The Fast Food Chain and the Communal Kitchen Web

One thing that traditional Christians often cite as one of the defining strengths of Christianity in contrast to modern secularism is it’s appreciation of all things “as they are.” That is, instead of advocating for equality, which they argue is tantamount to an amorphous “sameness” permeating throughout culture, they advocate for an appreciation of all things as different and existing to serve a different role for God. Firstly, even if there were a natural order, and that involved some hierarchy in the world regarding gender, race and so on, this does not mean that this hierarchy has ethical significance. Secondly, racial essentialism or a “proper role” of the genders hasn’t been demonstrated and the most well-off nations are ones which on average appear to reject these notions both in view and in the formation of their society. There are exceptions like Japan, which suffer from similar low fertility rates as the more left-leaning European nations.
The third criticism to make is the one that seems more interesting. Namely that while the Christian is saying “differences are beautiful in the eyes of God and we should respect that,” their view of acceptable differences is still constrained and they label multiple sexualities (including being attracted to muscular girls) as perverse and these differences only exist to glorify God. These distinctions do not exist for their own end, but for some higher end outside of themselves which means that they have some obligation to conform to standards they may not agree with.
With this view in mind, Christianity is, in essence, the “natural law corporation.” There are a limited range of roles a person is to fit, based largely upon pre-determined aspects of the person’s being. These aspects outline how a person is to interact for the mono-good of pleasing God. Other factors are either secondary or non-existent. Just as a corporation hires numerous people to function in an elaborate supply-labor system for the mono-good of profit for the corporation. The good of the person is incidental and when it does not align with the good of the greater entity it is quickly ignored. Seen in the example of a pregnancy which harms the health of the mother in the case of Christianity, and a worker who is pregnant and needs maternity leave in the case of the corporation.
Christians often complain that not enough people value child bearing in America. However, they often ignore the economic disincentives almost wholly unique to America that causes many people to either not seriously consider breeding and raising a child or has them choose to forego it if they did strongly evaluate said possibility. This has to do simultaneously with their view of humans as serving the “mono-good” and their failure to appreciate material realities. People require resources in order to survive. Many jobs held by older people do not pay adequately to raise a child. College is not free and neither are medical bills; in fact, both are a source of billions of dollars of debt held by our nation’s citizens. If these Christians insisted that wages be kept at the pace of productivity it would show they understand humans’ material needs while still disregarding their ethical primacy to follow their own ambitions as creative and productive individuals whether male or female.
The modern view, the view that the traditionalist Christian has such disdain for, is the view that life instead of properly functioning as a fast food corporation, should instead function as a community pot luck. Each person bringing to the giant communal dinner whatever they wish to bring and serving no higher transcendental end, instead doing as they see fit, whether it’s the health of their fellow neighbors, their pleasure of indulging in something succulent, the litany of options they have before them, etc. Whether it is done out of self-interest, altruism or the more likely synthesis of the two, humans bring dishes for themselves, neighbors and even non-human friends who are often fed at the dinner table. Nietzsche said that the strength of Greek polytheism is different humans could adore different gods or goddesses which represented different traits of humanity while not “shunning the other gods.” But with the creation of a “God,” a supreme being, comes the creation of strict and rigid roles each person is to serve as part of “Creation.” This is the anti-thesis of invoking liberation and instead harkens to the age-old chime “find freedom in your chains.”
This is not to say that all motives of all attendees at the pot luck are equal. One might be there to steal, another to manipulate another for their own ends, etc. Some intend that which invalidates the choices of others, such as to mandate all-kosher options rather than to bring their own and allow people to select that which appeals to them on whichever metric it does appeal. Humanity is a community of various interests, talents and ambitions, and these ambitions can flourish for their own sake and are not seen as “selfish” in light of some nobler end. Many people through a mixture of innate character and life experiences take on noble endeavors. So many will painstakingly attempt to ensure that all the elderly find arrangements to the potluck for example. But this is done out of concern for them, and their attendance is the good-in-itself. There is no higher good to appeal to. The food was grown, harvested, processed, bought, sold, prepared, cooked, brought and eaten by human hands. It is not even humanity that is our “mono-good.” Each individual person’s unique form of flourishing is their own good and it is in their own power to realize it, often with the help of other’s realizing their own ends – whether this end is a selfish one or one’s “self-realization” involves compassion towards others. People speak of the ills of mono-cultures, that they harm the soil and make it harder for new things to grow. The same is true of mono-cultures of humanity and the notion of a “mono-good.”