This "gay rights" thing has me thinking. I was particularly struck with all the news coverage about how wonderful it was that homosexuals can now engage in what has been redefined as "marriage" in California. No one questioned whether it was a good thing. Of course it was! But have you noticed how this is supposed to work? While a majority of people in our society believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, the California Supreme Court has decided, along with most homosexuals, that they don't care. They don't care what you think. They don't care what you believe to be moral or not. What they believe to be moral is what matters, so what they believe to be moral is what they should be allowed to do.
They like to compare "gay rights" to "civil rights". They should be allowed to override your moral beliefs because they are being denied their civil rights ... just as black people were denied theirs. The connection between the rights of black people and how homosexuals are just like that is vague, but we all seem pretty sure it's there. Well, you may be sure. I don't get it.
And you kind folks, you're perfectly right in having whatever moral beliefs you like ... as long as they don't collide with what this extreme minority wants. An example is found in New Mexico where a photographer was sued for failing to take pictures of a homosexual commitment ceremony. Now, I've always understood that privately-owned businesses always had the right to refuse service to whomever they pleased. I've even seen the sign before. But it's not the case anymore, I guess. Do you have moral beliefs that would prevent you from providing your service to homosexuals? Then you had better close up shop, because it is a violation of human rights.
Now, when I was younger, it seemed like a different world. I understand that there have always been immoral people -- hey, we're humans -- but it never seemed like they were defending it in court. My grandfather never considered himself a Christian. He classified himself as an agnostic ... who couldn't see any reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of God. One thing that fascinated me about my grandfather was that he always admired my father's moral virtue. He was convinced that my father's values were the right ones, even if he himself couldn't stick to them. That's the way it seemed to be in the past. Most of us were in agreement that Judeo-Christian morality was a good thing, even when some people weren't actually Jewish or Christian.
This is no longer the case. You are free to have your moral beliefs, but please don't bring them into the public square. You're encouraged to believe what you want as long as what you believe doesn't have any ramifications for anyone but you. Our society is no longer agreed on what is good and what is bad, and we are not going to discuss it. That is, we are not going to talk about the basis for morality or provide any actual reasons for what we believe is right or wrong. If I want to do it, it's right. If you disagree, get out of my way. You're just a narrow-minded moralist. And probably too stupid to listen to anyway, considering your outdated perceptions ...
Somehow this change in our culture doesn't strike me as a good one.
10 comments:
Are you saying what the majority of society “feels” is what determines morality?
Always cautious about the use of language, I am saying that we have arrived at the point where most people believe that a society determines what is moral and immoral by whatever they currently think is moral and immoral. There is no basis in some root ethics. There isn't, really, even consensus. More and more, people seem to be deciding "whatever I view as moral is moral."
Stan: …I am saying that we have arrived at the point where most people believe that a society determines what is moral and immoral by whatever they currently think is moral and immoral.
Mmmm…haven’t societies always done this? Have we really reached some new playing field? Sure, many societies have added a god or religion to bolster the claim of what is moral or not—but in the end it is a society which determines what is moral or not.
Jews use different measuring sticks for what is moral. Some utilize YHWH as basis to do so, some don’t. Muslims use the claims of Allah to bolster their view of what is moral or not. Some things you and I would find distinctly immoral, they justify as being very moral.
Going back to slavery, when the vast predominance of societies practiced it—it was moral. Times change. Now it is immoral. (And Christians on both sides of the fence have used the excuse of what they say their God says to support the claims for/against slavery.)
In the end, societies have a large impact on claims of morality. Because societies change; morals change.
Not saying you have to like it, or prefer it. But can you demonstrate morals are NOT based upon morality without assuming the conclusion?
"Sure, many societies have added a god or religion to bolster the claim of what is moral or not ..."
In the past societies have had something to which they all agreed that defined "moral", something outside of their own personal preferences and desires. In the past, even those who violated those moral values (and they did, of course) viewed them as moral values ... just values that they violated. That is, they didn't defend them in court. (Oh, that's what I said in the post.) They didn't take up arms and say, "You're wrong!!! Murdering people is perfectly moral! How dare you thrust your [whatever-based] morality on me??!!"
Morals based on a Moral Lawgiver have weight. Morals based on whatever I darn well please have no significance at all.
(I'm hoping that answered your question, but I'm not entirely clear on what it was. I'm not entirely sure how to demonstrate morality is not based on morality. ;))
Whoops. Meant to say “But can you demonstrate morals are NOT based upon society without assuming the conclusion?”
Stupid question the other way, eh? *grin*
Stan: Morals based on a Moral Lawgiver have weight.
And if I thought this was true, wouldn’t I better convince you by claiming there IS a Moral Lawgiver? And then going on and claiming what that Moral Lawgiver says must be true?
Yet that doesn’t mean there is a Moral Lawgiver—all that means is I am using whatever means necessary to convince you. Societies for a long, long time have recognized the value of religious belief as effective tool for claiming what is moral.
If you look through the course of history, people have claimed a Moral Lawgiver gave a moral. Yet you would hold such a moral no weight (because you don’t believe that particular Moral Lawgiver exists.) Aztecs felt it was “moral” to spill blood to have the gods happy enough to keep the sun going ‘round. Muslims find it moral to strap bombs on their chests and kill civilians.
Christian Science thinks it moral to withhold medical treatment. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Each one of those claims there is a Moral Lawgiver, and is attempting to convince the followers (and others) that this gives their claims more “weight.”
I would think you agree these morals are ill-founded. Yet would you call them “insignificant”? Would the followers? What makes your Moral Lawgiver, and your “weight” and different than theirs? Why is their set of morals “society-imposed” and yours not?
Well, of course, my Lawgiver is better than any other because mine is real. :)
No, I'm not even going there right now. Perhaps the Moslem morality is ill-founded. Perhaps the Aztecs were mistaken. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian morality has been around for ... well, a long time, and it works quite well.
All of that aside, our society has decided that none of that matters. They ask, essentially, what you do: What makes yours right and others wrong? The question doesn't actually seek an answer. It seeks an excuse. "You can't impose yours on everyone. We can do whatever we please." I'm not complaining that my moral basis isn't observed. I'm pointing out that no consistent moral basis is observed. When there is no basis for morality, the argument, "My moral view is valid" is pointless.
Stan,
What is the difference between “Judeo-Christian” and “Christian”? I find the term “Judeo-Christian” to generally mean “Christian.” I wonder if the “Judeo-“ is added to make it more ancient….
Yes, Christianity has been around for a long time. But not as long as Judaism. Or Buddhism or Hinduism or Taoism or Confucius.
Stan: I'm not complaining that my moral basis isn't observed. I'm pointing out that no consistent moral basis is observed.
Where is it written that a moral basis must be consistent? Again—times change. Words change. Interest rates fluctuate. Why is “change” inherently wrong to you? And of course you are complaining your moral basis isn’t observed. (Not that there is anything wrong with that. We all complain.) You want “a consistent moral basis.” You don’t think it is being observed (do you?) You are complaining! Ta-da! *grin*
What I observe, within the perpetual discussion on morals, is this underlying concept that consistent (or absolute or objective) moral basis is “better.” Even if it was—the first question we need to address is whether it even exists. If it does not—there is little point in discussing whether it is “better” or not.
I think it would be “better” to have the ability to fly. We cannot. Due to the fact “ability for humans to fly” is non-existent—shouldn’t we move on to other ways to get from point A to point B?
In the same way, if there is no absolute or consistent or objective moral, or if there isn’t a Moral Lawgiver, shouldn’t we do what society does—debate and discuss the implication of moral decisions within the society in which we live? I do not see it as an excuse. Well…not always, anyway. I see it as an area of great impact that should be seriously addressed.
"Judeo-Christian" is the continuity that started with Judaism and continued through Christianity. It includes things like "the 10 Commandments", hospitality, charity, integrity, that kind of stuff.
Change is not inherently wrong. Change is bad when it tosses what is good for what is worse. Those are the changes I am commenting on.
By "consistent" I simply meant "one that we can agree on" or, more correctly, one with a solid base that gives it credence.
So ... discarding absolutes and "Judeo-Christian ethic" ... you guys are on your own. Without a Lawgiver no moral values can have any implications for anyone. Morality goes out the window and we're left with a pragmatism in which each individual can decide for yourself, "What works for me?" We might have a discussion about what is or isn't moral, but in the end it has no teeth, no authority, no necessity.
But the interesting thing to me is that this is fairly new. Like I said, for as long as I can remember, it was a given that the Judeo-Christian ethic was the baseline we went by, even if you weren't Jewish or Christian. And without that ethic, I don't believe that democracy can survive.
Stan,
I don’t know much about you. I don’t know the color of your hair, nor your favorite desert. But I do know you like precision in your definition. And this definition of “Judeo-Christian” is a bit…waffley.
Tell me something that is distinctly Judeo-Christian and NOT Christian. Look at the items you listed: “things like ‘the 10 Commandments’, hospitality, charity, integrity, that kind of stuff. “ Doesn’t Christianity hold to the 10 Commandments? Is it not Christian to be hospitable, charitable, etc? Don’t you say the Christian God is the same as the YHWH of the Tanakh? Isn’t the Tanakh (after modified and slightly re-worked) entitled “Old Testament” and part of your inspired Holy Writings?
I understand Christianity is attempting to make itself look more ancient by adding “Judeo-“ to “Christian” as if its heritage goes back to Abraham, but that is already part of Christianity! It is not as if there are Christians who claim Christianity “popped” on the scene for the first time in the First Century. We understand the underlay of prophecy and interaction of the Christian God claimed to go back as recorded in Jewish history.
What is something in “Judeo-Christian” distinct from something in “Christian”?
Stan: Change is bad when it tosses what is good for what is worse.
Was the “change” from slavery to non-slavery bad? Was the change from polygamy to non-polygamy bad? Was the change from racism to non-racism good?
You make judgment calls on those (and other) questions. We all do. But why is it acceptable for you to make such a judgment call, and others may not? Your complaint (if I can use that term) was:
Stan: …I am saying that we have arrived at the point where most people believe that a society determines what is moral and immoral by whatever they currently think is moral and immoral.
Aren’t you doing the same thing you claim others are? Making a judgment call as to what is “good” or “bad” or “worse” based upon how you feel? See, many would say the change from slavery to non-slavery was bad—whereas you would say it was good. Many would say the change from racism to non-racism was bad—whereas you would say it is good.
Now, many are saying the change in letting homosexuals marry is good—whereas you say it is bad. How can you complain that others make such determinations, when you do as well? (And please, this is not even remotely an accusation of hypocrisy. This is an attempt to show you that you are human—making moral decisions and obtaining justification for that moral decision. Just like we all do.)
Again, even assuming America has had a Christian ethic for 100’s of years. Why is age a determinative of correctness? I don’t get this argument of “we have done it for a long time—so it must be true.” I get the argument, “I claim there is a God who other humans wrote out what this God says is moral or not”—I understand that argument for morality. What I do not understand is this: “We have always done it this way.”
Let me turn this around a bit. Do you believe in missions? Do you believe in sending missionaries to Hindu countries with the specific mission of converting Hindus to Christianity? Even though their society has had a Hindu ethic for longer than Christianity has been in existence?
I presume you do. Why? Because you think the Moral Lawgiver as depicted within your Christian God is correct, whereas the Moral Lawgiver as depicted within Hindu Gods is not. It has nothing to do with how many years a society has practiced a certain religious ethical system.
If you believe in missions you would send missionaries to Africa to modify their society’s ethical system, regardless of how long it has been in place. You would send missionaries to China, Japan, Nepal, etc.
Or are you saying, “Wait a minute. We shouldn’t change their society ethical systems because ‘Christianity’ is fairly new. It is a given that the Hindu [or Buddhist or Taoist or African] ethic is the baseline they go by, even if you weren't Hindu [or Buddhist or Taoist or African.]”?
What I see are Christians who have no problem with sending missionaries to modify another society and its ethical systems to conform to Christianity. Through missionary work. There is no consideration for the history or length of time the society and ethical system has been in place. Why?—because it is incorrect in the Christian’s mind.
But when the Christian’s society is changed, all of a sudden there is this statement, “Hey, we have done this a long, long time. This is history. This is what was ‘normal.’ We can’t change.” Why not?
[This last comment comes across harsher than I mean it to. I tried to lighten it a bit, but it still seems…accusatory. I am really only trying to discuss these interesting implications. You raise a good point in that without a Moral Lawgiver, arguing morals becomes more difficult. Harder to give it as much “teeth” as you say.
Anyway, I think this is important to post, but because of my own tone here, I will not post any more on this blog entry.
Out of all of my blathering, the thing I am most curious about is how to create a distinction between “Judeo-Christian” and “Christian.’ The rest we can go ‘round and ‘round on.]
"Christian" would be, for instance, the doctrine of the Trinity. You don't find that in Jewish theology.
In another time and another place to another person I commented using the term "Islamofascist", employing a common term that everyone understood as a reference to a particular sect of Islam that wanted to destroy all non-Moslems. The term was unacceptable and there was actually a fight over the term. Now "Judeo-Christian" is a problem. I didn't make the term up. I didn't coin it. I don't have anything to prove with it. It has been the term used to describe the basic ethical system employed in the United States. I've always thought that the point was to include the Jewish ethics rather than make Christianity appear older than it really is. But if the term is so offensive to you, I won't fight over it.
And I suppose I won't get across my concern. It isn't "change". It is change from what is good to what is not. I determine "what is good" by what I believe. That's what everyone does. You will do the same. I believe in Christianity, Christianity has been the norm here, and Christianity is good, so throwing it out is bad. That would be my view and since my blog is about my view, that's what I presented.
Post a Comment