Like Button

Monday, July 08, 2019

Subjective Morality

A Starbucks in Tempe, AZ, last week opted to remove 6 Tempe police officers because a customer complained that they were making the customer feel unsafe. Now, as the barista involved, numerically you might think, "Well, I can eject one snowflake who hates cops or 6 officers that are buying coffee and making this place safer" or morally you might think, "We cannot let irrational feelings determine right and wrong here" or you might think as a member of the community, "I should do this customer a favor and teach them the value of having law enforcement and the irrationality of fear brought on by overblown media stories," but none of those occurred. Many people don't think that way anymore. The rule is not "business" or "economics" (Do we even know what that is anymore?) or "the greater good." The rule is largely simple today -- you must not for any reason make those of the protected classes feel uncomfortable.

I say "protected classes" because it is absolutely clear that "uncomfortable" is not a sin when done to certain categories. It is absolutely okay to make a white person feel uncomfortable ... for being white. In fact, making a white person feel uncomfortable for being white is a virtue. In religious terms, there are some you can offend and some you can't. Muslims must not be offended, but Christians can. In terms of authority, if you have to offend someone, offend a police officer or a government entity, not a customer or a citizen. Men deserve to be shamed; women deserve to be offense-free. We've just built up, in the last few years it seems, this massive new rule that "offended" is the ultimate evil if you are in the "protected class" and shaming is a delight if you are not.

Actually we've arrived at what I consider to be a terrifying place. With our "separation of Church and State" as the seed and the growing antipathy against all things Christian as the medium, we've cultured a society that has no solid footing for determining "moral." So now we go with "feelings" as the ultimate determination of right and wrong. Of course, some people might deny this and others might embrace it. "No," they'd say, "that's good!" What we do not have, however, is an objective standard for right and wrong, and this puts us in a dangerous place. When society (more accurately, the largest voices that can influence public opinion the most) determines that X is right and Y is wrong, then anything goes. The possibilities are endless ... and often not pleasant. In Hitler's Germany, the society as a whole embraced the hatred of Jews and homosexuals. In Communist countries the government is worshiped and individuals demeaned. In Muslim countries there is little religious freedom or tolerance. When Man determines right and wrong apart from an objective moral standard, things can really turn ugly. With objective morality removed and subjective morality as the rule, expect things to get ugly ... and that ugly to be celebrated.

5 comments:

Craig said...

If morality is subjectively determined by society, then things like slavery and genocide can be moral.

Yet numerous Christians argue that morality cannot be objective and that there is no objective morality that can be discovered by humans.

These folx want to claim that some things are “always immoral”, yet cling to denying the existence of objective morals.

Stan said...

It is a dilemma, isn't it? (At least, for some.)

Craig said...

I think the problem is, that it’s not a dilemma. There are folx who have no problem asserting that X is always, under and circumstances, absolutely wrong while denying the existence of objective morality. Not only denying the existence, but actively asserting that morality is subjective.

It boggles the mind.

Stan said...

Well, a problem in the sense that if you want to be considered rational and consistent it's a problem.

Craig said...

Rational and consistent? Seriously?