very special—for Himself, for His Love.  And in order that we might receive that Love, we have to be free.  Freedom is a very delicate position.  It requires strict conduct and adherence.  To my mind, that is why God gave us the moral law—to set the parameters that we might know how to “stay in the lines” and achieve our purpose and end.  Morals bind us to the Good—the end toward which we seek.  The antithesis of morality is slavery—being bound to sin.  Hence, morality and freedom are closely connected in my mind, just as immorality and slavery are intertwined. 

            Man cannot hope to be free without morals.  Nor can he be free without recognition of his own dignity and decency as a man.  This recognition must be a respect by others, as well as a self-respect.  “Respect” is nothing more, in my mind, that treating someone (or something) morally; “to respect,” means promoting the good of the other, promoting the freedom of the other.  Oddly enough, this respect and promotion seems to be what the Doctrine of the Common Good encapsulates.  How do we promote the person (others, as well as, ourselves) except by recognizing the soul of every man, whose ultimate goal is communion with God?  Well, we begin by recognizing that that soul requires "stuff."  But, while “stuff” is important to that rational soul, it is not important in itself, by itself.  You cannot with food or any particular thing produce the “sensation of freedom.”  All man can do with things is sense them.  It is the soul, however, which can enjoy them—it is the soul that can be satisfied and happy. 

Therefore, whatever we give a man as far as materials go, it is imperative that the physicality of the things not be separated from the benefit to the soul and its promotion, as well.  Yet it is precisely this divorce that the modern system of capitalism or socialism, industrialization and urbanization has administered, arriving at a “muddle-headed materialism.” The modern system imagines “stuff” qua “stuff” is all man needs.  "Stuff" that can be mass-produced and consumed seems to be the recipe for modern freedom.  But the recipe forgets about the human spirit, the soul.  It gives us “stuff,” without promoting our freedom.  And as such it is nothing more than a recipe for slavery; a recipe for immorality.  It is a recipe that binds us to society’s productivity, to the offspring of machines, and the market’s ability to feed us.  We live at the pleasure of this recipe.  And if it doesn't pan out, too bad for you, your body, your soul and your life.  You're dead.  How dehumanizing is it to know your existence depends on not receiving a pink slip, on flickering numbers on a stock exchange board, on a checkbook balance.  These have become our masters because they are our only source of sustenance.  We might not be flogged daily by these brutish masters, but assuredly they will one day, when the pink slip comes, when the stock data recedes, when the balance is in the red.  On that day, the veil of fantasy is pierced and we quickly discover what is real. 

Morality, on the other hand, demands that goods serve and promote the physical needs and spiritual needs of man—his freedom and happiness.  We must begin to see the moral side of "stuff;" not only what it is, but how it came to be, and how it wound up into the hands of the man.  "Stuff" is important in the life of man because it allows him to discover a glimpse of something real, which points to a greater reality-- the source of all real "stuff."  What is real is what God made and instituted--Creation.  He gave it to us.  Further, at the Fall He cursed us.  He didn’t curse us to simply sweat.  But He cursed us to sweat while we worked the soil.  Now how fundamentally one interprets this is certainly open to more or less literal interpretations, but I am inclined to take God on His spoken word.  I will not figuratively interpret John 6, nor will I retreat far from the literal meaning of God’s words in Genesis 3.  Our curse is to work the soil (for men), to bear children with increased pains (for women) and to die (both men and women).  What I find interesting is what we accept and reject of these curses.  Nobody says we don’t think God meant we have to die or that we have to have painful child births.  Anyone who would say it is clearly an idiot, and this is demonstrative by the fact that everyone dies and all child-births are painful (even the Blessed Mother's, in my humble opinion).  Despite the literal interpretation based on reality and experience of the last two curse, we all seem to quibble about the first one—man’s working the soil and sweating.  If He was serious and literal about 2-of-3, I think reason ought lead us to thinking of a literal trifecta as opposed to a 33% disingenuousness.  

Oddly enough these curses are really methods toward redemption, properly construed.  We must die to be resurrected (with Christ, as St. Paul tells us; 2 Tim. 2:11).  Women will be redeemed (“saved”) through their cursed pains “in childbearing” (again, St. Paul; 1 Tim. 2:15).  But man’s ability to face his curse and redeem himself is foiled by modernity.  He is divested of land and asked to sweat in a factory (if he is fortunate enough to have a job).  He conveniently goes to Kroger to get his food and milk and never asks nor wonders from which it came.  “Accursed be the soil because of you.  With suffering shall you get your food from it every day of your life.”  Convenient marts and processed foods seem a far cry from this real, God-given curse.  Perhaps eating Cheetos and processed foods can be considered adequate sufferings?  Or maybe if you park far away in the parking lot and work up a sweat walking into the grocery?  I prefer not to hinge my redemptive work on that supposition, however.  Further, because man's curse is foiled and he is confused into believing he serves capital and must act not penitentially and salvifically, but is encouraged to act economically, he decides against marriage (or at least large families).  Either way, women's ability to face their curse and redeem herself is foiled.   

In light of this, I would like for us to consider whether the whole notion behind modern business and capitalism is immoral.  Can something that seeks to circumvent God-given declarations prosper or profit (to use terms the modern can understand)?   Consider the whole premise behind capitalism and the American Dream (aptly called a dream, as opposed to a reality).  In our modern system, hard work and ingenuity are promoted and rewarded.  No big deal.  But the reward is getting out of hard work in the future.  We seek to accumulate capital and resources so that we do not have to work at all-- or at least sweat at all.  Sweat is below our dignity as human beings according to the modern mind.  I would suggest that our great dignity is that we can sweat--but I digress.  Capitalists all seek to reach a fantastic Leisure State.  Ironically, however, we all must admit that the Leisure State is not accessible to all.  It is a ritzy country club where some just aren’t welcome.  These unwelcome folks are what enable the Leisure State to exist.  They are members of the Servile State.  The Leisure State is built upon the premise that all suffering is illegitimate and ought be avoided.  The unfortunate reality of the Servile State is it is mired in illegitimate suffering because of the anti-suffering attitude of the Leisure State.  Until we all accept the premise that there is such a thing as legitimate suffering (cf Gen. 3:17, 2 Cor. 1:5, 1 Peter 4:13, &c.) then we must accept the unreality of masters and slaves—an immoral world.

Knowing where milk comes from and knowing how to get it is a moral question.  Milking a cow is real.  As real as needing to drink the milk.  The sweat of working the soil, ridding it of the thorns and thistles and brambles is real.  The need to do that is real, too; as is its redemptive and soulful effect.  These things make men free by putting his physical being in touch with reality, which is what puts his soul in touch with reality.  Make no mistake, it is not the land that redeems man, but what the realness of the land does for the whole man, body and soul—it brings him closer to the reality of God whom man was made to know and to love.  The theory of fleeing to the fields and “returning [man] to the soil, as [man] was taken from it,” is not because of material prosperity, but spiritual prosperity: “the reason ultimately refers not to land but to life; not to property but to happiness; not to the body but to the soul.”  Knowing where milk comes from is important.  Milk is sustenance.  It may seem too small and petty to rise to the level of a moral issue; that is until you have to sweat to get it, until you have to work to get it.  Making money is unimportant.  Money has no dietary or redemptive value; yet we spend our whole lives trying to get as much of it as possible.  Milk is moral, money is not.  That is why God said those who serve money cannot serve him.  He never said the same thing about milk.  Actually, He said he wanted us getting it by sweat, by dirt, and by suffering—every day of our lives.  Knowing where things come from helps us get back to first principles, which always lead to moral and spiritual principles.  The more we seek these principles, the more we will discover the depths and marvelous beauty that small, overlooked things possess.  We will suddenly discover the miracle of cows, the romance of milk, the sacredness of soil, the breadth of homemade bread.  But we will also discover something very grand that until now we have been told is so minor-ly minuscule as to merit very little attention: yourself-- a being with a noble dignity, a holy decency, and a commanding respect.  

You decide.