A lot of people over the last few years have complained that folks aren't as considerate as they once were. Now, you might think it's because old people are crotchety, but I'm even hearing it from younger folk. There was a time that we would open doors or let people in front of us in traffic or "ladies first" or ... well, a host of things -- "Common courtesy." And, they tell me, common courtesy is not really common anymore.
As a nation we've decided that a woman should have the right to terminate life at will as long as it's inside her body at the time. Science assures us that this is a human life. But that's okay. A "women's reproductive rights" are far more important than this human life, and we'll do all we can to insure that she can execute it if she wants. Recently Australian Kerry Robertson, 61, became the first to use the new "assisted dying" laws to allow "the empowered death that she wanted." Assisted suicide is legal on the entire Left coast of our country, Colorado, and a few northeastern states. Coming soon to a state near you, likely.
So what does the decline of common courtesy and the rise of elective murder have to do with each other? I would say they are symptoms of the same problem. Christianity (and Judaism) has long held that humans were made in the image of God. So where Christianity prevails, there is a real value placed on human life. For as long as that kind of thinking has maintained a strong influence, abortion and euthanasia have been illegal. But we've put that to rest, haven't we?
America is no longer a nation heavily influenced by a Judeo-Christian ethic. We've decided that Nothing made everything, that humans are a cosmic accident, and thank Evolution for that. With this revised mindset we get a legislator pushing for increased abortion of humans on one hand and the defense of cankerworms on the other. With this kind of thinking, defending the most vulnerable is no longer important just because they're human. With this new ethic, for what possible reason might we expect "common courtesy"? Why should "he" show preference to "she" or why would you expect someone to show deference to you? Self-interest is all there is.
I think our modern cultural ethic is showing signs of the obvious outcome. Saying that humans are valuable is mere speciesism. It is hubris. Since there is no Creator who endows rights or value, why should we not kill small humans or old ones or show courtesy or ... shoot people en masse? You're going to have to come up with a better answer than "We need better laws" when we have no basis for the value of a human life.
16 comments:
If we devalue human life at any stage, don’t we devalue human life at every stage to some degree?
If kids spend 12 years in school being told that human life is essentially an accident, that there is nothing inherently valuable in human life, wouldn’t they tend to value human life differently?
To your questions I would answer "Yes" not only in theory, but in practice. Not only would it make sense; it's what we are seeing worked out in our daily lives, in our daily interactions, and in the daily news.
In the end it's almost hubris for the secular left to express shock over the horrors of a mass shooting, because it was their teaching that showed the shooter it was merely meat in his sights.
It is indeed when the most prolific mass murderers are the pro-abortionists.
If, as we are told, “nature is red in tooth and claw” and we’re purposeless “computers made of meat” why wouldn’t we live out that worldview.
It’s interesting that one of the shooters appears to be a Satanist, and most of them appear to be nihilistic.
You bring up terminating a life. But preventing a life is also a worthy topic to consider.
I have wondered how different the USA would be if the government had been sterilizing generations of people who fit certain criteria. Just to prime the pump with some examples, sterilization could be applied to-----
* any citizen who reaches age 28 without having paid any federal income tax
* anybody caught engaging in gang activity
* a precondition for release from incarceration for a felony
* an option for an incarcerated individual to take if he or she wants early release
* a precondition for accepting taxpayer aid, such as food or housing
* anybody who fails a drug test
* homeless who are work-shy
* the most disruptive student each school year in each public school classroom, as chosen by the teacher
(It would make sense to also prevent any such sterilized individuals from fostering/adopting children as well, on the assumption that intergenerational bad behavior may not be purely due to genetics, but also stems from poor parenting.)
On a more serious note, common courtesy has all but vanished from today's society.
It also doesn't help that a certain segment of the conversation is insistent on a simplistic one dimensional approach, and ridicules anyone who has the temerity to go against their orthodoxy. It doesn't seem to matter much about evidence, or anything else, it must be the most simplistic, one dimensional answer possible. Of course, it must be driven by racism.
Anonymous, my point is that human life is of great value and our devaluing of it has made it a useless commodity. Throw it out if we want. Kill it if we want. Whatever. I would guess that preventing a life or terminating a life on the types of criteria you suggest would have the same effect. The worst thing about this is that people today don't even seem to know how to think in terms of the value of human life. Just "pragmatism" -- "What works?"
Indeed, Craig, including the common courtesy of "I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt" and "You're certainly entitled to your opinion."
What an odd and varied list of people. Not that I agree that sterilization as punishment is a valid or beneficial deterrent, but would be nigh impossible to guarantee without severe mutilation. Chemical castration and visectomies aren't 100% effective. It also ignores the modern idea of rehabilitating offenders instead of simple punishment. You also won't find any biblical validation for such a severe punishment for unrelated crimes. This would definitely be an example of the punishment not fitting the crime.
I think your pragmatism point is spot on. Our society has adapted a utilitarian worldview filtered through an increasing selfishness. This has definitely contributed to a lack of value of human life. Science tells us life has no meaning or purpose, that blind, random chance is all there is. That we measure value by utility. That it’s perfectly ok to get rid of people who don’t “add value” to the rest of us.
Add to this the fact that we look at violence as entertainment, sex as a commodity, and hatred as a rational form of disagreement, and it’s no wonder we see what we see.
The fact that there’s so much pressure to use tragedy to push agendas despite the evidence just makes it worse.
I was just reading a Twitter thread about objective morality. There were basically two responses.
1. Morality is objective, grounded in an external source.
2. Morality is grounded in a utilitarian worldview.
Currently the "utilitarian worldview" is the popular one and "my utilitarian worldview trumps yours" is the common position.
Yes, it's amusing when those who hold a utilitarian worldview try to treat certain things as if they are objectively immoral, while denying the existence of objective moral standards. It's almost like they see the utility of objective moral standards that they can selectively employ when it benefits them.
In a utilitarian morality, it's simple to say, "You're a hater and I hate you" or "You're intolerant and I won't tolerate you." It's easy to conclude, "We are excluding you because we are inclusive" and "Caring about babies makes you a woman-hater." Nonsense, but reasonable from a utilitarian basis.
I agree. What I find more strange is the fact that a utilitarian worldview offers no reason to condemn slavery and murder as long as those things serve the larger good. Of course the fact that the common good is usually slanted in favor of those in power is a little problem as well.
Post a Comment