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.

Propaganda and Lies: Jesus Didn't Say Anything About X

Just an early morning post.  This one isn't particularly in depth.

On a recent Facebook discussion on homosexuality, a person offered the argument that Christ did not say anything against homosexuality, therefore homosexuality was not wrong.

This is the fallacy of the Argument from Silence.  To argue there is no evidence against [X], therefore [X] must be true.

We can demonstrate the problem with such an argument by pointing out Bestiality, Necrophilia and Pedophilia are not condemned by Christ either, so they must be morally acceptable.

And before you send hate mail, claiming that I am saying that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, see THIS article.

Christ was not some hippy type saying "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you love each other."  Rather Christ has said:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15)

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)

"If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." (Matt 18:17)

Moreover, Christ had this to say:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.  Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-19)

This is the problem with people taking the Scriptures in whatever sense pleases them without considering context.  Jesus did for example, command people to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34 and John 15:12), but He also commanded people to do what is right and reject evil.

Christianity recognizes that we are to love others – even sinners.  However, it does not follow from this that all sin must be accepted as good.  Christ telling us not to judge (Matt 7:1-5) does not mean there is no sin.  It means we are not to write people off as being irredeemable.  The parallel passage in Luke (6:37) shows that this is about forgiveness, not tolerance.

But forgiveness presumes wrongdoing.  If a person washes my car and gives me fifty dollars, he hasn't done something that requires forgiveness.  If he damages my car and steals fifty dollars from me, he has done something which requires forgiveness and in this, Christ has said that the measure I use will be used against me.

Taking Bible verses out of context to justify a political stance is a distortion just as ridiculous as citing the Declaration of Independence to support being a colony of Britain.

Propaganda and Lies: Jesus Didn't Say Anything About X

Just an early morning post.  This one isn't particularly in depth.

On a recent Facebook discussion on homosexuality, a person offered the argument that Christ did not say anything against homosexuality, therefore homosexuality was not wrong.

This is the fallacy of the Argument from Silence.  To argue there is no evidence against [X], therefore [X] must be true.

We can demonstrate the problem with such an argument by pointing out Bestiality, Necrophilia and Pedophilia are not condemned by Christ either, so they must be morally acceptable.

And before you send hate mail, claiming that I am saying that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, see THIS article.

Christ was not some hippy type saying "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you love each other."  Rather Christ has said:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15)

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)

"If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." (Matt 18:17)

Moreover, Christ had this to say:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.  Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-19)

This is the problem with people taking the Scriptures in whatever sense pleases them without considering context.  Jesus did for example, command people to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34 and John 15:12), but He also commanded people to do what is right and reject evil.

Christianity recognizes that we are to love others – even sinners.  However, it does not follow from this that all sin must be accepted as good.  Christ telling us not to judge (Matt 7:1-5) does not mean there is no sin.  It means we are not to write people off as being irredeemable.  The parallel passage in Luke (6:37) shows that this is about forgiveness, not tolerance.

But forgiveness presumes wrongdoing.  If a person washes my car and gives me fifty dollars, he hasn't done something that requires forgiveness.  If he damages my car and steals fifty dollars from me, he has done something which requires forgiveness and in this, Christ has said that the measure I use will be used against me.

Taking Bible verses out of context to justify a political stance is a distortion just as ridiculous as citing the Declaration of Independence to support being a colony of Britain.

Musings on Freedoms and Attacks on Freedoms

Read more »

Musings on Freedoms and Attacks on Freedoms

Read more »

Propaganda and Lies: Accusation that the Catholic Church wants to force its teachings on all women

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

—Adolph Hitler

The propaganda used by the Obama regime and their supporters since the beginning is the accusation that nobody is trying to impose their views on the Catholic Church, but rather the Catholic Church is trying to force their views on women. 

As HL Mencken put it, "Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."  Mencken is right in this context if we let [A] be the government, [B] the Catholics and [X] being "Reproductive Freedom."  It is false if one argues [A] is the Catholic Bishops, [B] is women and [X] is religious freedom.

That the Catholic Church is NOT injuring the freedom of non-Catholics

This can be simply demonstrated. If the Obama regime withdrew its HHS mandate tomorrow, and things went back to the status quo of January 19th, women would have nothing different than they have today. Catholics, however, would be much better off when it comes to their schools and hospitals; when it comes to the individual Catholic business person.

In other words, the Catholic is constrained by this new mandate, and this imposition is justified by claimed benefits to others.  Women would not be constrained if the mandate was repealed.

It is thus demonstrated that the accusation that the Catholic teaching is trying to impose their views on women is false.

That the Obama regime IS injuring the religious freedom of Catholics

On the other side, it can be definitely shown that the HHS mandate is an imposition on Catholics who believe contraception is a moral evil.  The mandate declares that any institution or business which is not explicitly religious in nature (hiring and serving Catholics exclusively) cannot be considered protected when it comes to the free practice of religion.

Such a decision is certainly an imposition on Catholics telling them that, if they hire or serve non-Catholics, their business cannot be considered to be protected under the First Amendment.  The problem with such a claim is that Catholic individuals have rights to establish businesses which they run in conformity with their Catholic faith.  The Catholic Church certainly has the right to run hospitals and schools – hiring those best suited for the job and serving all without concern of their beliefs – which they run according to what they believe to be in keeping with their service to God (see Matt 25:31-46).

A person who chooses to work at a Catholic university or hospital is not forced to do so.  We don't have a draft which compels people to work for us.  If a person freely chooses to work for a Catholic employer, it stands to reason that the institution or place of business will be run by Catholic beliefs and that the person hired should be willing to tolerate those beliefs if they want to work at this institution or place of business.  The person who chooses to work at a Catholic institution or place of business, but demands that the Catholics set their beliefs aside for him or her, is in fact the one who is guilty of trying to impose their beliefs on others.

That the government sides with those individuals who try to impose their views on Catholic businesses and institutions in the name of a "greater good" shows that the government is injuring our Constitutional right to practicing religious freedom in public and private.

The Question of Whether Americans should follow the Catholic Teaching is a separate issue

Now Catholics do believe that contraception is intrinsically (in all times, places and circumstances) wrong and that all people should recognize this.  However the Church also recognizes that a majority of Americans – including many American denominations – do not accept what we teach.  Under such circumstances, the most the Church can do is to insist that those who call themselves Catholic live in accord with what they claim to be, while trying to teach others why the Catholic view is true and not merely a preference.  Perhaps, eventually if enough Americans accept the truth about the nature of human sexuality, laws could be passed recognizing the truth.  However, the bishops are not trying to secretly implement a "Sharia" type law on all Americans.

The fight that the Catholic bishops have to fight is over the government telling Catholics that they must pay for services they find morally unacceptable (the insurers naturally passing on the costs of contraceptives to the rates the Catholic employers must pay).  Accusations that the Catholics are imposing their views on women is in fact a Big Lie, repeated to the point that people accept it to be true without question.