Tweet
It has been said by Alfred N. Whitehead, that morality is what the majority in any given time or place happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike. If I believe in stealing candies from a baby or having sex with someone’s wife is alright if she consented, is that wrong? If we disagree, who is right? If there is no point of moral reference, who is right or wrong? In fact, is there anything right or wrong at all?
We live our lives based on our sense of right and wrong and somehow are aware of the things we ought to do. When we don’t do that which we ought to do, we feel something called guilt, emanating from our conscience. Is that feeling universal among us all or are some people exceptions to having a conscience? Actions, in economics, as Ludwig von Mises, and Carl Menger before him, have shown, are subjective. Economics has nothing to say about what actions ought to be taking place, but only that actions take place and they vary from individual to individual. What actions are correct and incorrect, and what actions ought to take place, belong solely in the sphere of morality and religion. When people make statements such as "All things are relative", or "All things are subjective", they are stating an objective statement, thereby making a contradiction. If all things are subjective, how can that be, for that statement itself is implied objectively?
I am a traditionalist, and it should be no secret that a belief in God, is a traditionalist view, and that morality is hopelessly tied to it, as well accompanies it. Hence, it would make me a moral objectivist. There exist beliefs that are correct and beliefs that are incorrect. What is correct is what works and what is not is what does not. To deny this is to uphold social idiocies that nothing is truly right or wrong, but my guess is even the staunchest relativists have an inkling sense of right and wrong, especially when it is harm to their person or property. Certainly no one likes gluttony, envy, sloth, greed, indolence, betrayal or selfishness, or did we make this up? There exist things that are permanent, and things that are not. When I refer to permanent things I am obviously referring not to material things, but spiritual things, what Kant referred to as the "moral law within".
There are those who believe that morality stands as erect as the Oak tree and that there are eternal moral verities and our awareness of them can never be eradicated from the human heart. This was the position of St. Augustine, as well as St. Aquinas. This is the one I happen to agree with, that, mores and customs change over time, but morals and moral laws hold firm. Then there are those that contend that the moral law is not objective and in fact, there are no objective moral laws. Everything is subjective and human nature, or what we refer to as "conscience", are malleable and can be shaped, reshaped, socially constructed, or eradicated by social engineering. This position lies along the lines of Marx and Freud and of behaviorism as well as Statists, and hence it is no surprising that the latter position has accelerated growth in atheism. It should be clear, while atheism and agnosticism carry different tenets, when we speak of morality, they do not, because morality is either absolute, or it is no morality at all, and in this sense, atheism and agnosticism do not differ, since both eventually imply relativism.
I've made mention of this before in the topic regarding homosexuality (this topic shouldn't be focused on homosexuality), and I will mention it again. Why do some people and not others deny objective truths? Why are they afraid of no contradictions? And it is never syllogisms that threaten these people. It is never two plus two. It is never logic, or the law of causality. The one thing that threatens them is morality because if there were objective moral truths, that would mean that morality is not a subjective, and vague area to wonder about, but rather about hard, precise, uncompromising laws. And as I've stated before, the relativists are very selective, and almost always hovering in on one area with their relativism, and not surprisingly it is sex.
As one of the people honest enough to admit this problem of mans weakness to sex was the greatest theologian and thinker St. Augustine who stated what truly kept him away from the Church for a while was sex, and he admits that in his Confessions, "The plain fact was, I thought I should be impossibly miserable without the embraces of a mistress."
So then why is morality elastic? Is it okay to engage in sexual activity before marriage? Is it okay to engage in sexual promiscuity to satisfy ones bodily wants? Let it suffice that just because people are engaging in a certain behavior, does not make it morally right. There are all sorts of people acting subjectively, but whether or not their actions are correct, that is entirely a different matter. To suggest that one remain a virgin until marriage, or not engage in sex for materialistic pleasure, evokes laffter from the pluralistic society, from the “skeptics”, from the “free thinkers” who do not need “religion” since it is a “prison for the mind”, from the self-styled "rationalists" that have found every way to rationalize their every actions and whims, no matter how wrong it may be. "It is a matter of individual choice", to which I reply, "Amen", for it is a matter of individual choice. However, that still does not answer the wrongness or rightness of one's actions. One can make many individual choices, yet what does it prove? That only validates Mises’ case about praxaeology - which means humans act. To simply state that virginity for a female is imposed by patriarchy and not by choice, or that men cannot control their sexual promiscuity and are slaves to hormones, are the senseless things which we have come to accept as "truths".
C.S. Lewis recognized that morality flows in all cultures, and that "All the human beings that history has heard of acknowledge some kind of morality; that is, they feel towards certain proposed actions the experiences expressed by the words 'I ought' or 'I ought not'". And usually we fail to live up to this law. In speaking of different civilizations through different times and places, he notes, "How very alike they are to each other and our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired."
Usually people say "My morals are different from yours. To me mine are better, who are you to say or judge?". Lewis answered, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another you are in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other...the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are in fact comparing them both with some real morality, admitting there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others".
It is not surprising nor is it coincidental, that the same people that tend to stand for moral relativism, are usually also the ones stand for homosexuality, for promiscuity, for self-gratification and hedonism, for adultery, etc., and have usually been and usually are atheists or agnostics, those who are not religious, those who do not believe in God. The issue is clear cut. You are either a believer in God or you are not. You are either of the persuasion that man is a spiritual being, or he is not, and is simply a material animal made to toil and enjoy the material pleasures. You are either a believer in strong unyielding moral laws, or pliable mores, because there is no morality without absolutes. But with that said, there are no absolutes without a God, and you will see in life that those who do not believe in absolutes are usually those who are either atheists or agnostics. And it should be clear that without morality there is no civilization. But modern secular society is the first civilization that has discarded the Tao, and that is another obvious lesson we take to bed in our consciences from the tides of history. So in summation without religion, there is no objective morality, without objectivity there is no real morality at all, and without real morality, there is no civilization.
So with morality is a deeper piercing issue than one cares to admit, for it goes into the whole essence of why, of how, of relating to material or spiritual existence, of what purpose we serve, of what actions we should engage in. And those of the material persuasion hope to find happiness and fulfillment and meaning in this world by believing in the creature not the creator. Those of the spiritual persuasion, seek things beyond the material world, whether or not religion and God are for "weak minded people" who "need something to believe in".
And what I said in the homosexuality thread applies as well, for as St. Aquinas said, "Man cannot live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joy necessarily turns to carnal pleasures." The same is true of societies and of individuals alike. When belief in God is no longer the catch phrase, as in the modern secular-Statist societies, the replacement is worship of self, of the State, or what we refer to as idolatry, of fabricating our own ideologies and "creating our own values". If we do not worship God we worship ourselves, there is no way out since we are all as humans, conformists and natural worshippers and must conform to something. Will it be the correct ideas or the incorrect ideas?
We live our lives based on our sense of right and wrong and somehow are aware of the things we ought to do. When we don’t do that which we ought to do, we feel something called guilt, emanating from our conscience. Is that feeling universal among us all or are some people exceptions to having a conscience? Actions, in economics, as Ludwig von Mises, and Carl Menger before him, have shown, are subjective. Economics has nothing to say about what actions ought to be taking place, but only that actions take place and they vary from individual to individual. What actions are correct and incorrect, and what actions ought to take place, belong solely in the sphere of morality and religion. When people make statements such as "All things are relative", or "All things are subjective", they are stating an objective statement, thereby making a contradiction. If all things are subjective, how can that be, for that statement itself is implied objectively?
I am a traditionalist, and it should be no secret that a belief in God, is a traditionalist view, and that morality is hopelessly tied to it, as well accompanies it. Hence, it would make me a moral objectivist. There exist beliefs that are correct and beliefs that are incorrect. What is correct is what works and what is not is what does not. To deny this is to uphold social idiocies that nothing is truly right or wrong, but my guess is even the staunchest relativists have an inkling sense of right and wrong, especially when it is harm to their person or property. Certainly no one likes gluttony, envy, sloth, greed, indolence, betrayal or selfishness, or did we make this up? There exist things that are permanent, and things that are not. When I refer to permanent things I am obviously referring not to material things, but spiritual things, what Kant referred to as the "moral law within".
There are those who believe that morality stands as erect as the Oak tree and that there are eternal moral verities and our awareness of them can never be eradicated from the human heart. This was the position of St. Augustine, as well as St. Aquinas. This is the one I happen to agree with, that, mores and customs change over time, but morals and moral laws hold firm. Then there are those that contend that the moral law is not objective and in fact, there are no objective moral laws. Everything is subjective and human nature, or what we refer to as "conscience", are malleable and can be shaped, reshaped, socially constructed, or eradicated by social engineering. This position lies along the lines of Marx and Freud and of behaviorism as well as Statists, and hence it is no surprising that the latter position has accelerated growth in atheism. It should be clear, while atheism and agnosticism carry different tenets, when we speak of morality, they do not, because morality is either absolute, or it is no morality at all, and in this sense, atheism and agnosticism do not differ, since both eventually imply relativism.
I've made mention of this before in the topic regarding homosexuality (this topic shouldn't be focused on homosexuality), and I will mention it again. Why do some people and not others deny objective truths? Why are they afraid of no contradictions? And it is never syllogisms that threaten these people. It is never two plus two. It is never logic, or the law of causality. The one thing that threatens them is morality because if there were objective moral truths, that would mean that morality is not a subjective, and vague area to wonder about, but rather about hard, precise, uncompromising laws. And as I've stated before, the relativists are very selective, and almost always hovering in on one area with their relativism, and not surprisingly it is sex.
As one of the people honest enough to admit this problem of mans weakness to sex was the greatest theologian and thinker St. Augustine who stated what truly kept him away from the Church for a while was sex, and he admits that in his Confessions, "The plain fact was, I thought I should be impossibly miserable without the embraces of a mistress."
So then why is morality elastic? Is it okay to engage in sexual activity before marriage? Is it okay to engage in sexual promiscuity to satisfy ones bodily wants? Let it suffice that just because people are engaging in a certain behavior, does not make it morally right. There are all sorts of people acting subjectively, but whether or not their actions are correct, that is entirely a different matter. To suggest that one remain a virgin until marriage, or not engage in sex for materialistic pleasure, evokes laffter from the pluralistic society, from the “skeptics”, from the “free thinkers” who do not need “religion” since it is a “prison for the mind”, from the self-styled "rationalists" that have found every way to rationalize their every actions and whims, no matter how wrong it may be. "It is a matter of individual choice", to which I reply, "Amen", for it is a matter of individual choice. However, that still does not answer the wrongness or rightness of one's actions. One can make many individual choices, yet what does it prove? That only validates Mises’ case about praxaeology - which means humans act. To simply state that virginity for a female is imposed by patriarchy and not by choice, or that men cannot control their sexual promiscuity and are slaves to hormones, are the senseless things which we have come to accept as "truths".
C.S. Lewis recognized that morality flows in all cultures, and that "All the human beings that history has heard of acknowledge some kind of morality; that is, they feel towards certain proposed actions the experiences expressed by the words 'I ought' or 'I ought not'". And usually we fail to live up to this law. In speaking of different civilizations through different times and places, he notes, "How very alike they are to each other and our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired."
Usually people say "My morals are different from yours. To me mine are better, who are you to say or judge?". Lewis answered, "The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another you are in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other...the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are in fact comparing them both with some real morality, admitting there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others".
It is not surprising nor is it coincidental, that the same people that tend to stand for moral relativism, are usually also the ones stand for homosexuality, for promiscuity, for self-gratification and hedonism, for adultery, etc., and have usually been and usually are atheists or agnostics, those who are not religious, those who do not believe in God. The issue is clear cut. You are either a believer in God or you are not. You are either of the persuasion that man is a spiritual being, or he is not, and is simply a material animal made to toil and enjoy the material pleasures. You are either a believer in strong unyielding moral laws, or pliable mores, because there is no morality without absolutes. But with that said, there are no absolutes without a God, and you will see in life that those who do not believe in absolutes are usually those who are either atheists or agnostics. And it should be clear that without morality there is no civilization. But modern secular society is the first civilization that has discarded the Tao, and that is another obvious lesson we take to bed in our consciences from the tides of history. So in summation without religion, there is no objective morality, without objectivity there is no real morality at all, and without real morality, there is no civilization.
So with morality is a deeper piercing issue than one cares to admit, for it goes into the whole essence of why, of how, of relating to material or spiritual existence, of what purpose we serve, of what actions we should engage in. And those of the material persuasion hope to find happiness and fulfillment and meaning in this world by believing in the creature not the creator. Those of the spiritual persuasion, seek things beyond the material world, whether or not religion and God are for "weak minded people" who "need something to believe in".
And what I said in the homosexuality thread applies as well, for as St. Aquinas said, "Man cannot live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joy necessarily turns to carnal pleasures." The same is true of societies and of individuals alike. When belief in God is no longer the catch phrase, as in the modern secular-Statist societies, the replacement is worship of self, of the State, or what we refer to as idolatry, of fabricating our own ideologies and "creating our own values". If we do not worship God we worship ourselves, there is no way out since we are all as humans, conformists and natural worshippers and must conform to something. Will it be the correct ideas or the incorrect ideas?
(but I am just dropping by...)
I am sure you can multitask like me.
Comment