You know, I think the next time somebody tells me that morality is subjective I'm going to grab a baseball bat and crack them over the head. Then I'll do a highlight reel bat flip before leaning over them as they writhe in pain on the ground and, with my hand on my chest, ask in as sarcastic a voice as I can muster, "Oh, I'm sorry, did I wrong you?"
But that's just what I'd do. I'd hate to force my opinion on anybody.
I can't be leftist or liberal because they trust government too much. They're far too statist.
I can't be libertarian because the trust the individual too much. They're far too relativist.
That leaves me as a traditional thinker, a conservative. We might quibble that what I'm calling conservative is the classic liberalism of the American Revolution. But, whatever. It's conservatism in today's United States.
Just my quick philosophical thoughts on a cold, snowy Friday in February. Does that warm your heart at all?
What purpose can that serve? For starters, all it really does is put them into the category of relativists. All kinds of fun can be had with factoid, but we'll set aside for now. There's a more ominous idea at work under the auspices of no definition. If people cannot be defined, then no human action can be called wrong as there would be no definition to fit it.
That's why so many folks now believe that marriage can be between any two people who love each other. It takes away from marriage by making the term meaningless, that is, without definition. It throws the point into the realm of love, whatever that means, as it is also a term used rather loosely these days. How many of us actually consider what love might be, or what it actually might demand of us? Very few, because it is now a term used merely to justify what we want to do and with whoever wants to do it with us.
Words mean things. At least, they're supposed to. They are the only way in which we can effectively communicate, and they can only be effective when we define them and hold people to those definitions. This is hardly a new concept. The ancient Greeks insisted that we must define our terms before discussing matters; more recently, Rush Limbaugh opined that, well, words mean things. If we are truly serious about understanding other people and other cultures then we have to be able to understand what is being said by ourselves and others. If we are really serious about ending war and injustice or merely making our local community a better place, then we must admit that our words must be well defined in manners comprehensible and acceptable to all rational people.
If we do not do this, then we are simply banging a gong when we speak. Such is nothing more than a metallic din which can only drown out those who really want a better world.
Right wingers and Christians are two groups of folk who are almost universally derided for daring to suggest that there is something such as the Natural Law. They are scorned when asserting that some things are congruent with nature and others less so, if at all. They are mocked because of the idea they espouse which says that certain acts are really right, and others really wrong. In the end, they are scolded for the presumably arrogant belief that our laws must reflect this, because, of course, nothing is right on its own terms and how dare anyone try to force their morality on another. Simple and stupid consensus will take care of that.
So imagine the joy which one put upon by society in such a manner might have when they discover an old pagan who says exactly what they do. A pagan who speaks of virtue and discipline as though they were ideals to strive for rather than ancient old abstractions of which some people simply will not let go. A pagan who insists there is a God who is the source of all of our law, and that we must adhere to the commands of that being. In the end, Cicero teaches, our laws must reflect that eternal and unchanging law on which any and all good laws are based.
Right Reason is that which is in league with nature and nature's God. All that we do which is to be of any good use must reflect that sense. When we do that, we create justice on Earth. When we do not, when we do as we please with no regard for ultimate and final right and wrong, we invite chaos and anarchy. To quote Cicero once more:
...if the principle of justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decision of judges, then justice would sanction robbery and adultery and the forging of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace. (For if a human law)...can make Justice out of injustice, can it not also make good out of bad?
Indeed it can. It is good to hear such a question voiced by someone not, ahem, tainted by modern religion. Those who dismiss religious sentiment and insist that it cannot be applied to lawmaking need a good dose of the old Roman orator if they are to see things in the right light. For Christianity has no hold on the eternal. The truth and beauty of that belongs to all who are willing to seek it. Our laws would be truer and more beautiful as well, should we create them justly.
-The Audacity of Hope, by President Barack Obama
Well, there you have it, and about as concisely as can be had. Barack Obama doesn't believe in anything. It's no wonder that he believes that he can do as he pleases without regard to that pesky Constitution. All that document did was to lock future generations into a certain course. Never mind that the ride, on the whole, has been rather fruitful. The Constitution represents an 'ism'.
Guess what, Mr. President? You have an ism yourself. Everyone has an ism. Yours is relativism, and it is by far the worst ism out there.
How can you, Mr. Obama, assert the truth of the need for national health care if you don't see at least a bit of an absolute there? Doesn't everyone, of all times, at some point or another, need health care? Surely you would not have pushed for it if you did not see the benefit for all times and all places? Conservatives don't agree with you, of course. But we would have a greater respect for you if you were to argue that national health care, done well, will be a benefit for this and all following generations. As it is, all we can conclude is that you forced it through for selfish and self serving purposes: to win elections and create a legacy.
Then we have the obvious retort to your written philosophy: how can you be sure that your ideology, and it must be stressed that it is an ideology, be true if nothing is true for all times and all ages? Do you, can you, can any rational and intelligent being, really believe that? It seems that if they did, they would be little more than narcissists, or worse. Why bother about other people if nothing is true for all times and all ages?
Are we to presume, Mr. President, that, as nothing is true for all times and places, that there are, will be, or have been, periods where rape and child molestation are or were moral? Yes, we are quite sure you would say no to that. Yet as soon as you do, you have violated your own creed. By what legal or philosophical justification must rape and child molestation be wrong, anywhere and everywhere, unless we want to to bind the hands of future generations on the grounds that these things are and always will be wrong?
Ye speaketh with forked tongue, Mr. President. If nothing is right or wrong for all ages, then nothing is right or wrong today. But that suits your purposes just fine, doesn't it? You like the tyrannical consistency of relativism. That's how you can support abortion but cry for the children of Newtown, Connecticut. It's all relative.
Posts
All Comments
