How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 2 of 2)

Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.

—GK Chesterton

Introduction

Before considering the last three steps, we should briefly discuss some of the principles of the thinking of the modern morality, that will explain the unjust laws that come from the proponents of modern morality.

It tends to reject the ideas of the existence of truth as independent of circumstances.  Everything is relative to times and circumstances.  It also tends to hold a view that everything progresses for the better.  Because things are generally better in a material sense, it means things are better in a moral sense.  The "oppressive past" has been replaced with a "freer" present and must continue towards an even more "free" future.

Such a view holds that even if one disagrees with certain behaviors ("personally opposed but…"), it should still be permitted "if it doesn't harm anyone."

The result of this is it tends to reject any restrictions except the "harm towards others."  The proponents will most likely object to comparisons to totalitarian policies on these grounds, because the totalitarian regimes did harm others.  The problem is, these proponents don't always recognize that harm is done to others.  They tend to think of crude Nazi tactics and think that because other "inconveniences" are not at that level, it isn't harm.

Moreover, there is also a tendency to think that certain views are "oppressive" and people who think in such a way should not be protected when it comes to those views.

The problem is, there is a contradiction in all of these views.  If one should tolerate other views, then it follows that it should be applied to views they disagree with as well as views they agree with.  The person who believes there are moral absolutes ought to be tolerated without harassment.  Instead, because their views are called "oppressive" it is acceptable to deny protection under the law.  This is the contradiction that creates tyranny in a free society.

With this in mind, let us consider the final three steps.

The Fourth Step: Passing Laws With the Belief They Harm Nobody

Attempted murder? It's not like he killed someone. This is a clear violation of my client's civil rights.

—Slimy Lawyer, RoboCop (1987)

Once people are elected or appointed to political office, they take their belief in only opposing "harmful" things in legislation.  If they see no harm in legislation, then they tend to support it.  This is how we can see lawmakers support the HHS contraception mandate or legalized abortion.  Because the reduction of sex to pleasure is accepted as a given, the only harm they can see is the issue of unexpected pregnancy.  The result is the creation of laws which makes access to contraception and abortion easier.  It is only the challenges to this assumption that is viewed as harmful.

Under the same reduction of sex to pleasure, such politicians can see no difference between traditional marriage between a man and a woman and a "homosexual marriage" between two people of the same gender.  So laws supporting this so-called "gay marriage" are seen as good, and opposition seen as harmful.

The result of all this is to create a set of laws that claims to champion tolerance, but actually refuses to consider the input of those who think differently from the lawmaker.

The Fifth Step: Denying the Validity of Challenges to the Law

"Are you lost daddy?" I asked tenderly.
"Shut up," he explained.

—Ring Lardner, The Young Immigrants (1920).

One of the more ironic arguments made by proponents of the modern morality is the claim that those who believe in moral absolutes are "forcing their beliefs on others."  It's ironic because these proponents are in fact the ones imposing their moral beliefs.  You may notice this with their mantras.  "Reproductive Freedom" for example.  Those who believe in moral absolutes are not supposed to push their beliefs on others, but the concept of "Reproductive Freedom" is invoked as if it were a moral absolute.

Thus the HHS contraception mandate is forced on people who believe it is wrong to give any support (moral or financial) to things they find immoral.  Because the concept of "Reproductive Freedom" is considered unquestionable, no challenge will be heard.

Like Step 2, the lawmakers try to explain away or deny the harm their law may do.  First they simply deny the validity of charges their laws do cause harm.  The unborn is denied human rights (Roe v. Wade was infamous here, arguing that since the Constitution referred to born persons, it meant unborn persons had no rights – an argument from silence.)  The reduction of marriage to a legally sanctioned sexual relationship is denied as a cause of damaging the traditional family as a source of the stability of society.  Studies that challenge this are rejected as "biased."

At the same time, however, it is argued that the harm they've denied can be justified for the greater good of the moral absolutes they deny.  Thus, even if the unborn is a person, the mother's "reproductive freedom" takes priority.  Whether or not "gay marriage" disrupts society, denying persons with homosexual tendencies the "right to marry" is making them second class citizens.

The problem is, these people claim that whatever does no harm to others should be permitted, but they make themselves both the prosecutor and judge as to what causes harm to others and whether those who are harmed actually matter.  Since this eliminates the right  to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment), we can see this mindset goes well on the way to causing harm and becoming a tyranny.

The Sixth Step: Restricting the Rights of the Challenger

"They [The Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it."

PJ O'Rourke (quoting Sandinista official), Holidays in Hell

While in the Third Step, the proponent of the modern morality gets offended with those who challenge them, in the sixth step, the politician has the power to do something about it.  Because he or she believes that the challenger is guided by "harmful" motives (under the ad hominem attacks of "Homophobic" or "war on women" etc.) the politician can make laws that reduce the freedom of the challengers to speak out. 

Consider the Catholic Church speaking out on moral issues being accused of being partisan and being under threats to have tax exempt status revoked.  The Catholic Church has remained consistent on moral issues long before there was a United States of America, let alone a Democratic or Republican Party.

For example, in 1679, the Church condemned these propositions:

34. It is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the foetus, lest the girl found pregnant be killed or defamed.

35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion.

—Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) [Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]

From the year 1679.  That's not a typo.  Over 333 years ago, the Catholic Church condemned views being used today to justify abortion on the grounds that the unborn is not alive.

Moreover, in 1965 (8 years before the infamous Roe v. Wade), the Catholic Church condemned abortion in the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes:

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (#51)

To argue that the Catholic Church is behaving in a political manner in speaking against the same sins they condemned before such issues were political indicates a really dangerous situation: That a government may decide what sort of speech is politically motivated or not politically motivated and may coerce the Church from speaking on subjects it deems "political."

Under such conditions, the Church cannot be said to have freedom of religion if her teaching of all people can be labeled "hate speech" or "politically motivated" or if her beliefs may be set aside as "unimportant" when it goes against government laws.

But the Constitution explicitly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment.  Emphasis added).

So we can see that laws made which ignore the First Amendment are laws which support tyranny against the beliefs that the nation were founded on, that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" (Declaration of Independence).

The Founding Fathers broke away from England because of these violations of unalienable rights, but now the lawmakers and courts can ignore these rights in favor of their own ideology.

Conclusion

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.

—Abraham Lincoln, Response to a Pro-Slavery Friend

Lincoln was prophetic here.  In the name of freedom, we are seeing the denial of basic freedoms to those who believe in moral absolutes and the obligation to live rightly.  Our Church can be coerced.  People who live in accordance with her teachings can be sued for refusing to provide services they feel they would be doing evil to provide.

To defend ourselves against this injustice, we have to ask people of good will to consider the harm that is done when people with this mindset get elected.

Considering the belief that society inevitably improves over time, unless people with an opposing view are elected, it is something that invites injustice in the name of this progress.  The views which threaten what is seen as progress must be stopped by any means necessary.

The problem with this assumption is not all perceived progress is progress.  People of this generation might be surprised, but there was a time when democratic processes were considered outdated relics and it was fascism which was the way to progress.  As we have seen in history, this view of fascism was premature and did not reflect reality.  Indeed, the practitioners of fascism had few brakes to prevent bad ideas that were seen as beneficial by the fascists.

The view today of no moral absolutes is the same.  If there are no moral absolutes, and the progress of society is seen as advances and declines solely on whether it moves towards or against a certain ideology, then there are very few restrictions against those politicians who feel threatened by challenges to their "defense of progress."

It is no hyperbole to say that this mindset, turned into law by politicians are heading into tyranny as the Founding Fathers understood it:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. (Declaration of Independence)

The question is what we are to do about it?

It may sound partisan, but quite simply, we need to consider this sort of mindset as one which disqualifies a person for government office.  A politician who believes that there are no moral absolutes and believes it is his views that must be followed to bring progress to the nation is more likely to push through laws they see as right without considering other perspectives.

A Politician who will not see harm done or seeks to explain harm away cannot be trusted to hear the grievances of those wronged and give redress.  The Politician who believes their opponents are obstacles is more likely to restrict people who disagree than people who believe there are moral absolutes which forbid them from doing wrong in the name of a cause.

In short, we need to elect men and women of character, who recognize that the government has no authority to mandate things beyond them.  When Obama was asked, "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view" (8/18/08), he replied:

"Well, I think that you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective. Answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something that obviously the country wrestles with. "

That kind of answer should be a disqualification to the voter of good will.  A politician who cannot answer the question on when a baby has human rights – and prove the truth of his answer should not be making a decision that abortion should be permitted.  We need to elect and appoint men and women who know they are limited and prone to evil and must answer to a morality above and beyond them. 

How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 2 of 2)

Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.

—GK Chesterton

Introduction

Before considering the last three steps, we should briefly discuss some of the principles of the thinking of the modern morality, that will explain the unjust laws that come from the proponents of modern morality.

It tends to reject the ideas of the existence of truth as independent of circumstances.  Everything is relative to times and circumstances.  It also tends to hold a view that everything progresses for the better.  Because things are generally better in a material sense, it means things are better in a moral sense.  The "oppressive past" has been replaced with a "freer" present and must continue towards an even more "free" future.

Such a view holds that even if one disagrees with certain behaviors ("personally opposed but…"), it should still be permitted "if it doesn't harm anyone."

The result of this is it tends to reject any restrictions except the "harm towards others."  The proponents will most likely object to comparisons to totalitarian policies on these grounds, because the totalitarian regimes did harm others.  The problem is, these proponents don't always recognize that harm is done to others.  They tend to think of crude Nazi tactics and think that because other "inconveniences" are not at that level, it isn't harm.

Moreover, there is also a tendency to think that certain views are "oppressive" and people who think in such a way should not be protected when it comes to those views.

The problem is, there is a contradiction in all of these views.  If one should tolerate other views, then it follows that it should be applied to views they disagree with as well as views they agree with.  The person who believes there are moral absolutes ought to be tolerated without harassment.  Instead, because their views are called "oppressive" it is acceptable to deny protection under the law.  This is the contradiction that creates tyranny in a free society.

With this in mind, let us consider the final three steps.

The Fourth Step: Passing Laws With the Belief They Harm Nobody

Attempted murder? It's not like he killed someone. This is a clear violation of my client's civil rights.

—Slimy Lawyer, RoboCop (1987)

Once people are elected or appointed to political office, they take their belief in only opposing "harmful" things in legislation.  If they see no harm in legislation, then they tend to support it.  This is how we can see lawmakers support the HHS contraception mandate or legalized abortion.  Because the reduction of sex to pleasure is accepted as a given, the only harm they can see is the issue of unexpected pregnancy.  The result is the creation of laws which makes access to contraception and abortion easier.  It is only the challenges to this assumption that is viewed as harmful.

Under the same reduction of sex to pleasure, such politicians can see no difference between traditional marriage between a man and a woman and a "homosexual marriage" between two people of the same gender.  So laws supporting this so-called "gay marriage" are seen as good, and opposition seen as harmful.

The result of all this is to create a set of laws that claims to champion tolerance, but actually refuses to consider the input of those who think differently from the lawmaker.

The Fifth Step: Denying the Validity of Challenges to the Law

"Are you lost daddy?" I asked tenderly.
"Shut up," he explained.

—Ring Lardner, The Young Immigrants (1920).

One of the more ironic arguments made by proponents of the modern morality is the claim that those who believe in moral absolutes are "forcing their beliefs on others."  It's ironic because these proponents are in fact the ones imposing their moral beliefs.  You may notice this with their mantras.  "Reproductive Freedom" for example.  Those who believe in moral absolutes are not supposed to push their beliefs on others, but the concept of "Reproductive Freedom" is invoked as if it were a moral absolute.

Thus the HHS contraception mandate is forced on people who believe it is wrong to give any support (moral or financial) to things they find immoral.  Because the concept of "Reproductive Freedom" is considered unquestionable, no challenge will be heard.

Like Step 2, the lawmakers try to explain away or deny the harm their law may do.  First they simply deny the validity of charges their laws do cause harm.  The unborn is denied human rights (Roe v. Wade was infamous here, arguing that since the Constitution referred to born persons, it meant unborn persons had no rights – an argument from silence.)  The reduction of marriage to a legally sanctioned sexual relationship is denied as a cause of damaging the traditional family as a source of the stability of society.  Studies that challenge this are rejected as "biased."

At the same time, however, it is argued that the harm they've denied can be justified for the greater good of the moral absolutes they deny.  Thus, even if the unborn is a person, the mother's "reproductive freedom" takes priority.  Whether or not "gay marriage" disrupts society, denying persons with homosexual tendencies the "right to marry" is making them second class citizens.

The problem is, these people claim that whatever does no harm to others should be permitted, but they make themselves both the prosecutor and judge as to what causes harm to others and whether those who are harmed actually matter.  Since this eliminates the right  to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment), we can see this mindset goes well on the way to causing harm and becoming a tyranny.

The Sixth Step: Restricting the Rights of the Challenger

"They [The Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it."

PJ O'Rourke (quoting Sandinista official), Holidays in Hell

While in the Third Step, the proponent of the modern morality gets offended with those who challenge them, in the sixth step, the politician has the power to do something about it.  Because he or she believes that the challenger is guided by "harmful" motives (under the ad hominem attacks of "Homophobic" or "war on women" etc.) the politician can make laws that reduce the freedom of the challengers to speak out. 

Consider the Catholic Church speaking out on moral issues being accused of being partisan and being under threats to have tax exempt status revoked.  The Catholic Church has remained consistent on moral issues long before there was a United States of America, let alone a Democratic or Republican Party.

For example, in 1679, the Church condemned these propositions:

34. It is permitted to bring about an abortion before the animation of the foetus, lest the girl found pregnant be killed or defamed.

35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion.

—Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) [Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]

From the year 1679.  That's not a typo.  Over 333 years ago, the Catholic Church condemned views being used today to justify abortion on the grounds that the unborn is not alive.

Moreover, in 1965 (8 years before the infamous Roe v. Wade), the Catholic Church condemned abortion in the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes:

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (#51)

To argue that the Catholic Church is behaving in a political manner in speaking against the same sins they condemned before such issues were political indicates a really dangerous situation: That a government may decide what sort of speech is politically motivated or not politically motivated and may coerce the Church from speaking on subjects it deems "political."

Under such conditions, the Church cannot be said to have freedom of religion if her teaching of all people can be labeled "hate speech" or "politically motivated" or if her beliefs may be set aside as "unimportant" when it goes against government laws.

But the Constitution explicitly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (First Amendment.  Emphasis added).

So we can see that laws made which ignore the First Amendment are laws which support tyranny against the beliefs that the nation were founded on, that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" (Declaration of Independence).

The Founding Fathers broke away from England because of these violations of unalienable rights, but now the lawmakers and courts can ignore these rights in favor of their own ideology.

Conclusion

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy hypocrisy.

—Abraham Lincoln, Response to a Pro-Slavery Friend

Lincoln was prophetic here.  In the name of freedom, we are seeing the denial of basic freedoms to those who believe in moral absolutes and the obligation to live rightly.  Our Church can be coerced.  People who live in accordance with her teachings can be sued for refusing to provide services they feel they would be doing evil to provide.

To defend ourselves against this injustice, we have to ask people of good will to consider the harm that is done when people with this mindset get elected.

Considering the belief that society inevitably improves over time, unless people with an opposing view are elected, it is something that invites injustice in the name of this progress.  The views which threaten what is seen as progress must be stopped by any means necessary.

The problem with this assumption is not all perceived progress is progress.  People of this generation might be surprised, but there was a time when democratic processes were considered outdated relics and it was fascism which was the way to progress.  As we have seen in history, this view of fascism was premature and did not reflect reality.  Indeed, the practitioners of fascism had few brakes to prevent bad ideas that were seen as beneficial by the fascists.

The view today of no moral absolutes is the same.  If there are no moral absolutes, and the progress of society is seen as advances and declines solely on whether it moves towards or against a certain ideology, then there are very few restrictions against those politicians who feel threatened by challenges to their "defense of progress."

It is no hyperbole to say that this mindset, turned into law by politicians are heading into tyranny as the Founding Fathers understood it:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. (Declaration of Independence)

The question is what we are to do about it?

It may sound partisan, but quite simply, we need to consider this sort of mindset as one which disqualifies a person for government office.  A politician who believes that there are no moral absolutes and believes it is his views that must be followed to bring progress to the nation is more likely to push through laws they see as right without considering other perspectives.

A Politician who will not see harm done or seeks to explain harm away cannot be trusted to hear the grievances of those wronged and give redress.  The Politician who believes their opponents are obstacles is more likely to restrict people who disagree than people who believe there are moral absolutes which forbid them from doing wrong in the name of a cause.

In short, we need to elect men and women of character, who recognize that the government has no authority to mandate things beyond them.  When Obama was asked, "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view" (8/18/08), he replied:

"Well, I think that you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective. Answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something that obviously the country wrestles with. "

That kind of answer should be a disqualification to the voter of good will.  A politician who cannot answer the question on when a baby has human rights – and prove the truth of his answer should not be making a decision that abortion should be permitted.  We need to elect and appoint men and women who know they are limited and prone to evil and must answer to a morality above and beyond them. 

How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 1 of 2)

Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.

—GK Chesterton

As we see our civil rights in America eroded, some people have speculated on the cause.  Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Communist" for example.  We hear similar things about media conspiracies.  The basic premise is that the reason our freedoms are declining because of some special efforts by some groups to bring down the country.

I think these things are distractions.  We don't need to bring conspiracies into the equation at all.  What we actually seem to have is that a certain influential group of the American population tend to think in a similar way and, when they receive political power, approach lawmaking in the same way they approach moral obligations.

In other words, we don't have a secret cabal of People against Goodness and Normality.  We have people who have bought into certain errors as a way of thinking and are making that thinking into the law of the land.  It has six steps.  Three which are concerned with individual morality and three in which the individual steps are made law.

Looking at the First Three Steps

These first three steps are the framework, reflecting on how certain individuals view morality and how such individuals view challenges to their moral views.  Such persons reject the idea that there are moral absolutes that may not ever be transgressed when it comes to such rules requiring them to restrict their behavior.

The First Step: Reducing Morality to Not Harming Others

The basic form of this modern morality is the concept that anything that does not harm others is permissible.  Thus drug use that is not harming others is permissible.  Fornication is permissible.  Also, the emphasis on harming others is important.  Under this view, we can be self-destructive so long as this destruction does not harm others.

We can see the roots for this kind of thinking in Utilitarianism.  John Stuart Mill describes the basic view as:

the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.

If it causes happiness, it is good.  If it causes unhappiness it is not good.  However, we do see a early warning sign here.  The standards of distinguishing good and harm is arbitrary, and as society has moved forward in time have become more individualistic.  The individual is expected to decide for himself or herself what amount of pain is acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure.  The "habits of self-consciousness and self-observation" are replaced by the slogan, "If it feels good, do it."

The problem with this view of morality is it is too short sighted.  It focuses on the pleasure of the moment and ignores how long term effects of these behaviors can be harmful. 

For example, the loose sexual morality requires contraception to avoid pregnancies.  However, the laws of averages means eventually there will be unexpected pregnancies, and the demand for abortions.  Therefore abortion becomes classified under the category of "anything that does not harm others is permissible."  It's considered a minor inconvenience which should be legalized to remove consequences from sexual behavior as a pleasure.

But abortion does harm.  The obvious harm to another comes from the fact that the unborn child is a person.  Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was pretty much accepted as fact.  Only after the Supreme Court ruling do we see medical textbooks stop talking about this.  Moreover, in modern times, it is recognized that abortions cause mental and emotional harm to the mother who has an abortion.  But since this harm challenges the basic premise of modern morality, it has to be somehow removed from consideration.  This brings us to our second step

The Second Step: Denying the Harm Exists and Explaining It Away

The response of the modern morality is to either deny the harm exists or explain it away as less than the action defended.  Often it tries to argue both, leading one to ask, "Well, which is it?"  Either the harm exists or it does not.  If it does, it has to be acknowledged and dealt with.  If it doesn't, then why try to explain it away?

So we see people facing an unexpected pregnancy, denying the unborn child is a person; denying that such mental harm to the mother exists or explaining the harm away in the name of "a woman's right to choose."  But if the unborn child is a person, then the "woman's right to choose" is causing harm to others and cannot be permitted under modern morality.  So they have to deny that the unborn child is a person while also saying that whether or not the unborn child is a person, it doesn't outrank the "freedom of choice."

The danger is, this modern view of morality focuses on what the individual thinks, as opposed to what is true. So if the person decides they should not worry about the harm caused to another, they are deciding for themselves whether the harm done to another has any meaning.  As we will see later, when people with this mindset receive political power, their self-focused determination on whether those harmed have value or not will impact the laws they pass.

The Third Step: Shooting the Messenger

In a reasoned discussion, people would attempt to objectively consider the issues and attempt to discover the reality.  Behavior would then be changed in order to live in accordance to what is true.  Unfortunately, in modern times we do not see this.  It is one of the greatest ironies that people who claim that beliefs in objective morality and absolute truth are labeled "irrational" and "illogical" when the response to people who challenge modern morality is to verbally attack them and make no attempt at refutation.

The denial and explaining away can be (and often is) challenged by rational argument, but people don't like to be shown to be in the wrong, and this leads to the third step: Hostility to those who point out the modern morality is causing harm to people. 

When it is pointed out that certain behaviors are NOT morally permissible and DO cause harm, there are no attempts at a reasoned refutation.  What we have instead is a lashing out at those who point out the behavior is harmful.

It works this way: People standing up for absolute morality creates a challenge that puts the follower of modern morality into a dilemma.  If what challengers say is true then it indicts the act as wrong and the person who performs the act must choose between renouncing the act or continue the act, knowing it is wrong. 

Very few people deliberately want to be evil-doers in the sense of the character Aaron in the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus who dies regretting he had not done more evil.  Rather, many people are inordinately attached to certain behaviors and are unwilling to give them up.  They also don't want to be in the wrong in not giving them up.

So the defense mechanism begins.  But since the justification for modern morality is the individual decides that the act doesn't harm anyone in a way the individual considers important, they cannot defend their position as being right.  So what often happens is to avoid being wrong, they seek to denigrate their challengers, trying to portray them as being in the wrong.

This is why we see so many ad hominem attacks: "War on women."  "Homophobic."  "Judgmental."  These attacks make no legitimate claim against the truth of the defender of absolute morality.  It merely attacks the person who challenges this form of thinking.  It is as if they think if they can discredit the messenger, they can justify ignoring the message.

It's a sort of begging the question.

1. If they were good people they would agree with [X]
2. They don't agree with [X]
3. Therefore they're not good people
4. Why does not agreeing with [X] make them bad people?
5. Because [X] is good.

[X] is the issue being disputed whether it is good or not, so to argue that people are not good if they do not agree with [X] merely assumes what has to be proven.

Once we get to the point where a person being good or not depends on whether he accepts the position of modern morality, it becomes easier to label the person who challenges modern morality as people who don't matter.  Once that label is bestowed, it will have relevance in a society which adapts the modern morality to law.

Conclusion

Now the first three steps are individually focused, but when numbers of individuals who share the same view group together, we can see political influence grow from them.  Voters who hold these views are going to tend towards supporting candidates that share their views ,or at least favor leniency towards the behaviors.  Members of the media who share these views are going to report things in terms of promoting the modern morality and denigrating the concept of moral absolutes.  Politicians who hold these views are going to pass laws which reflect these views of morality.

The next article will take a look at how we go from this individualistic view of morality to what happens when we elect people who hold to this view of morality.

How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 1 of 2)

Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.

—GK Chesterton

As we see our civil rights in America eroded, some people have speculated on the cause.  Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Communist" for example.  We hear similar things about media conspiracies.  The basic premise is that the reason our freedoms are declining because of some special efforts by some groups to bring down the country.

I think these things are distractions.  We don't need to bring conspiracies into the equation at all.  What we actually seem to have is that a certain influential group of the American population tend to think in a similar way and, when they receive political power, approach lawmaking in the same way they approach moral obligations.

In other words, we don't have a secret cabal of People against Goodness and Normality.  We have people who have bought into certain errors as a way of thinking and are making that thinking into the law of the land.  It has six steps.  Three which are concerned with individual morality and three in which the individual steps are made law.

Looking at the First Three Steps

These first three steps are the framework, reflecting on how certain individuals view morality and how such individuals view challenges to their moral views.  Such persons reject the idea that there are moral absolutes that may not ever be transgressed when it comes to such rules requiring them to restrict their behavior.

The First Step: Reducing Morality to Not Harming Others

The basic form of this modern morality is the concept that anything that does not harm others is permissible.  Thus drug use that is not harming others is permissible.  Fornication is permissible.  Also, the emphasis on harming others is important.  Under this view, we can be self-destructive so long as this destruction does not harm others.

We can see the roots for this kind of thinking in Utilitarianism.  John Stuart Mill describes the basic view as:

the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.

If it causes happiness, it is good.  If it causes unhappiness it is not good.  However, we do see a early warning sign here.  The standards of distinguishing good and harm is arbitrary, and as society has moved forward in time have become more individualistic.  The individual is expected to decide for himself or herself what amount of pain is acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure.  The "habits of self-consciousness and self-observation" are replaced by the slogan, "If it feels good, do it."

The problem with this view of morality is it is too short sighted.  It focuses on the pleasure of the moment and ignores how long term effects of these behaviors can be harmful. 

For example, the loose sexual morality requires contraception to avoid pregnancies.  However, the laws of averages means eventually there will be unexpected pregnancies, and the demand for abortions.  Therefore abortion becomes classified under the category of "anything that does not harm others is permissible."  It's considered a minor inconvenience which should be legalized to remove consequences from sexual behavior as a pleasure.

But abortion does harm.  The obvious harm to another comes from the fact that the unborn child is a person.  Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was pretty much accepted as fact.  Only after the Supreme Court ruling do we see medical textbooks stop talking about this.  Moreover, in modern times, it is recognized that abortions cause mental and emotional harm to the mother who has an abortion.  But since this harm challenges the basic premise of modern morality, it has to be somehow removed from consideration.  This brings us to our second step

The Second Step: Denying the Harm Exists and Explaining It Away

The response of the modern morality is to either deny the harm exists or explain it away as less than the action defended.  Often it tries to argue both, leading one to ask, "Well, which is it?"  Either the harm exists or it does not.  If it does, it has to be acknowledged and dealt with.  If it doesn't, then why try to explain it away?

So we see people facing an unexpected pregnancy, denying the unborn child is a person; denying that such mental harm to the mother exists or explaining the harm away in the name of "a woman's right to choose."  But if the unborn child is a person, then the "woman's right to choose" is causing harm to others and cannot be permitted under modern morality.  So they have to deny that the unborn child is a person while also saying that whether or not the unborn child is a person, it doesn't outrank the "freedom of choice."

The danger is, this modern view of morality focuses on what the individual thinks, as opposed to what is true. So if the person decides they should not worry about the harm caused to another, they are deciding for themselves whether the harm done to another has any meaning.  As we will see later, when people with this mindset receive political power, their self-focused determination on whether those harmed have value or not will impact the laws they pass.

The Third Step: Shooting the Messenger

In a reasoned discussion, people would attempt to objectively consider the issues and attempt to discover the reality.  Behavior would then be changed in order to live in accordance to what is true.  Unfortunately, in modern times we do not see this.  It is one of the greatest ironies that people who claim that beliefs in objective morality and absolute truth are labeled "irrational" and "illogical" when the response to people who challenge modern morality is to verbally attack them and make no attempt at refutation.

The denial and explaining away can be (and often is) challenged by rational argument, but people don't like to be shown to be in the wrong, and this leads to the third step: Hostility to those who point out the modern morality is causing harm to people. 

When it is pointed out that certain behaviors are NOT morally permissible and DO cause harm, there are no attempts at a reasoned refutation.  What we have instead is a lashing out at those who point out the behavior is harmful.

It works this way: People standing up for absolute morality creates a challenge that puts the follower of modern morality into a dilemma.  If what challengers say is true then it indicts the act as wrong and the person who performs the act must choose between renouncing the act or continue the act, knowing it is wrong. 

Very few people deliberately want to be evil-doers in the sense of the character Aaron in the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus who dies regretting he had not done more evil.  Rather, many people are inordinately attached to certain behaviors and are unwilling to give them up.  They also don't want to be in the wrong in not giving them up.

So the defense mechanism begins.  But since the justification for modern morality is the individual decides that the act doesn't harm anyone in a way the individual considers important, they cannot defend their position as being right.  So what often happens is to avoid being wrong, they seek to denigrate their challengers, trying to portray them as being in the wrong.

This is why we see so many ad hominem attacks: "War on women."  "Homophobic."  "Judgmental."  These attacks make no legitimate claim against the truth of the defender of absolute morality.  It merely attacks the person who challenges this form of thinking.  It is as if they think if they can discredit the messenger, they can justify ignoring the message.

It's a sort of begging the question.

1. If they were good people they would agree with [X]
2. They don't agree with [X]
3. Therefore they're not good people
4. Why does not agreeing with [X] make them bad people?
5. Because [X] is good.

[X] is the issue being disputed whether it is good or not, so to argue that people are not good if they do not agree with [X] merely assumes what has to be proven.

Once we get to the point where a person being good or not depends on whether he accepts the position of modern morality, it becomes easier to label the person who challenges modern morality as people who don't matter.  Once that label is bestowed, it will have relevance in a society which adapts the modern morality to law.

Conclusion

Now the first three steps are individually focused, but when numbers of individuals who share the same view group together, we can see political influence grow from them.  Voters who hold these views are going to tend towards supporting candidates that share their views ,or at least favor leniency towards the behaviors.  Members of the media who share these views are going to report things in terms of promoting the modern morality and denigrating the concept of moral absolutes.  Politicians who hold these views are going to pass laws which reflect these views of morality.

The next article will take a look at how we go from this individualistic view of morality to what happens when we elect people who hold to this view of morality.

Reflections on Truth, Christian Morality and Challenges by Relativism

Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Absolute: a value or principle regarded as universally valid or able to be viewed without relation to other things.

Absolute Relativism?

Among some who reject Christian teaching, whether as a whole or in part, there is an argument offered that there is no absolute truth.  Therefore there is nothing to require us to behave in a certain way, as everything depends on perspective.  The problem is, people who argue this way create a self-contradicting argument.  The claim that there is no absolute truth, by the nature of its claim, assumes this claim is absolutely true – which cannot exist according to the claim.  The claim that everything depends on perspective assumes something which is true beyond all perspective.

The argument is faced by this dilemma:

• If [There is no absolute truth] is true in all times, places and circumstances then there is an absolute truth.
• If [There is no absolute truth] is not true in all times, places and circumstances, it means the claim is not absolute and there can be absolute truths.

The point is, everybody believes in some absolute truth (even if it is the claim that "there are no absolutes"). If they truly did not, they could not dispute anything.  The fact that we recognize that something is wrong indicates we believe there is something which is always true.  Once we recognize that, we can question this kind of skeptic, "Why must we accept your claim to the absolute truth?  What is the basis for it?"  Once we have a recognition that absolute truth does exist (in some form), we can inquire what is the truth when there are different claims as to what the truth is.

Now this is a crude form of relativism which subconsciously assumes what it tries to refute.  Mostly it is claimed in such a bold statement by people who have more enthusiasm for their position than reasoned consideration (in other words, don't assume all relativists think this way).  However, even more restricted forms of Relativism hold to assumptions that cause problems for those who assert them.

Moral Relativism

Let's look at a popular claim made by some who reject Christian moral teaching: That there are no moral absolutes.  Some supporters of this claim think it gives them an escape route because the claim is a claim to truth outside of morality – it gives them an opportunity to make an absolute statement that is not a self contradiction.

We can however show that such a view is not actually believed in an absolute way by the proponents by the behavior of these proponents.

1. If there are [No Moral Absolutes] then [everything is permitted] (If A then B).
2. Not [everything is permitted] (Not B)
3. Therefore there are not [No Moral Absolutes].  (Therefore not A)

The major premise points out that if there are no moral absolutes, then everything can be legitimately done in at least some circumstances.  That would mean in some circumstances it is permissible to rape or commit genocide or to own slaves.  If these things are never permissible, then we have shown that there are at least some moral absolutes.

Once we have shown this, it becomes clear that the dispute with Christian moral values is not a denial of moral absolutes, but rather a claim that some Christian moral values (usually concerning sexual morality) should not be binding.  That claim, however, must not be accepted at face value (that's a logical fallacy called ipse dixit [literally ‘he himself said it’]).  Just as Christianity offers justifications on why its moral teachings are true, those who reject Christian morality must also offer justifications on why their claims on morality are true.

Common Logical Fallacies Used in the Attack on Christian Morality

However, that is exactly what is not done.  We either see the ipse dixit claim, giving us no rational cause to accept, or else we see them offering tu quoque or ad hominem fallacies.

For example, when Catholics speak against the current restrictions on religious freedom in America, some reply by bringing up medieval history when some believed that a minority religion could be restricted.  That would be a tu quoque (literally 'You also!') attack, because a person behaving inconsistently does not mean what is said is false or that the past behavior of some justifies the current behavior of others).  If you think it was unjustified then, it is certainly something that cannot be argued to be justified now.

An example of the ad hominem (literally, 'against the person') would be the people who use terms like "homophobic" or "war on women" or "extreme right (left) wing" and the like.  It attacks the person making an argument and tries to indicate that the person has a repugnant quality, therefore what he says can be rejected.  For example, if I attempted to argue that "People who support moral relativism are a bunch of stupid liberals," this would be an example of the ad hominem attack, because that label does not disprove the argument.

What it comes down to is that the current attacks on Christian morality are not based on a rational, logical argument but rather a set of assumptions which, when examined cannot stand.  Thus these arguments cannot be said to refute Christian morality because the premises are not true and you cannot have a proven conclusion if the premises of the argument are not true.

Conclusion

Of course, it does not mean that because an argument is fallacious that a conclusion is automatically false (for example.  "All 2s are blue.  All 3s are brown.  Therefore 2+3 is 5" has false premises , but 2+3 is 5).  However, showing these attacks against Christian morality do not prove what they claim allows us to say that the justification for Christian morality still stands, and perhaps people should consider what those justifications are instead of claiming ipse dixit that Christian morality is false.

Reflections on Truth, Christian Morality and Challenges by Relativism

Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Absolute: a value or principle regarded as universally valid or able to be viewed without relation to other things.

Absolute Relativism?

Among some who reject Christian teaching, whether as a whole or in part, there is an argument offered that there is no absolute truth.  Therefore there is nothing to require us to behave in a certain way, as everything depends on perspective.  The problem is, people who argue this way create a self-contradicting argument.  The claim that there is no absolute truth, by the nature of its claim, assumes this claim is absolutely true – which cannot exist according to the claim.  The claim that everything depends on perspective assumes something which is true beyond all perspective.

The argument is faced by this dilemma:

• If [There is no absolute truth] is true in all times, places and circumstances then there is an absolute truth.
• If [There is no absolute truth] is not true in all times, places and circumstances, it means the claim is not absolute and there can be absolute truths.

The point is, everybody believes in some absolute truth (even if it is the claim that "there are no absolutes"). If they truly did not, they could not dispute anything.  The fact that we recognize that something is wrong indicates we believe there is something which is always true.  Once we recognize that, we can question this kind of skeptic, "Why must we accept your claim to the absolute truth?  What is the basis for it?"  Once we have a recognition that absolute truth does exist (in some form), we can inquire what is the truth when there are different claims as to what the truth is.

Now this is a crude form of relativism which subconsciously assumes what it tries to refute.  Mostly it is claimed in such a bold statement by people who have more enthusiasm for their position than reasoned consideration (in other words, don't assume all relativists think this way).  However, even more restricted forms of Relativism hold to assumptions that cause problems for those who assert them.

Moral Relativism

Let's look at a popular claim made by some who reject Christian moral teaching: That there are no moral absolutes.  Some supporters of this claim think it gives them an escape route because the claim is a claim to truth outside of morality – it gives them an opportunity to make an absolute statement that is not a self contradiction.

We can however show that such a view is not actually believed in an absolute way by the proponents by the behavior of these proponents.

1. If there are [No Moral Absolutes] then [everything is permitted] (If A then B).
2. Not [everything is permitted] (Not B)
3. Therefore there are not [No Moral Absolutes].  (Therefore not A)

The major premise points out that if there are no moral absolutes, then everything can be legitimately done in at least some circumstances.  That would mean in some circumstances it is permissible to rape or commit genocide or to own slaves.  If these things are never permissible, then we have shown that there are at least some moral absolutes.

Once we have shown this, it becomes clear that the dispute with Christian moral values is not a denial of moral absolutes, but rather a claim that some Christian moral values (usually concerning sexual morality) should not be binding.  That claim, however, must not be accepted at face value (that's a logical fallacy called ipse dixit [literally ‘he himself said it’]).  Just as Christianity offers justifications on why its moral teachings are true, those who reject Christian morality must also offer justifications on why their claims on morality are true.

Common Logical Fallacies Used in the Attack on Christian Morality

However, that is exactly what is not done.  We either see the ipse dixit claim, giving us no rational cause to accept, or else we see them offering tu quoque or ad hominem fallacies.

For example, when Catholics speak against the current restrictions on religious freedom in America, some reply by bringing up medieval history when some believed that a minority religion could be restricted.  That would be a tu quoque (literally 'You also!') attack, because a person behaving inconsistently does not mean what is said is false or that the past behavior of some justifies the current behavior of others).  If you think it was unjustified then, it is certainly something that cannot be argued to be justified now.

An example of the ad hominem (literally, 'against the person') would be the people who use terms like "homophobic" or "war on women" or "extreme right (left) wing" and the like.  It attacks the person making an argument and tries to indicate that the person has a repugnant quality, therefore what he says can be rejected.  For example, if I attempted to argue that "People who support moral relativism are a bunch of stupid liberals," this would be an example of the ad hominem attack, because that label does not disprove the argument.

What it comes down to is that the current attacks on Christian morality are not based on a rational, logical argument but rather a set of assumptions which, when examined cannot stand.  Thus these arguments cannot be said to refute Christian morality because the premises are not true and you cannot have a proven conclusion if the premises of the argument are not true.

Conclusion

Of course, it does not mean that because an argument is fallacious that a conclusion is automatically false (for example.  "All 2s are blue.  All 3s are brown.  Therefore 2+3 is 5" has false premises , but 2+3 is 5).  However, showing these attacks against Christian morality do not prove what they claim allows us to say that the justification for Christian morality still stands, and perhaps people should consider what those justifications are instead of claiming ipse dixit that Christian morality is false.

TFTD: Thoughts on One Modern Rejection of Moral Obligations

Once upon a time people asked, "What ought I to do to live rightly?"  Today, many people angrily ask, "What right do you have to tell me how I ought to live?"  The difference between the two questions is stark and demonstrates the moral corruption of the West.

The first question recognizes that there is a way to live which is right which we ought to do.  The second question rejects anything that puts limits on personal hedonism.  The first recognizes that all people have moral obligations.  The second denies that.

The end result is that in the first case, one could recognize the difference between the principled person and the scoundrel.  Today, many people cannot.

About here, many people will miss the point.  The accusations come out pointing to some reprehensible behavior in the past and accusing people of wanting to return to those times.  These accusations are false, because it confuses the recognition of truth with the wanting to turn the whole of society back to a certain time when things were "perfect" (but overlooking serious societal faults).

Basically, that kind of argument employs a sort of chronological snobbery which wrongly assumes that:

1. In the past, People believed in moral obligations (In the past, people believed [A])
2. They also practiced slavery (They also believed [B])
3. They were wrong on slavery (They were wrong on [B])
4. Therefore they were wrong on moral obligations (Therefore they were wrong on [A])

The problem with such an argument is that just because a people were wrong on [B] does not mean they were wrong on [A] unless it can be shown that the acceptance of [B] was directly linked to the acceptance of [A].

For example, we can look at the Nazis and see that their treatment of non-Germanic people was directly related to their view that non-Germanic people were subhuman.  In this case we can say that the rejection of one necessarily requires the rejection of the second.

However, if we were to try to argue that:

1. in 19th century America people believed all men were created equal. 
2. But they also kept slaves.
3. They were wrong on slavery
4. Therefore they were also wrong to believe all men were created equal

…most people would recognize the claim was garbage.  They were certainly in error to believe 1 and not recognize that 2 contradicted it.  Yet the existence of 2 did not disprove the truth of 1.

Yet this is the reasoning that some people try to use to claim that because past times were repugnant in some ways, nothing they have to say is true.

Back in 2010, I wrote:

Let's envision a time in the 23rd century, where society has changed, and the world is a meritocracy.  Those with genetic advantages in the mental field are given positions of authority and power.  Those who lack are relegated to doing menial jobs, essentially the property of those who have.  Now, lets assume that a person comes forward, and brings up writings against slavery from the 19th century as showing arguments as to why the current system ought not to be tolerated.

Would it be valid to negate his arguments on the grounds that "people back in the 20th century believed [X], therefore they had no idea what they were talking about on slavery"?

The bottom line is claims need to be investigated as to whether or not they are true and then accepted or rejected on that principle.  To reject a thing from the past simply because it is "old" is not a valid reason.  The Pythagorean Theorem (A² + B² = C²) is  at least 2500 years old.  We don't reject it on account of its age, or because people from his time practiced slavery.  We accept it because it is true.

This certainly gives us something to consider. When people reject the concept of living rightly, and argue that this rejection is justified because of the moral flaws at the time of people who held this belief, we can be sure that they are merely making excuses, and not actually justified in their response.

TFTD: Thoughts on One Modern Rejection of Moral Obligations

Once upon a time people asked, "What ought I to do to live rightly?"  Today, many people angrily ask, "What right do you have to tell me how I ought to live?"  The difference between the two questions is stark and demonstrates the moral corruption of the West.

The first question recognizes that there is a way to live which is right which we ought to do.  The second question rejects anything that puts limits on personal hedonism.  The first recognizes that all people have moral obligations.  The second denies that.

The end result is that in the first case, one could recognize the difference between the principled person and the scoundrel.  Today, many people cannot.

About here, many people will miss the point.  The accusations come out pointing to some reprehensible behavior in the past and accusing people of wanting to return to those times.  These accusations are false, because it confuses the recognition of truth with the wanting to turn the whole of society back to a certain time when things were "perfect" (but overlooking serious societal faults).

Basically, that kind of argument employs a sort of chronological snobbery which wrongly assumes that:

1. In the past, People believed in moral obligations (In the past, people believed [A])
2. They also practiced slavery (They also believed [B])
3. They were wrong on slavery (They were wrong on [B])
4. Therefore they were wrong on moral obligations (Therefore they were wrong on [A])

The problem with such an argument is that just because a people were wrong on [B] does not mean they were wrong on [A] unless it can be shown that the acceptance of [B] was directly linked to the acceptance of [A].

For example, we can look at the Nazis and see that their treatment of non-Germanic people was directly related to their view that non-Germanic people were subhuman.  In this case we can say that the rejection of one necessarily requires the rejection of the second.

However, if we were to try to argue that:

1. in 19th century America people believed all men were created equal. 
2. But they also kept slaves.
3. They were wrong on slavery
4. Therefore they were also wrong to believe all men were created equal

…most people would recognize the claim was garbage.  They were certainly in error to believe 1 and not recognize that 2 contradicted it.  Yet the existence of 2 did not disprove the truth of 1.

Yet this is the reasoning that some people try to use to claim that because past times were repugnant in some ways, nothing they have to say is true.

Back in 2010, I wrote:

Let's envision a time in the 23rd century, where society has changed, and the world is a meritocracy.  Those with genetic advantages in the mental field are given positions of authority and power.  Those who lack are relegated to doing menial jobs, essentially the property of those who have.  Now, lets assume that a person comes forward, and brings up writings against slavery from the 19th century as showing arguments as to why the current system ought not to be tolerated.

Would it be valid to negate his arguments on the grounds that "people back in the 20th century believed [X], therefore they had no idea what they were talking about on slavery"?

The bottom line is claims need to be investigated as to whether or not they are true and then accepted or rejected on that principle.  To reject a thing from the past simply because it is "old" is not a valid reason.  The Pythagorean Theorem (A² + B² = C²) is  at least 2500 years old.  We don't reject it on account of its age, or because people from his time practiced slavery.  We accept it because it is true.

This certainly gives us something to consider. When people reject the concept of living rightly, and argue that this rejection is justified because of the moral flaws at the time of people who held this belief, we can be sure that they are merely making excuses, and not actually justified in their response.

Reflections on Conscience and Utilitarianism

The Argument to Consider

Major Premise: We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil

Minor Premise: [X] is Good or [Y] is Evil.

Conclusion: We must do [X] or We must not do [Y]

The major premise cannot be denied.  While people may argue over whether [X] is truly good or whether [Y] is truly evil, normal people do not say it is permissible to do evil.  If a person's conscience tells him that something is evil, he must not do it.  This is where the questions of morality come into play, invoking situations where it is not always right to do [X] or wrong to do [Y].  For example, it is wrong to withhold a person's property from him.  However, if the neighbor is drunk and wants me to give him his car keys, it would be wrong to give him his car keys until that situation has changed.  Once that situation is changed however, I do not have the right to continue to withhold his keys from him.  These are questions that are in line with the major premise of, "We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil."

This Major Premise is the concept of conscience.  It says, I must do [X].  I must not do [Y].  Yet too many people think of conscience as an impulse that puts a stamp of approval on what we want to do and a stamp of disapproval for what we oppose.  Such people are indeed following an impulse, but that impulse is not conscience.

Impulse and Conscience

Impulse tells me:

• "I am hungry, I want food."
• "I have sexual desires, I want conjugal relations."
• "I am in fear for my life, I want to flee."

Conscience, on the other hand, counters my impulse and tells me:

• "Even though I am hungry, I must not eat the whole pizza."
• "Even though I have sexual desires, I must not have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife who is making her body available for me."
• "Even though I am afraid for my life, I must not flee because innocents will be harmed if I do."

Impulses can be right at some times and wrong at other times.  I seem to recall CS Lewis making reference to impulses as the keys on a piano… each one can be right or wrong depending on whether they are used in the proper time or not.  Conscience then, must be thought of as the conductor, telling us when it is the right time to act on the impulse and when it is not. 

Unfortunately, in America, we have tended to deaden our conscience and give in to our impulses.  "Why shouldn't I have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife?  She is willing and I want gratification."  When faced with conscience which tells us we did wrong, the response is to react with anger, often blaming people who say what the conscience says for "attempting to impose guilt."

Remember, people don't get outraged when a religion teaches something not involving conscience.  Non Jews (normally) don't get offended because Jews keep Kosher laws in their personal life or in their businesses.  They don't demand a Jewish deli serve them a ham sandwich.  They do get angry when a religion speaks on a topic which the conscience also condemns. 

1. Conscience tells us we must not do [X]
2. The Catholic Church tells us we must not do [X]
3. Therefore the Church is accused of causing guilt over [X]

The problem comes when we go from "How Can I Be Just?" to "How Can I Justify This?"

To escape guilt, many move from "How must I act to be just?" to asking "How can I justify my Act?"  It is sometimes argued by moral relativists that there are no absolutes, and right and wrong are entirely dependent on the circumstances, the culture and many other considerations.

This argument is absurd.  If slavery is wrong, it was always wrong and will always be wrong.  A society that practiced it in the past was wrong, even if the society considered it morally acceptable.  It was not wrong in the Northern United States and right in the Southern United States.  Nor was it right prior to 1865 and wrong after 1865.

Likewise, if genocide is wrong, a society which practices it is wrong.  No sane person would argue that because Nazi Germany had the "Final Solution," it was right in Germany but wrong elsewhere.

These two examples show we can indeed know that some things are absolutely (in all cases, circumstances and times) wrong, even if a society practiced them.  We look back to those times with sorrow and revulsion – we DON'T think they were right then but not now.

Indeed, these principles show us something key.  That is the fact that it is irrelevant to appeal to the fact that a thing is popular.  If 99% of the population decides that it is expedient to persecute an innocent 1% of the population, that 99% is wrong, because it is true that it is not right to deliberately harm innocent people. 

If you question this, consider whether it would be right for someone to push your child into the path of a speeding car as a way to warn a larger group of people to get out of the path of the car.

Utilitarianism vs. Catholicism

"Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

- H.L. Mencken

The above question isn't just an imaginary example in poor taste.  This is an application of utilitarianism.

utilitarianism
  ■ noun the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
   ▶      the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

The principles of utilitarianism can be held to different degrees of course, but generally utilitarianism will recognize that no act can harm no person, so if a small number of people are harmed or inconvenienced when the greater good is invoked, that harm can be justified.  This is how the justification of abortion tends to work (even if those taking part in abortion aren't formally utilitarians).  "Even if the unborn is a person, the right to abortion will benefit women, therefore it can be justified."

It also is used to justify the current HHS attack on religion.  "Some religions may be inconvenienced by being forced to pay for contraception and abortion coverage, but more people may benefit from such a requirement.  Therefore religions can be compelled to pay for such coverage."

Ultimately, Utilitarianism justifies tyranny in the name of "good."  If a government program can benefit many at the cost of harming a few (say the rich, landowners, the Jews…) then it is acceptable to harm the few to benefit the many.  That kind of utilitarianism can be brutal (Nazism, Stalinism) or mild (America today), but it still operates under the principle of, "The Ends Justify the Means."

The danger of course is the fact that the person making the decision of what is more important will never put themselves in the position of being "less important" – though they might consider placing YOU in that category.

In contrast, the Catholic position says, evil may never be done so good may come from it.  This isn't merely two conflicting ideologies.  This is a statement on the importance of the human person.  Under Utilitarianism, a conservative could argue, "Since most AIDS cases come from homosexuals, we should place all homosexuals in relocation camps.  Many would benefit and only a few would be harmed."

The Catholic view would condemn that view because such a view treats human persons as mere pawns to be used instead of looking at them as persons who must be treated as persons even if they do wrong (whether by choice or by disordered passion).  That doesn't mean we treat felons as if they were innocent, or treat homosexuality as the same as heterosexuality.  That which is wrong must be opposed, even if the person doing wrong thinks it is right.

It does mean we may not treat a person as if he were less than human because he is a felon, because he is not white, because he is religious and so on.

Conclusion

The difference between the view of utilitarianism (so prominent in America today) and the Catholic view can be summed up this way:

The Golden Rule states that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Would we have others treat us as a means to an end where we can be harmed for a greater good?  No?  Then we must not treat others in such a way.

Ultimately, we must then do what is good and avoid what is evil in all our actions.

QED.

Reflections on Conscience and Utilitarianism

The Argument to Consider

Major Premise: We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil

Minor Premise: [X] is Good or [Y] is Evil.

Conclusion: We must do [X] or We must not do [Y]

The major premise cannot be denied.  While people may argue over whether [X] is truly good or whether [Y] is truly evil, normal people do not say it is permissible to do evil.  If a person's conscience tells him that something is evil, he must not do it.  This is where the questions of morality come into play, invoking situations where it is not always right to do [X] or wrong to do [Y].  For example, it is wrong to withhold a person's property from him.  However, if the neighbor is drunk and wants me to give him his car keys, it would be wrong to give him his car keys until that situation has changed.  Once that situation is changed however, I do not have the right to continue to withhold his keys from him.  These are questions that are in line with the major premise of, "We Must always Do Good and always Avoid Evil."

This Major Premise is the concept of conscience.  It says, I must do [X].  I must not do [Y].  Yet too many people think of conscience as an impulse that puts a stamp of approval on what we want to do and a stamp of disapproval for what we oppose.  Such people are indeed following an impulse, but that impulse is not conscience.

Impulse and Conscience

Impulse tells me:

• "I am hungry, I want food."
• "I have sexual desires, I want conjugal relations."
• "I am in fear for my life, I want to flee."

Conscience, on the other hand, counters my impulse and tells me:

• "Even though I am hungry, I must not eat the whole pizza."
• "Even though I have sexual desires, I must not have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife who is making her body available for me."
• "Even though I am afraid for my life, I must not flee because innocents will be harmed if I do."

Impulses can be right at some times and wrong at other times.  I seem to recall CS Lewis making reference to impulses as the keys on a piano… each one can be right or wrong depending on whether they are used in the proper time or not.  Conscience then, must be thought of as the conductor, telling us when it is the right time to act on the impulse and when it is not. 

Unfortunately, in America, we have tended to deaden our conscience and give in to our impulses.  "Why shouldn't I have sexual relations with my neighbor's wife?  She is willing and I want gratification."  When faced with conscience which tells us we did wrong, the response is to react with anger, often blaming people who say what the conscience says for "attempting to impose guilt."

Remember, people don't get outraged when a religion teaches something not involving conscience.  Non Jews (normally) don't get offended because Jews keep Kosher laws in their personal life or in their businesses.  They don't demand a Jewish deli serve them a ham sandwich.  They do get angry when a religion speaks on a topic which the conscience also condemns. 

1. Conscience tells us we must not do [X]
2. The Catholic Church tells us we must not do [X]
3. Therefore the Church is accused of causing guilt over [X]

The problem comes when we go from "How Can I Be Just?" to "How Can I Justify This?"

To escape guilt, many move from "How must I act to be just?" to asking "How can I justify my Act?"  It is sometimes argued by moral relativists that there are no absolutes, and right and wrong are entirely dependent on the circumstances, the culture and many other considerations.

This argument is absurd.  If slavery is wrong, it was always wrong and will always be wrong.  A society that practiced it in the past was wrong, even if the society considered it morally acceptable.  It was not wrong in the Northern United States and right in the Southern United States.  Nor was it right prior to 1865 and wrong after 1865.

Likewise, if genocide is wrong, a society which practices it is wrong.  No sane person would argue that because Nazi Germany had the "Final Solution," it was right in Germany but wrong elsewhere.

These two examples show we can indeed know that some things are absolutely (in all cases, circumstances and times) wrong, even if a society practiced them.  We look back to those times with sorrow and revulsion – we DON'T think they were right then but not now.

Indeed, these principles show us something key.  That is the fact that it is irrelevant to appeal to the fact that a thing is popular.  If 99% of the population decides that it is expedient to persecute an innocent 1% of the population, that 99% is wrong, because it is true that it is not right to deliberately harm innocent people. 

If you question this, consider whether it would be right for someone to push your child into the path of a speeding car as a way to warn a larger group of people to get out of the path of the car.

Utilitarianism vs. Catholicism

"Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

- H.L. Mencken

The above question isn't just an imaginary example in poor taste.  This is an application of utilitarianism.

utilitarianism
  ■ noun the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
   ▶      the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

The principles of utilitarianism can be held to different degrees of course, but generally utilitarianism will recognize that no act can harm no person, so if a small number of people are harmed or inconvenienced when the greater good is invoked, that harm can be justified.  This is how the justification of abortion tends to work (even if those taking part in abortion aren't formally utilitarians).  "Even if the unborn is a person, the right to abortion will benefit women, therefore it can be justified."

It also is used to justify the current HHS attack on religion.  "Some religions may be inconvenienced by being forced to pay for contraception and abortion coverage, but more people may benefit from such a requirement.  Therefore religions can be compelled to pay for such coverage."

Ultimately, Utilitarianism justifies tyranny in the name of "good."  If a government program can benefit many at the cost of harming a few (say the rich, landowners, the Jews…) then it is acceptable to harm the few to benefit the many.  That kind of utilitarianism can be brutal (Nazism, Stalinism) or mild (America today), but it still operates under the principle of, "The Ends Justify the Means."

The danger of course is the fact that the person making the decision of what is more important will never put themselves in the position of being "less important" – though they might consider placing YOU in that category.

In contrast, the Catholic position says, evil may never be done so good may come from it.  This isn't merely two conflicting ideologies.  This is a statement on the importance of the human person.  Under Utilitarianism, a conservative could argue, "Since most AIDS cases come from homosexuals, we should place all homosexuals in relocation camps.  Many would benefit and only a few would be harmed."

The Catholic view would condemn that view because such a view treats human persons as mere pawns to be used instead of looking at them as persons who must be treated as persons even if they do wrong (whether by choice or by disordered passion).  That doesn't mean we treat felons as if they were innocent, or treat homosexuality as the same as heterosexuality.  That which is wrong must be opposed, even if the person doing wrong thinks it is right.

It does mean we may not treat a person as if he were less than human because he is a felon, because he is not white, because he is religious and so on.

Conclusion

The difference between the view of utilitarianism (so prominent in America today) and the Catholic view can be summed up this way:

The Golden Rule states that we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  Would we have others treat us as a means to an end where we can be harmed for a greater good?  No?  Then we must not treat others in such a way.

Ultimately, we must then do what is good and avoid what is evil in all our actions.

QED.

Waterboarding and Torture

Read more »