Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 25, 2008
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Moral Relativism Is Killing Our Country
by Mike Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The failure to readily identify the battle between good and evil is a nagging, ongoing, dangerous pattern that shows no sign of easing up any time soon.

This week on Fox News Channel, I appeared on a show and “debated” Ibrahim Hooper, a vocal and forceful representative of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. The topic? Whether or not it’s a good idea for a group of Islamic folks, represented by a man once linked by the federal government of plotting to blow up buildings and kill innocent Americans, to be allowed to plaster over a thousand subway cars in New York City with advertisements promoting Islam.

I’m not kidding you.

This man, a Brooklyn imam named Siraj Wahhaj, is all over a promotional video hyping the ad campaign for the trains. According to the New York Post, he has said things like, “In time, democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

He was named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as one of 170 unindicted co-conspirators in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Post reports that he has called the FBI and CIA “the real terrorists.”

And he served as a character witness for “the blink sheik”, Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently rotting in jail for his role as one of the masterminds of the 1993 WTC bombing.

Now, he’s a spokesman for this wacky ad campaign that would attempt to teach people stuck on subway trains in New York City all about the wonders of Islam.

I can’t think of any city on the planet that should have to endure such a cruel taunt. But the idea of doing this to New Yorkers is obscene.

Already a number of NYC officials are calling upon the MTA, the transit agency that runs the subway system, to reject the ill-conceived ad campaign.

This week on the Fox News program, Mr. Hooper attempted to deliver a monologue about what a wonderful man this Siraj Wahhaj is; how those of us who object to the subway ad campaign are trying to prohibit “free speech;” and the old favorite of activists like Hooper, we’re demonstrating anti-Islamic bigotry.

It’s simply astounding that such a debate could even occur in the United States today. Picture what this country felt like in the weeks and months after 9/11. Can you imagine anyone even beginning to allow an advertising campaign promoting Islam, being endorsed and supported by a man the feds believe to be a terrorist, on New York City subways?

And yet we are suffering through the stench of moral relativism. Every position must be countered. Right doesn’t necessarily mean right, wrong might not be wrong.

A brutal, cowardly Arab terrorist who was convicted of bashing a little 4-year old Jewish girl’s head in with a rifle butt is released to Lebanon in exchange for a pair of dead Israeli soldiers. He’s met by adoring, cheering crowds and given a red-carpet welcome.

The Democrat presidential candidate continues to insist that the American military surge in Iraq isn’t really the reason for the overwhelming reduction of violence there.

Our country gives a couple of million minimum wage workers a big hourly pay hike and the mainstream media immediately complains by saying that high gas and food prices make the pay increase irrelevant. And when former Sen. Phil Gramm accurately points out that we’re a nation of whiners and misery sells newspapers, he’s forced to resign from his leadership post in the John McCain campaign.

I yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes this country great. Right and wrong are not relative terms. There are fundamental truths. Evil flourishes, but good men continue to battle it – and win.

Good can and will triumph over evil.

We just have to have the guts to know the difference between the two.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Relativism....relatively inarticulate

Umm....what exactly do any of these examples have to do with moral relativism? Not a blessed thing.

I think it's inappropriate for municipal property to be used for promoting ANY religion. But if it is to be used for promoting, say, the Episcopal Church, how can you call for a prohibition against CAIR promoting Islam? Your justification seems to be that you find an associate of CAIR to be unsavory. He is, but you are arguing FOR moral relativism with this rationale.

What's Relative Here?

Umm....what exactly do any of these examples have to do with moral relativism? Not a blessed thing.

I think it's inappropriate for municipal property to be used for promoting ANY religion. But if it is to be used for promoting, say, the Episcopal Church, how can you call for a prohibition against CAIR promoting Islam? Your justification seems to be that you find an associate of CAIR to be unsavory. He is, but you are arguing FOR moral relativism with this rationale.

What's Relative Here?

Umm....what exactly do any of these examples have to do with moral relativism? Not a blessed thing.

I think it's inappropriate for municipal property to be used for promoting ANY religion. But if it is to be used for promoting, say, the Episcopal Church, how can you call for a prohibition against CAIR promoting Islam? Your justification seems to be that you find an associate of CAIR to be unsavory. He is, but you are arguing FOR moral relativism with this rationale.

What?
How is moral relativism killing the country? Religious extremism is the real killer in this country.

Jack
"It's a matter of whether or not someone finds them evil because at the end of the day evil is a social construction of peoples' bias."

Somehow I don't think you'd see it that way if someone robbed your house. As I said earlier, you remind me of a poster I once saw in a Hallmark store. It depicted Snoopy walking off a tennis court. He was wearing a visor and carrying a racket, and he was obviously angry. The caption said, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose - until you lose!"

Likewise, it's easy to say that evil is a "social construction" - until somebody wrongs you.

Bullsh...
This writers views expect me to assume that what was done in the middle east by agents of our own government were totally justified.

This is not the case. He expects me to overlook the highest of crimes, murder, amongst others committed in the middle east by our own government.

THAT IS MORAL RELATIVISM!

And this asinine over-simplification of the facts is whats going to keep the middle east from seeing peace with our government for a VERY long time.

Which is why I talked several minorities(racial, religious, and other) into NOT joining the army to go to Iraq.

Leave that for the "white" protestants, who are blind enough to believe it is as simple as a battle between good and evil.

Cultural relativism
No, evil is not a mere 'social construction' (not much else is either, really). But the officials willing to promote NewYorkistan have a problem of 'cultural relativism'-- usually best defined, as here, as the craven fear of upsetting any subculture by not embracing all manifestations of their agenda as automatically positive and "empowering", while denigrating all consensus standards in society as "oppressive" and "patriarchal." The unspoken truth is, they can't find an "out" in promoting moderate Muslim groups because the extremist ones are far more vocal/prevalent.
--And anyway, why do NY's subways need to be promiting any religion at all? And culture--if the passengers want it, they can engage each other in conversation!

TAKE THE MORAL RELATIVISM & RUN WITH IT
We should not assume that if there is no solid basis for morality, no religion, then we can’t have any government or safety. If we can’t convert everybody, let’s take their moral relativism and run with it.

Let’s agree to prohibit murder and assorted other activities that some people think are fun; then we have just as much right to Join Together and do something about those anti-social behaviors as the perps have to engage in them. There’s an old bumper sticker slogan: If they have the right to rob us, we have the right to shoot them. Let’s delegate some of our right of self-defense to a government, instituted for our rights, deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” - not from any external source. Watch out not to assume that any of that implies the kind of separation of church and state that we hear so much about. We are entitled to our opinions about the government, with no restriction whatever against basing my opinion on what I read in the Bible (which does speak enthusiastically against murder and robbery, etc). Similarly, if 90% of the people like Christmas trees, we have the right to put one up on the town hall lawn. OK, I did say 90%, not 100%, and there will always be disagreement, argument, anger, even occasionally violence; good government tends to minimize violence, because everybody knows they had a chance to participate. One great danger today is the popular opinion that if my candidate did not win, and my law did not pass, or my enemy’s law did pass, then the government and the whole basis for it has become illegitimate, the other side stole the election and we need a revolution. We had one revolution, and we won, now we can have elections, which are much safer. We should of course be careful not to oppress our neighbors so badly that they do need a new revolution.

Morals are always relatives
This old argument is mind boggling and boring for that matter. People fear relativity in morals because they fear change. And that's natural. But the whole concept of choosing the lesser of two evils is purely arbitrary. It's a matter of whether or not someone finds them evil because at the end of the day evil is a social construction of peoples' bias.

While I dislike the dishonest liberal claims as well, fixing moral relativism into it is not the way to go.

will
"Moral absolutists are misguided and dangerous to a democratic society (although you may very well work out in a theocracy)."

The absolutists' version of morality believes that morality is absolute. Why are you trying to force your version of morality on them?

Myk
"Despite what the dogmatic zealots of all ideological extremes would like us to believe, there often can be a LESSER of two evils."

But if morality is relative, how can ANYTHING be labeled as evil?

Raymond
My question is, is moral relativism "good", or is it just RELATIVELY good? Norman Geisler is right. These arguments collapse under their own weight.

I find it interesting how moral relativists are so quick to make moral judgments against people who disagree with them. They remind me of a poster I once saw in a Hallmark store. It depicted Snoopy wearing a visor and carrying a tennis racket. He was walking off the court, and he was obviously aggravated. The caption on the poster said, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose - until you lose!"

Likewise, moral relativists argue that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong - until they're wronged.

will
"Simply ask some jews you know if they believe in an afterlife."

That's not what you said. Here are your exact words:

"Those supposed texts from God were actually man-created, 2000-2500 years ago, written primarily by nomadic jews who did not believe in an afterlife and who believed the world would end at any time now."

If the Bible was written by people who "did not believe in an afterlife", why does it make so many references to an afterlife?

Moral Relativism good?
Several posters have informed us that Moral Relativism is good, but if Moral Relativism is valid then, by its own precept, it cannot be said to be good or bad. Let's have a little logical consistency here folks.

In fact, that quandary is at the heart of the danger of Moral Relativism. It does not require consistency from one case to the next and leaves its practitioners free to use whatever justification is needed to support the judgment they fancy in any particular instance.

Specify
Moral AMBIGUITY is not moral relativism.

Sometimes, in this world, we are confronted by circumstances which compel us to make a choice between two or more actions . . . all of which are inherently painful and unpleasant. Despite what the dogmatic zealots of all ideological extremes would like us to believe, there often can be a LESSER of two evils. And, even IF the lesser MUST be chosen, it is still an evil, and not necessarily MORAL . . . by any puritanical definition.
If, in a given situation, it is not possible at the time to discern the OBJECTIVE facts . . . or WHO is at fault . . . it is not always easy to determine what the real MORAL choice actually is.

AMERICANS
TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY.....DRAFT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON....SHE IS THE BEST OF THE BEST.

moral relativism
what a nice dilemma. just the very fact that there is this split between those who are convinced that morakl relativism is and moral relativism is not. and that one is a better moral situatuion then the other, answers the question. is moral relativism a good thing or a bad thing,. it exists in every opinion written here, they are all morally relative.

cleverness_of_me...

Those Professors do "amaze" themselves. Is that a sign?

Carlos
The reason "Narcissism" is seldom taught in university is that it is a trait common to murderers, dictators, and university professors.

Will
Quite a few errors there in reply number one.

First, moral relativism is a philosophical system which says there is no absolute right and wrong. It is more than just the notion that there are many different ways to solve a problem, it is a way of thinking that says there can ultimately be no solution that is evil.

Second, a person's beliefs about what historical events actually transpired and which did not is not a moral belief per se. If a creationist told you that failing to believe in Genesis 1 literally is "relativism" that is pure nonsense. Which set of facts you believe is a very different matter from whether you believe in an absolute right and wrong.

Third, DC Comics has become a hotbed of moral relativism, publishing crap like "Superman: Red Son" which has Superman as the hero of the USSR.

Finally, it is the moral relativist (Stalin, Hitler) who is most dangerous; nothing is forbidden to them. Even Torquemada was a practicing moral relativist (although he would be appalled at such an accusation), since he committed vile acts of cruelty which are expressly forbidden by scripture, because he believe it to be for the greater good.

wizzyg...

Very good point :)

My sin is annoying Democrats daily. I drive 47.5 mph down I-94 each morning on my way to work in Detroit. There are 2 big Barack Obama bumper stickers on the back of my 'Nissan'.

The "Buy American" Chrysler UAW workers go nuts when I manage to get into the fast lane. Lots of gestures for the "Change we Can Believe in" sticker. Something like, "Change this, you dirty M*#($)F#$*#(B**@ch"

I ordered a Code-Pink sticker for added effect.


Taft
Michael Ware is a left-wing zealot, who publicly verbally harassed John McCain on one of his visit to Iraq, and admits he spends most of his time there drunk. He is not a credible source of information, and especially analysis.

SJ Doc....
"Lock onto the federal government and put your "moral absolute" effort into destroying the mechanisms of fraudulence they're using to reduce you to poverty, impotence, and enslavement."
-------------------------------------------
You're Right. If I read you correctly, Social-Conservatives are missing the Bigger picture which 'must' include Fiscally Conservative values.

Be kinda hard to fight against a pro-death socialist government when we're too busy collecting leaves for dinner like the North Koreans.

The Others
Its funny how everyone is in essence saying the same thing: They are right and disagreement with their position is the definition of what is morally wrong and moral relativism. Not one person discusses themselves and the evil they do as sinners, but rather make all issues about what the other side does or believes.

Why should NYC be spared?
Here in LA, we have a government that accommodates an occupying army of foreign urban terrorists 30,000 strong. They are called gang-bangers and are comprised of 80% illegal immigrants. They receive government assistance and even presidential candidates curry the support of their political advocacy groups (La Raza, MeCha). We call them gang-bangers but McCain calls them God's children. I don't think the problem is with citizens. The problem is with our entrenched criminal class of politicians who are dedicated to usurping the will of the people by cramming down very unpopular laws (like amnesty and Cap and Trade).

Good article, five check marks!

So is fraudulence moral?
--
And we're back to "moral relativism," which you witless social pseudoconservatives (Ku Kluxers in contour sheets) keep whining about, your pinheaded little minds locked firmly on the putatively self-injurious recreational behaviors of people who do *NOT* share your peculiarly constipated standards of conduct but who violate no other person's rights to life, liberty, or property....

Gawd, didn't Eric Hoffer have your number down to the eighteenth decimal place when he wrote *The True Believer*?

...and you don't give a gnat's fart about *INSTITUTIONALIZED* government-approved, rammed-up-your-personal-butt theft of every bit of property you and your families have ever owned (or will ever own) because you're a bunch of dead-from-the-neck-up moral relativists.

Y'see, if the government defrauds and confiscates and incarcerates and enslaves - even if they do it to *YOU* - that seems to be just fine with you guys.

What *YOU* worry about is whether or not your neighbors are toking up, or muff-diving, or looking at "Lusty Lesbians Licking" on the Internet.

Wotta buncha cripples you people are.

What PSEUDOconservatives.

Look, you want to get all morally indignant and up on your high horses over something?

Forget about your damnfool neighbors and get *over* your indignation.

Focus all that steam on the real author of "moral relativism" in this nation.

Lock onto the federal government and put your "moral absolute" effort into destroying the mechanisms of fraudulence they're using to reduce you to poverty, impotence, and enslavement.

Do it "for the children."

--

Clivesdad
Great post

Nice Article...

Malignant Self-Orientation (Narcissism) has swept America. Liberal-Democrats and their Communist allies have created a 'Nation of Nonsense".

Today, Rape is something White men do to Black girls. Murder is "a mental disorder" in need of outpatient treatment. Armed robbery is "Self-Reparation" for harm done to an ancestor. And Child-molestation is acceptable if the perpetrator 'really loves' the 'Object of desire'.

Rarely taught in schools and Universities, "Malignant Narcissism" is the back-bone disorder which has created Dictators, Killers, and other criminals throughout history.


beowulfe - On knowledge and morality
--
Squeals beowulfe:

"I probably have more knowledge of the Federal Reserve in my left pinky than..."


...whatever.

Okay, brainiac. Prove it.

Insofar as I've been able to determine, the Federal Reserve System (aka "The Creature From Jekyll Island") was created to function -

- propaganda aside -

- as a central bank for these United States. A government-guaranteed monopoly on the issue of banknotes. Essentially, the Federal Reserve System is empowered to issue counterfeit currency.

These are called "Federal Reserve Notes."

You - as a private citizen - are not allowed to transact any monetary exchanges *except* in dollar-denominated FRNs.

That's what "legal tender" laws are designed to compel. If you were to set up a garage sale and post your prices in Euros as well as dollars, you would be committing a federal crime.

Didja know that?

No?

Yeah, what a brainiac.

All central banks that have ever been created have ultimately (almost invariably designedly) operated to debauch the currency through the issue of fiat.

Buy, hey, you knew that, too, didn'tcha?

Little quiz for you, brainiac. Two questions.

(1) When private sector banks first began to issue banknotes, what did they "back" those notes with?

(2) When the U.S. Federal Reserve issued those FRNs in your wallet, what did they claim as backing for them?

That's right, dumbpuck.

Instruments of debt issued by the Federal Government.

No gold, no silver, no real property at all.

Just government IOUs.

The Federal Reserve exists to monetize federal debt, creating currency out of thin air with no backing other than the politicians' promise to bleed the American taxpayer at some future date.

Didja know that, brainiac?

--

JFP
your post at 8:23 was one of the best i have seen in quite a while.

Moral Relativism
Post-modernism is indeed killing our society. Look at education, sociology, justice, and journalism to see it full in the face.

However, nothing is gained by preventing anyone the freedom of expression. The problem comes when we dis-allow 'hate' speach and make it a crime. Everyone should be able to believe what they wish and make that opinion public; provided it does not incite violence and property damage.

By not allowing 'hate' speach we are giving one of our basic human rights up to someone who can then decide what does or does not constitute 'hate speach.' In so doing we create an environment where fear displaces freedom.

Look at what has happened in Canada with their human rights tribunals to see what Obama has in mind for us.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Conservative Artist (#132)
Excellent and apt acronym for Blooper-hooper's evil organisation.

#12 (buck) -- you neglected one detail, the groat will usually use a stream of profanities while calling something done by conservative as profane.

nonsense
"The Democrat presidential candidate continues to insist that the American military surge in Iraq isn’t really the reason for the overwhelming reduction of violence there."

Putting 30,000 desperately needed troops in Baghdad is obviously going to make a difference.

CNN correspondent Michael Ware:

' The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been — albeit tragic — one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital. […] It’s a very simple concept: Baghdad has been divided; segregated into Sunni and Shia enclaves. The days of mixed neighborhoods are gone. […] If anyone is telling you that the cleansing of Baghdad has not contributed to the fall in violence, then they either simply do not understand Baghdad or they are lying to you.'

moral relativism= chaos...
Moral relativism is oxymoronic. If all is relative then fundamentally ALL is allowed. For the cannibal it may be considered bad manners to not finish what's on his plate. Really, in the final analysis without a LAW above the law its nothing more than majority vote. Inalienable rights are the cornerstone of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Author of those rights is where the buck stops. When that Author is considered irrelavent or dead or never alive- ALL BETS ARE OFF! That's where we are. One can philosophize until the cows come home and one is still left with the only relavent question- "Upon Who's authority?" You can deny that and point to some evolutionary stage of development but it really begs the question. As far as concentration and effort to arrive at a moral code- none other than the 20th Century serves to remind us of men without a moral code- Nazism/Communism/ Stalinism/The Killing fields/ Cultural Revolution/and myriad other athestic regimes gave us MORE death and destruction on a grander scale than ANY in human history. Sure, other more civilized regimes had horrors- but NONE on the scale of those bloody regimes. But history isn't taught much or thought relevant anyway.

Last Response to Jack
I truly understand all that you are saying and in part agree with a good deal of it. The primary reason of my response is to address Mr. Gallahger's article with which I agree.

In sum, my arguement is that moral theories are meant to deal with the issue of how human beings "ought" to be treated in a just society. Moral relativism is but one concept of moral theories and argues against the issue of "oughts" because moral relativism does not hold that there are any "oughts" that it is impossible to describe a standard of how human beings "ought" to be treated. I argued that (1)we can have a standard and that it should be one with which all reasonable people could agree [the key here being reasonable] and (2) that this standard is not based on "beliefs" At one time many people "believed" with 100% conviction that the earth was flat but that belief did not make it so. Neither does it make it so in the case of the examples that you offered as well.

Our founding fathers understood this concept and instituted rule by law and not man.The reason being of course belief and feeling can be misleading.

In the case of Mr. Gallagher's article, he is making the same point. There has to be a standard and not just tossed to "whatever" you happen to believe. But for some odd reason, discussions of standards seem to indicate to most people absolutes which of course is not the case for all times. We seem to have no trouble with absolutes in sports but in regulating society, it is a different ball of wax.

Respectfully,
Susan

will stated to
ValiantForTruth: Too bad you weren't born a thousand years earlier, ValiantForTruth. You might have found a receptive audience for your blandly ponderous, didactic assertations.

Too bad you have no intelligence and ONLY the most superior understand and are fully cognizant of everything that was written in that excellent post. Now go back to your comic books.

Reply to Jack

I don't know what else to say to everyone who says "liberal=evil, conservative=good" or vice versa.

I just googled "moral relatvism", look what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has to say about it, it's kind of funny:

"Moral relativism has the unusual distinction — both within philosophy and outside it — of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone."

I don't call myself a moral relatiivist, but in reading these comments I get the impression that many people think that, unless you already have a cast-in-concrete opinion and are already sure of everything that is good & right and everything that is evil & wrong, you are a moral relativist.

By that yardstick I'd rather be a moral relativist than a fool, because those are the two choices. If you've never faced a difficult, ambiguous moral choice, if there is nothing in your past experience that you look back upon and wonder and worry about, trying to decide if you did the right thing, then either you've led an incredibly sheltered life and/or you're an idiot.




Susan
But the rub of the issue is that both of them believe they are right. And both are 100% convinced of it. Javert and Valjean would both agree with you in principle, but they would both be certain they were correct.

To return to an earlier example. When George kills Lenny in Of Mice and Men, he is doing an act of great kindness and committing murder at teh same time. Literature, the record of human experience, is replete with examples like this.

I realize it makes people uncomfortable to not have the certainty of a rigid moral code. It actually requires a lot more concentration and effort. But one must imagine Sisyphus happy.




Response Again to Jack
Your response is again making my point. Truth is independent of belief. Just because a belif was true for Javert but false for Valjean does not prove truth does not exist or is relative. One or the other of them is mistaken. To say otherwise is relativism.

A More COmplicated View
AS I wrote earlier, he problems inherent in discussing morality is that we view things two dimensionally. Two viewpoints are placed side by side and evaluated.

Its much more realistic to view morality in three dimensions. Some moral decisions take place on a higher plain than others.


If you ask a child what is good and what is bad, the reposne will revolve around concrete issues. If my mom gets mad about it, it must be bad. If I am punished, it's bad.

Later in life, considerations of morality come to be based on law and order. Very practical, very realistic and outcome driven. What is good is following the rules. At a certain point, abstract considerations come into play. What is right and wrong is based on a mixture of abstract principles and utilitarian outcomes. At full intellectual maturity, right and wrong are determined by purely abstract principles.

At each level, people are committed to their vision of morality. Peole with opposing positions may be relying on exactly the same level of reasoning. Many people, perhaps the majority, never rise about the level of thinking in terms of law and order. These folks will be very much concenred with whtehr rules and laws are followed, and what kind of rules and laws are in place. They will have a hard time grasping the next level up, which is that there are principles in play that even rules and laws and authorities are not allowed to violate.

Ultimately, determining right and wrong on a purely abstract basis, relying only on immutable principle, becomes the mode of operation. But this is tricky, because if you look at folk who reached this plain you will find, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, etc. Notice what they have in common.


Moral relativism.. lets see...
Larry Craig is caught in a restroom playing footsies with an undercover cop= hypocrite-. John Edwards is caught with the other woman while in a hotel -he dodges reporters, comes and leaves through back doors, hides in the men's restroom and is married to a woman dying of terminal cancer to the bone= moral relativism or at least not worthy of a newstory. Abu Grahb has men paraded around with panties on their heads and placed in a position of sexual innuendo= moral outrage for the left. Jihadists blindfold and slice the heads off people they capture= moral relativism. --George Bush invades a country which had violated 17 UN sanctions and had been labeled for regime change by non other than Bill Clinton= moral outrage. Saddam Hussein systematically murders men, women and children in the 100's of thousands- moral relativism (you know those Arabs- they could never be democrats!)--- Vietnam war- OUTRAGE! --- Killing Fields -denied at first and then blamed on America. I think I get it now. This logic was sure hard to figure out at first. Am I now a certified member of the loony left??? Huh? Huh?

Justin
Uber gave a more complete response to your claim that most things are black and white. I have a simpler response. It's childish.

Susan
Yes, I must have misunderstood. I didn't see any of that in your earlier post.

Noentheless, it is perfectly tenable for something to be both true and false. For example, In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo built an entire world on the issue of it's "wrong to steal." It was true for Javert but it was false to Jean Valjean.

What you claim is untenable is actually one of the central issues of all of literature.


Profane and the liberals
The only time the liberals will call something profane is when a conservative speaks them. Hanoi Jane can speak on television and be as profane as she can be, and the liberal press considers her as being brave and very outre. If any liberal says anything on radio, television or the press, the whole cadre of the liberal press will immediately jump on his or her side. But, have a conservative say something ie; Phil Graham or any other conservative, the liberal press would be on them like a duck on a june bug. And you say, what's the matter with the USA/ It's the liberal press, that's what. You can also add the ACLU on that list.

Moral Objectivity
"Most things are Black and White, Good and Evil."

In an objective morality, I think you will find like most phenomena, we are dealing with probabilistic certainties. Otherwise known as gray areas. Even with something as definitive as gravity, we are talking about probability.

i.e. the farther up an object is moved away from the earth the less likely it is to be pulled back down, otherwise known as falling.

This is true of morality as well. Is it moral to murder a human. I think we can all agree in absolute terms the answer is no it is not. But once we try to apply the absolute moral position to the realm of conditional reality... like the problem of determining what is human, or whether an action to kill is murder.... then we are dealing with a lot of gray areas.

And those are easy moral questions... most moral questions are like this... "Is it moral to not finish all the food on your plate?"

If you think of every question which has a moral components, the "black and white" moral absolutes quickly get outnumbered by the ocean of conditional moral propositions.

beowulfe
perhaps to belabour the point, but if you read it carefully you will see that he argues for treating this case consistently with that of similar non-human animals. Again, the problem with his view is that it is hyperconsistent between humans and other animals, not that it is not consistent enough.

LIAR
League of Islam-ick Relations.

I REFUSE to call them by their current name that is supposed to mean something good, which it is not.

I wish for a day when we have real leaders that don't bow down to the PC cr@p anymore and do what we elect them to do PROTECT the country and it's citizens and tell these slimes to get out if they don't like it.

––––––––––––––––

BTW, can anyone please tell me why I cannot view comments in some TH articles in Safari? The tech support team seems o be ignoring my inquiries regarding this matter.

beowulfe
If you are actually curious about Singer's real view, you can find it here, http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm.

If you look at the section on euthanasia as it applies to infants, you will see that he objects strongly to the idea that morality is subjective (your silly notion that he is a relativist). He does dismiss, as I suggested, the idea that killing is wrong because life is sacred. But does go into a fairly lengthy discussion of the moral considerations involved. The idea that he thinks that because life is not sacred then there are no moral issues here is just nonsense.

Obviously you will not agree with much he says here. But if you care to argue against his actual view you may find it interesting.

beowulfe
Putting your words in quotes is not actually the same as quoting him. Singer is not a rights theorist, so saying that adult humans don't have a right to life would not be the same as saying there is nothing morally wrong with killing them.

It sounds like either you heard an interview with him which you did not understand, or you are getting your take on him from someone else.

The comments you give make some sense if he was asked about infanticide on sickly and dying babies and pointed out that he does not believe that killing is wrong based on a moral rights theory, and the reasons it is wrong to kill healthy babies does not apply in the case of sickly dying babies. But this is just specualtion based on his actual view and the assumption that you are capturing something he actually said.

If you can find someplace that can be checked which actually has him saying what you think he said, I would certainly take a look. But having read some of his actual writings, they do not fit with your description. And I am not about to take snippets out of context as representative quotes, not even when you put them in quotation marks.

You're absolutely right
You don't see "fundamental Christians or Jews" chopping peoples heads off that don't agree with them. People need to stand up in this country and realize that not everything is in the Grey area. Most things are Black and White, Good and Evil. Many people don't base their decisions on character, they base them on feelings. Yea the war sucks, but it's necessary to attempt to rid the world of people like Sadam and Osama. Think about what kind of shape we would be in if Clinton were in office during 9/11.

Response to Jack
I may be mistaken but I believe you have misunderstood what I wrote. I am saying that belief does not constitute "truth" I am also saying there must be standards to guide society and that those standards do not have to be "absolutes" nor do they have to be based on religion.

It is not tenable to say...two things can be both true and false at the same time.

Beowoeful
You write "Who is this "we" that Jack refers to that "establish" the "moral code" for society? Why, it is whoever has the biggest rock, and nothing more. If you want your version of morality imposed on society, simply force everyone to follow it. If you are powerful enough, then by God, your moral code is "right"."

The "we" I refer to is the "we" in "We the People, etc." The "code" I refer to is, of course, the Constitution. Apparently you have a problem with teh people of a country decising how thier country should be run. Would you prefer that a single person, ideally one who has the "right" verion of morality,get to decide for the rest of us?

It does not surprise me that you couldn't pick this up. The real moral power of the Constitution is beyond your comprehension.

Susan
You have placed the moral cart before the ethical horse.

WHat you appear to be doing is taking a condition, i.e. a belief that there are no such things as right and wrong, and attaching the lable moral relativism to that condition.

It is perfectly possible to have an adamant sense of right and wrong and still recognize that those beliefs are yours alone. It's perfectly possible to judge a culture on its ethical artifacts, and still recognize that those judgements are yours alone.




good vs.evil
The emotion behind the apparent relatism in our country is fear - fear that one may have to watch less TV, buy less stuff, or stand up physically to evil. Moral clarity carries with it the spectre of having to act, a proposition our overweight, mentally dim citizens find scarier than surrender or annihilation. Number one rule for saving America... you have to fight. Sorry.

RE: Lon
"I personally do not lose the ability to speak when I am not speaking. I suspect this is true of most people. Similarly I don't think many people lose the ability to think when they are sleeping."

Were mere "thought" all that was required for Singer to consider something or someone a "person", then he would be a halfwitted dolt if he thought even infants are incapable of thought.

"And, of course, it is simply not true that he thinks fetuses and new borns are worthy of no moral consideration."

Singer stated, and I QUOTE, that the killing of infants "is not morally wrong". He has been repeatedly interviewed whether he really meant that there is nothing "morally wrong" with killing SICKLY or DYING babies, and he has consistently stated that no, in fact he thinks it "is not morally wrong" to kill even a perfectly healthy infant.

Are you telling me that stating that infants do not, in any form, have the right not to be killed, perhaps the most basic and essential moral consideration that could be granted any life form, is saying infants are "worhty of moral consideration"? What, you're allowed to ram a rusty pair of scissors into their head, but to shoot them in the head is "bad"? Is THAT the type of "consideration" you think Singer has in mind?

As Mike G says
We just have to have the guts to know the difference between the two.

OR are you philosophers of the Obama/Reverend Wright ilk?
THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST --

Nelson, I'm not that gullible
"By the way, the Ten Commandments were not copied from Hammurabi tablets. Mosaic tablets include Do's as well as Don'ts. The Hebrew faith strengthened family and was first to pour a moral content into holy commandments."

Translation:

"The Mosaic tablets ate the first to assert that they are divinely inspired."

Are you saying that the Hammurabi tablets don’t' have do's and don'ts? By what metric do you assert that the Mosaic tablets "strengthened family?" And you're saying that before the ten commandments moral content was not scribed to a holy commandment?

I think you will find this a hard position to defend.



Moral Relativism
What one thinks about moral relativism matters, and it matters greatly to our society. Not only does moral relativism entail that we cannot make legitimate moral comparisons of different cultures, it also entails that we cannot make legitimate moral comparisons of a single culture across time, nor can we judge whether a changing society is getting better or worse.

Further, when we consider the great reformers of our time that have helped to bring about changes that we take to constitute moral progress, e.g. the abolition of slavery, of granting the working classes, and women the right to vote, we generally think these reformers are moral exemplars. But according to cultural relativism, though, these great leaders were bad people because they acted in opposition to the values of their particular cultural contexts.

Contrary to popular belief, moral relativism is not morally neutral nor does it allow for tolerance because according to this view there is nothing to tolerate as there is no right or wrong.

This view has dire consequences and will stagnate a society in the clutches of its ambivalence.

beowulfe
I am impressed by the way that your apparently never having read Singer does not get in the way of your certainty with regard to his views.

Singer is big on the moral importance of animals, but he is not a right theorist and so does not strictly believe in animal rights. Given their lack of ability to anticipate the future and to make long term plans, he actually considers the killing of animals to be a less serious harm than the abuse of animals. And of course, because he applies these rules consistently, the same carries over to fetuses. So he is of the view that it would be better for an unhealthy fetus or new born to die quickly than to die slowly and painfully. But then he believes the same about animals.

I personally do not lose the ability to speak when I am not speaking. I suspect this is true of most people. Similarly I don't think many people lose the ability to think when they are sleeping. In this sleeping people are very different than fetuses or new borns. And, of course, it is simply not true that he thinks fetuses and new borns are worthy of no moral consideration. He thinks that all living things are worthy of moral consideration according to their capabilities and their relationship to morality. That he thinks there are cases in which infanticide is justified does not mean that he thinks infanticide is justified whenever anyone chooses to act on it, or even whenever the mother chooses to act on it.

I think he gives too much credit to animals with respect to people. But I am not about to misrepresent his views in order to make that case.

And, of course, even if he held this inconsistent views that you mistakenly attribute to him then he would be a perverse moral absolutist, not a moral relativist.

A False and Dangerous Dichotomy

FP (# 28):
"Go back to 9/11. Despite the claims of unity, we were never unified. One faction (the left) saw the attackers as paying us back for the awful things we've done in the Middle East.

The rest of us think the attackers were out to impose shari'a on us. Our strategy has been to contain them as much as possible."

Am I the only person in this country who can see that BOTH THE ABOVE ARE OBVIOUSLY TRUE??

You can guess my politics from my name, but it's obvious to me that the radical Islamic lunatic fringe types like Al Queda are homicidal maniacs! But it's also just as obviously to me that their idiot ideas would not be nearly so tolerated (and funded) by the larger Islamic world if America and the West had not exploited and abused that area of the globe for the past century.

We have every right to defend ourselves from Islamic extremists, it would be irresponsible and suicidal not to do so.

But, it is no less irresponsible, and no less detrimental to our health, to refuse to even consider the possibility that our treatment of the Middle East might give it's inhabitants legitimate grievances against us. It's also morally cowardly. It's the worst kind of moral blindness to continue to do things that we know are wrong just because we are afraid that we'll appear weak by admitting (or even considering) that they might be wrong.

Relative morality = might makes right.
Most moral relativists, as seen in this thread, are relativists in that they feel everyone is "entitled" to their own "opinion" of morality. That is until that moral code one person feels is applied to them, then they immediately turn from moral relativism to might makes right.

Here is a perfect illustration, clearly articulated by the poster named Jack:

"The truth (not to be confused with morality), is that we are all responsible for defining our own moral code and making our own moral decisions. At the same time we have a right to establish a moral code for our culture and society to follow."

Who is this "we" that Jack refers to that "establish" the "moral code" for society? Why, it is whoever has the biggest rock, and nothing more. If you want your version of morality imposed on society, simply force everyone to follow it. If you are powerful enough, then by God, your moral code is "right".

Now, to be honest, in practical, real world terms, might DOES make "right".

But tell me, Jack, if I ever gained enough power to decree that 2 + 2 = 5, and I simply killed anyone who dared challenge my decree, does this mean that 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal 5?

According to Jack and other moral relativists, the answer is a resounding YES, actual rules of mathematics be damned.

And in this sense, Jack is right when he declares that morality -- that is real world applications thereof -- is not the same as the truth. The way moral relativist define morality, morality is anything BUT truth.

Which is why moral relativism is a failure, and a ridiculous notion. Simply because you believe 2 + 2 = 5, even if you are powerful enough to FORCE everyone else to think 2 + 2 = 5, the fact of the matter is that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. It simply means you and anyone else who thinks that are WRONG.

beowulfe
`

God"s Will?
How about an concurrent campaign of posters alongside Islamic ads.

Next to every poster touting the wonders of Islam, put up another photo of one of the Twin Towers collapsing.

Write on each one the Islamic saying," In Shalla!" along with the translation,"It's God's Will!"

New Yorkers will get the message.

By the way, the Ten Commandments were not copied from Hammurabi tablets. Mosaic tablets include Do's as well as Don'ts. The Hebrew faith strenghtened family and was first to pour a moral content into holy commandments.

But such shallow criticism by moral relativists shows them unwilling to dig below surface drivel into a subject. Chances are they don't know the Koran either. One doesn't find many in Islamic states.

FLM
You answer to David was too kind. David;s attitude is more of a learning opportunity than something to be just dismissed.

There is a danger lurking behind all this simplistic, loose talk about good, evil and moral relativism. The danger is that the simple minded will not be able to tell the difference between a difference of opinion and a battle between good and evil. Anything with which they disagree becomes "evil."

As a nation we are not endangered so much by moral relativism as by teh idea that our political opponents are tools of the devil.

RE: Lon
Lon, I am afraid you don't even have the SLIGHTEST clue about what you are talking about visa vis Peter Singer. He is anything BUT "consistent" in any way.

Singer believes that it is not immoral to kill BORN infants because he does not condiser them to be "people". His rationale for this is because infants are incapable, at that instantaneous moment in time, of rational thought.

This, of course, is where his inconsistency begins. Those who are sleeping are no more capable of articulating their ideas for world peace than an infant, yet he does not claim that there is nothing morally wrong with killing someone who is merely asleep. Furthermore, while he has no issue with slaughtering infants because they are incapable of abstract mathematics, he believes there is no circumstance where killing an animal is anything other than immoral. When, suddenly, did animals become "people", let alone capable of rational thought?

Nay, Peter Singer is the ULTIMATE moral relativists. While MOST people are relavitists in that they think everyone is "entitled" to their own "opinion" of some "absolute" moral code, Singer goes even further, changing his own version of a moral code based upon what species he is applying it to.

Kettles and Pots
david (# 61):
"Senator Obama supported and sat with his family in Rev. Wright's hate filled church for twenty years, sat on the Woods foundation board with an American terrorist and 1960's bombing radical Bill Aires."

Senator Obama has the Reverend Wright, folks like yourself have worshipped Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Obama has had incidental dealings with Bill Aires, virtually all conservatives fight to be first in line to kiss Oliver North's rear end whenever he appears in public.

david:
"The senator has no ability to recognize evil when it's in his presence."

The discussion of this column is confused enough already without you equating political ideological differences to good and evil.

Pots & Kettles
Mike (# 7):
(To Will): "You cite one example of a zealot and you think that's what all Christians believe?"

It's kind of funny that you would write this in the comments to a column in which Gallagher does the exact same thing to the Islamic faith. He didn't even say anything about the content of the ads! Maybe because Islam is subject to so much libel and hate speech in America these days, we *should* have subway advertisements for it.


Re: anderson659
The Bible also tells us to avoid eating shellfish, and to stone to death women found guilty of adultery.

Do you ascribe to these mandates, or do you take a more measured, relativistic view of them?

The Ten Plagiarisms
Of course you know the ten commandments were not given to us from god but were plagiarized from The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon: About 2250 BC.

power of prayer
good luck with that. try the power of reasoned action, predicated on Empirical probabilities.

moral relatavism
A set of guidelines was given to us humans to follow years ago. Those guidelines were offered in such a manner that the people of the time could easily understand.

These guidelines were simple, and from these guidelines laws were made for all to obey. When the bible speaks of something that should not be done,as in the ten commandments, it does not tell you why, it just asks you to obey.

Humans found out the hard way that their bodies had design limitations and the path to knowledge was a lot longer and twisted than they thought.

I think moral relativism in this article is very real. It seems to be practiced by those who feel everything is a shade of gray, there are no absolutes.Usually it seems to be an excuse for moral behavior that others find repugnant.

ZERO common sense
That is the greatest compliment a person give me, since as a rule the common sense is often predicated on a common misunderstanding about the very nature of reality.

That is why there are relatively few scientist, and rather more paper pushers. It's all part of the 20 80 rule.

Re: Icedog
I'm not attempting to do anything other than point out that there's nothing *unnatural* about sexual behavior (getting one's rocks off, as you put it) - heterosexually, homosexually, or Elmo-sexually.

By definition, any behavior that comes *naturally* to a living being, be it a dog or a human, is *quite obviously* NATURAL. Perhaps not moral (in the case of humans), but NATURAL.

Now that we've established that expressions of sexuality -in all of it's myriad forms- cannot be defined as unnatural, we can move on, and stop confusing the issue.

Again, natural and moral are two separate metrics.

So morality. You say that, "humans are blessed with a conscience and self-awareness", and I agree 100%. It's how we *inform* our consciences that we all agree to disagree.

Again, some orient their moral compass through religious traditions; others through the 'harm metric' (what we call 'Godless Secularism' these days).

It goes without saying that you're entitled to your moral beliefs, whether we agree or not... with one caveat. Again, in a liberal democracy, if your moral beliefs visit harm on others... then there's a problem.

Obviously, if I believe that I've a right to hurt or kill others (even if my religion affirms this belief), I still don't have to right to do so. Obviously. It causes harm.

Consensual homosexual behavior does not. This is a liberal democracy.

Just because one's personal moral sensibilities are offended doesn't mean a crime has taken place. I'm reminded of that old axiom of fair play: "No harm no foul".

Again, this is a liberal democracy. People will always disagree as to the particulars of what is moral and what is not.

The metric is harm.

power of prayer
To my christian friends In confronting our homosexual friends say a prayer to God to open there eyes to the truth. For we all are sinners and need the "POWER OF PRAYER".

Uber
I do not necessariyl disagree, but I have a harder time than you seeign morality as an objective science. Rather, it's a set of ratioanlizing principles that naturally change over the course of human development.

uber
Y ou may have some of the things you spouted about. But, you have absolutely ZERO common sense

Icedog (a twofer)
First, you write: "I don't think anyone here is arguing that morality is always black & white."

Au contraire, I think that is exaclty what peopel are arguing.

You also identify some inconsistency in my claim. There is none that I can see. I think we are responsible for our own moral code (if you select the Bible, fine: if I don't, also fine). But we also have a right to have an operational moral code in our society that may or may not match my personal code in any or every way.

Thus, I might abhor spending money on arms, but I don't think it's automatically immoral for the society to do so. I can live and function in a society whose moral code varies from mine.

Mr Gallagher is right
We have to have the guts to know the difference between good and evil. Unfortunately I think it is going to be GUTS running in the streets before common sense prevails in America.

Christian Moral Relativism
What Mike Gallagher doesn't want to acknowledge is that at the root of moral relativism is a methodology of determining what is moral which is predicated not on an universal empirical scientific methodology, but rather on subjective perceptions and interpretations of the cryptic ruminations of ancient authors, whose writings were predicated on subjective interpretation of their feelings and perceptions.

Morality to be an objective science, must transcend our adherence on religious dogma.


beowulfe
I asked for a philosopher who claimed to support moral relativism. You will search Singer's writings in vain if you are looking for him supporting moral relativism.

His moral philosophy depends fundamentally on stressing the idea of consistency. You will also search in vain for any right that he grants to animals but not to people. What makes him so radical, too radical for my tastes, is precisely that he demands consistency in places in which consistency doesn't seem to apply. (Yes I am thinking about the animal rights stuff).

But if your beliefs about moral relativism are based on Singer, then you are simply basing your view on a mistake.

ValiantForTruth (#57) asked
"Christians, will we pray for our country like Daniel prayed for his in Daniel 9?"

There are some of us (myself included) already doing so on daily basis.

Islam
The death religion. If there ever was a religion that should be outlawed in the United States this is it.

Davis222
My point was that much animal behavior is instinctual-driven. The male dog or animal trying to have sex with another male (or the Tickle Me Elmo doll) is not doing it because it claims to be sexually attracted to the other dog or because it believes it is a homosexual...it has nothing to do with natural behavior or unnatural behavior, it’s just about getting his rocks off anyway possible.
....some animals also “naturally” eat their young or kill their mates.

Humans are blessed with a conscience and self-awareness...attempting to excuse or rationalize unhealthy and abnormal behavior by saying, “some animals do it” is pathetic.

Jack
I don't think anyone here is arguing that morality is always black & white. You could have also used the Korean War example of the mother suffocating her baby to avoid alerting the North Koreans to the location of two dozen civilians in hiding.

However, you can't get away with this...

"...we are all responsible for defining our own moral code...and we have a right to establish a moral code for our culture and society to follow."

You're trying to have it both ways.

Ken
Simply ask some jews you know if they believe in an afterlife.

Jews (to their credit) don't believe in afterlives, virgin births or salvation.

Re: Icedog
The comparison between natural animal behavior and human moral behavior is a complex one, granted. My statement is true, however... claiming homosexuality to be 'unnatural' is false, flat out. Whether or not one considers it to be immoral is another matter entirely.

Some people define their moral compasses by reading 'holy' books (as interpreted by their religious tradition of choice), others define their moral compasses by weighing harm and such. Consensual relations between two adults of the same gender may offend your religious sensibilities, but it doesn't actually harm you or anyone else.

It bears keeping in mind that liberal democracies are *meant* to be non-theocratic. While, say, dancing or gambling may offend some religious traditions (including some Christian denominations) these things aren't illegal because they do no real harm to others.

Some consider gambling to be absolutely morally wrong. Others don't. The true metric of a liberal democracy is the 'harm metric'.

Getting back to your initial response to my post... natural behavior is natural behavior. Morality has nothing to do with what's natural, and I'm tired of people complaining that homosexuality is unnatural. It isn't. Define it as immoral if you care to, but be honest as to why you're doing so... because it offends you, or scares you, or is at odds with your religious beliefs. Fine. Just be intellectually honest.

Ken Asks
"Is that statement true for everyone, or is it just true in your own mind?"

Are you confusing morality and truth? WHole other discussion.

Will
"What is the real point of all this philosophizing?"

It's to show that moral relativism is intellectually dishonest.

"Those supposed texts from God were actually man-created, 2000-2500 years ago, written primarily by nomadic jews who did not believe in an afterlife and who believed the world would end at any time now."

Then why do both the Old and New Testaments talk so much about an afterlife? Perhaps you should read the Bible before you opine on it.

Part II
This morning a friend of mine had to put down a 16 year old Gordon setter, a great companion for many years. He was distressed and we began to talk about the issue. This conversation eventually landed on the subject of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. (Those who haven't read it should do so.)

In the end, George, who loves and protects Lenny, kills Lenny. He does so because Lenny, a true innocent, is going to face the judgement of the mob and be not only killed, but brutalized as well. George kills Lenny because he loves Lenny.

Some would have it that the greatest love is to lay down your life for your friend. But I think George's love was even greater. He was willing to take his friend's life...as an act of love.

What moral judgement can be made?

The truth (not to be confused with morality), is that we are all responsible for defining our own moral code and making our own moral decisions. At the same time we have a right to establish a moral code for our culture and society to follow.

Ken asks Jack,
Jack
"Good and evil do indeed exist, but they exist in the minds of those who making the judgement."

Is that statement true for everyone, or is it just true in your own mind?

--------------------------------------------


What is the real point of all this philosophizing? Is it to somehow "prove" that there has to be ONE STANDARD of morality for all people at all times and that standard is called called God, the "ultimate authority"?

For moral absolutists, all roads lead to God. For christian moral absolutists (as opposed to muslim moral absolutists), all roads lead to God and Jesus (and some bizarre concept called a holy ghost).


Morality is MUCH MORE than supposed texts from a "revealed" God. Those supposed texts from God were actually man-created, 2000-2500 years ago, written primarily by nomadic jews who did not believe in an afterlife and who believed the world would end at any time now.


The Bible is ONE TAKE on morality. One ancient jewish culture's opinion. It is not the final word, or even good morality for 2008 (slavery is defended in Exodus and other chapters; killing - stoning - your wife is advocating in select circumstances; pork, gay sex and wearing polyester blends, mixed fabrics, is prohibited).


This is not to say the old, and new, Testaments are ALL bad morality. Both texts have a lot going for them. But they, again, are one take on a moral system (Plato also built a complex "absolute" moral system that is NOT dependant on God or Gods... read how other cultures built what the jews did, a philosophical solution for a workable morality).

Happy 'ake
Second off, you say: "the example of killing a 6-month-old child (which comes from Singer, as a matter of fact) was to show what the true relativist would HAVE to think to be a true relativist."

Perhaps, but only according to your definition. If that's your definition, the point here is moot because no one fits the definition. Not only are we discussing an empty set, so is Gallagher. The entire argument that the left is a bunch of moral relativists collapses. And if that's true, then it's quite likely that there are no moral absolutists either. And the entire argument that the right stands for right and wrong, also collapses.

The reality is that every individual inhabits a moral galaxy of their own. They have derived, one way or another, a set of moral principles under which to operate their lives. From inside that universe, the principles operate like clockwork. From outside the universe, they may or may not seem to work.

The search for the true moral principle is like the search for the speed of light, the universal constant that is the same in all galaxies. If Christians bothered to actually understand the message of Christ they might grasp that Christianity tells us love is the moral speed of light, so to speak.

Thinking that the principles internal to your galaxy are the universal constant is the height of arrogance. The entire problem is exacerbated by the human tendency to think of such things in two dimensions. Morality has hierarchies. There are things that are immoral at some level but moral at other levels.

Part II for an example




Kimberly
Serious question....do you just perfectly play the role of an unhinged delusional moonbat, or are you the true article?

Davis222
Rationalizing human behavior by using animals as examples is pathetic. My neighbor has a mut that will hump any other dog, your leg, the couch, stuffed animals, the cat, small children, etc. ......so by using your logic, it would also be "normal" for a human to engage in this behavior.

RE: Jack
"Good and evil do indeed exist, but they exist in the minds of those who making the judgement."

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that the Nazi plight to rid the Earth of Jews was a "moral" endeavor merely because that is what they thought?

Either you MUST agree that Nazi concentration camps are moral merely because they said so, or you MUST agree that ethics does NOT depend on who you are, where you live, or by what name you call God.

Jack
"Good and evil do indeed exist, but they exist in the minds of those who making the judgement."

Is that statement true for everyone, or is it just true in your own mind?

RE: Kimberly
Good: Telling the truth every once in a while.
Bad: Your 11:52 post.

Hey Kimmie, are you even CAPABLE of uttering a truth?

RE: Lon -- on Peter Singer
Peter Singer is the worst kind of moral relativist.

The man is an utter insane psychopath who thinks that the "right of abortion" ought be extended until the "fetus" is of the age of majority while simultaneously claiming that it is an ultimate evil to ever bring harm to disease-infested rats (he is a major animal rights activist). Essentially, he is granting rights to animals that he believes don't exist for human beings.

b-ulf
you write:

"To claim morality is relative is EXACTLY the same as saying there exists NO morality at all, and there is NOTHING that is either good or evil"

You can say this as much as you want, but that will not make it true. Nor will using capital letters unnecessarily. Good and evil do indeed exist, but they exist in the minds of those who making the judgement.

RE: Lon
Peter Singer (who has been called "the most influential philosopher of our time" by the New Yorker Magazine).

Any other questions?

To all who think...
... homosexual behavior is unnatural, I say this: spend some time on a farm.

Jack
One of your posts suggests that you think Peter Singer might be a moral relativist. He is actually an interesting case for this discussion because while his ethical theories are clearly contrary to what one finds in the bible, they are as clearly absolutist as one can be. He believes that there is a true ethics, and that he has insight into what that true ethics is. Which is not to say that he is any more right than the people who get there absolutist ethics from the bible.

beowulfe
You said that only idiot philosophers would claim a belief in moral relativism. Can you name an actual philosopher who claimed such a belief?

Also I am puzzled why you argue that the Nazis were utilitarians when they were not. Do you have success trying to win arguments by saying false things like this?

Jack
First off, it's "Jake"

Second off, I do not believe that moral relativists exist. The example of killing a 6-month-old child (which comes from Singer, as a matter of fact) was to show what the true relativist would HAVE to think to be a true relativist.

Thirdly, there have been deaths in Iraq that are condemnable and there have been deaths that are not. What the US has not done, as a matter of policy, is intentionally target civilians for the purpose of killing civilians. Yes, some soldiers have done that and they should be punished, and their actions condemned, and yes some civilians have died as a result of negligence, and that is bad as well. Because the policy of the US is, in fact, to limit civilian deaths, each action must be taken separately. Whether the war itself is immoral or not, I will not say without the full set of facts (which I don't have handy).

(If we were killing civilians to kill civilians -- a la Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- I think we'd use a more efficient method than foot soldiers running around the desert.)

It's about
Parenting and Public schooling.

We (the voters) can’t do much about Parenting, but we can do something about Public Schooling.

How about separation of school and state?

will
Happy Jack is right that you are giving an inaccurate sense as to at least what philosophers mean by moral relativism. Of course the circumstances surrounding an action are often relevant to what is moral in that situation. It is true that some on the right deride this as situational ethics, but the only alternative is simpleminded ethics. And the bible is not so simpleminded. It immediately follows the commandment forbiding killing with a list of who should be killed, (including in one case who should be killed by you personally).

Although JFP does seem to be confused in thinking that people on the left are in his category 3 rather than his category 2. And his conservative commentator who thinks he scored a great debate victory does seem to be making the same mistake of confusing relativism with the importance of context.

RE: Jack, again.
Jack, who says I personally "have a lock" on what is write and wrong? I certainly never said that. I merely pointed out the FACT (NOT opinion) that moral relativism is a RIDICULUOS notion. To claim morality is relative is EXACTLY the same as saying there exists NO morality at all, and there is NOTHING that is either good or evil.

Open your childish eyeballs and READ what I said. Get your mommy to help you with the multi-syllable words if you need help.

Just because various people disagree on what is right and wrong does NOT mean what constitutes right and wrong is "relative". It ONLY means that some people (or ALL people, for that matter) are WRONG about what constitutes right and wrong.

RE: Jack
"However, best not try to operationalize that because we have agreed as a culture on a moral code that says it is wrong."

The Nazis, as a society, thought that purging the Jews (among others) was morally justified.

In short, that example wasn't so "extreme" as you claim it is.

Beowulfe
you write:

"As I already said, just because some disagree on what is right or wrong does not mean that morality is relative. It means some (or ALL) people are WRONG about what is right or wrong."

Only in your tiny little world. You think you have a lock on right and wrong. I know I do. Muslims think they do. So do the Amish. The French might have a different idea. The French Amish might be a differetn group entirely. The Japanese have a seriously different set of moral principles.

A thoughtful person woudl be more interested in finding finding similarities and in knowing how and why the similarities and differences exist. A less than thoughful man would spend his time trying to prclaim the universality of his own personal moral code.

Happy Jack
You write:

"The relativist states that what an individual believes to be moral is moral, so if an individual believes that (for example) killing 6-month-old babies that would be burdensome on the mother or society is OK, then it's OK."

This is entirely a work of your imagination. A moral relativist (which I am not sure even exists) would NOT say that infanticide is OK, he would say that IF a person believes that, then that is the person's personal moral stance. However, best not try to operationalize that because we have agreed as a culture on a moral code that says it is wrong.

I suggest that, instead of seeking an extreme example which may or may not exist (outside of Peter Singer) we look at something much more common. If killing children is a moral evil, then what the US did in Iraq is a morally reprehensible act for which we must be condemned. The numbers of deaths are significant and the support for the act is widespread. Its a much better topic for discussion.

ValiantForTruth writes,
"Man wants to suppress his innate knowledge of God because he thinks of himself as autonomous. He is his own god... The power of this theology is not its truthfulness, but that it is agreeable to men in their rebellion against their creator." (blah blah blah)

"When knowledge of the true God is suppressed then culture looses its objective standard of morality. Each man determines his own morality, and one man made morality is as good as the next one..." (blah blah blah)

------------------------------------------


This type of speculative biblical philosophy may have been all the rage in the Middle Ages, but it doesn't really fly so well in an enlightened democracy, does it? (by the way, you write like your words have been translated from another language - is English your first?).

St. Augustine used to specialize in this sort of "profound" existential mumbo-jumbo. He could go on for pages and pages until the eyes glazed over. Too bad you weren't born a thousand years earlier, ValiantForTruth. You might have found a receptive audience for your blandly ponderous, didactic assertations.

Selective Outrage
I always find it humorous that our resident TH homosexuals never waste an opportunity to bash Christians or Christianity, but would never dare utter a negative word about islam or muslims.

Let’s see...Christians want to save your souls, and muslims want to decapitate you. The homosexuals in this country better hope their rightwing 'enemies' succeed in this conflict...despite the ignorance and seditious behavior of so many self-indignant homosexuals.

isn't..
moral absolutism just a side of moral relativism? Why are you relativists getting all lathered up? And if you are a relativist, why do you think anyone else should care what you think or what your rights are?

So you agree, will?
So you MUST agree, will, that since I think that it is moral to kill Democrats, that it IS moral? Where do you live? I'd like to test out your actual adherance to your belief in "moral relativism". Let's see if you are willing to put your perverbial money where your idiotic mouth is.

The fact of the matter is you are a dope. No RATIONAL person has EVER said "killing is wrong". Heck, the Bible doesn't even say that. The ACTUAL translation of that commandment is NOT "Thou shall not kill." It would be ridiculous if it DID say that ("Thou shall not suffer a witch to live." Remember that one? How could THAT be resolved with "Thou shall not kill"?). It ACTUALLY says "Thou shall not murder."

As for "absence of moral relativism in human being", perhaps. That, though, does not mean morality is relative. It means that humans are imperfect.

Just as an example, I've often wrote that the concept of "randomness" does not exist. Oh, sure, there are a whole bunch of things that human beings cannot predict, but that is not because those things are "random" (that is that they are totally unpredictable), but simply because we don't have, and maybe can never be capable of having, enough information about the factors involved in determinging the outcome of whatever we're trying to predict. "Randomness" (like "infinity") is a philosophical construct used to describe human limitation, and is not a REAL concept at all.

Such can be said of the idea of "moral relativism", except only idiot philosophers would ever wimp out intellectually by claiming a belief in the innane idea. As I already said, just because some disagree on what is right or wrong does not mean that morality is relative. It means some (or ALL) people are WRONG about what is right or wrong.

Unreal
I find it amazing that the people who have sworn to murder anyone who dares to speak, write, or visually depict anything negative about mohammed or islam are the very same people clamoring about their First Amendment rights to post islamic propaganda.

I say let’s put up their propaganda in all our subways...and right next to each poster, under the heading of "The True Face of Islam", we'll post assorted pictures of “honor killings”, beheadings, children suicide bombers, etc.

painfully obvioius
Will and his buddies have a guilt complex and attempt to relax their nagging conscince by calling into question all morality with circular logic games. Your abilities to rationalize won't save you but, by all means keep trying. Attempting to observe the human experience from a hypothetical vantage point as if "riding on a beam of light" may be a fun thought experiment it doesn't erase truth, the birthplace of morality by God.

Will
You are confused on the "killing for self-defense" idea. That is not relative morality, it's situational. The relativist states that what an individual believes to be moral is moral, so if an individual believes that (for example) killing 6-month-old babies that would be burdensome on the mother or society is OK, then it's OK.

Lethal force in self defense is not relative because it's not a factor of whether or not you believe it's OK to kill (in self-defense or otherwise). It's entirely dependent upon the situation. If I walk up to someone at random and shoot them in the back of the head, that is wrong, period (with which a true relativist would disagree). But I have the DUTY to defend myself, and my family with the minimum force necessary to end the threat. If that minimum force kills the assailant, I have done nothing wrong. If I used excessive force (say, a hand grenade against an un-armed burglar) that is wrong. On the other hand, allowing myself or (worse) someone in my immediate care to be killed by an assailant whom I could have stopped if I had used force is also wrong.

Situational morality (trying to make a moral decision based on the circumstances of the moment) is far, FAR different from moral relativism (What's OK to you is OK.)

Identification of Evil in your presence
Senator Obama supported and sat with his family in Rev. Wright's hate filled church for twenty years, sat on the Woods foundation board with an American terrorist and 1960's bombing radical Bill Aires.The senator has no ability to recognize evil when it's in his presence. The scary part is that half the American population doesn't recognize this as a short coming or as a problem and is considering voting for such a man.

Jack
"Of course, the rational way to deal with moral differences woudl be to set up some sort of guideline to which we coudl all agree, a set of moral rules we shoudl all play by...."

The majority of Americans don't support homosexual marriage. Does that mean it should be banned?

"AN irrational way would be to assert that your particualr moral values are absolute and shoudl be followed by everyone else, whether they hold the same values or not."

Are you ABSOLUTELY sure of that?

If You Are Really Interested in Moraltiy
which I highly doubt, I strongly suggest you dig into Lawrence Kohlberg's wrok on the psychological underpinning sof moral judgements. FAscinating and very useful stuff.

JFP
Good comments, I think you nailed it.

Culture and theology…

A culture is known by its theology. Today’s dominate theology is that there is no God. God did not create the world. God did not judge the antediluvian world. God did not covenant with Abraham to bless all nations in his Seed.

Man wants to suppress his innate knowledge of God because he thinks of himself as autonomous. He is his own god. And he will hold to nonsense so that he can deny his accountability to the God who reveals Himself in nature and in the conscience and in Jesus Christ. The power of this theology is not its truthfulness, but that it is agreeable to men in their rebellion against their creator.

When knowledge of the true God is suppressed then culture looses its objective standard of morality. Each man determines his own morality, and one man made morality is as good as the next one. No man can question what is right or wrong because there is no truth.

The power of this lie cannot stand before the power of God. Christians, will we pray for our country like Daniel prayed for his in Daniel 9? God may yet visit us in mercy and turn His wrath away from us and bring us to repentance.

I Love These Threads
They bring out scads of people who all have their own set of moral standards and accuse everyone else of moral relativism. And scads of people who really don't know anthing about morality as a subject: they really just know what they believe personally.

For example, morality clearly has a hierarchical relativity. Gallagher himself realies on that hierarchy to make his point. In America, support for freedom of speech is a moral issue. It's something we believe in. Gallagher, however, think we can sacrafice that moral position for what he considers a higher moral position, curtailing the access of certain people he doesn't like.

Gallagher is taking a purely relativistic stance himself, i.e. action A is moral under some circumstances and immoral under other circumstances.

Of course, the rational way to deal with moral differences woudl be to set up some sort of guideline to which we coudl all agree, a set of moral rules we shoudl all play by....maybe a constitution or something. AN irrational way would be to assert that your particualr moral values are absolute and shoudl be followed by everyone else, whether they hold the same values or not.


Two points ...
I think the main point the author was trying to make is that if morality is relative, what is it relative to?

Point #2 is that the statement, "morality is relative" fails its own test because it is an absolute statement itself.

"Moral relativism is not a BAD THING"
Nuff said

JFP writes (to me),
"Will, mrbmrb
You guys are confused. Please distinguish between the following three kinds of people:

1. The moral absolutist who is convinced he has all the answers.
2. The moral absolutist who admits that finding the answers can be hard.
3. The moral relativist, who thinks there are no answers."

----------------------------------------------

JFP: What about the moral relativist who believes that there is no "one answer", but, potentially many answers, depending on the circumstances?

Somebody on this thread wrote that moral relativism is wrong. Because stealing is wrong, period. Because killing is wrong...unless it's in self-defense.

That "unless it's in self-defense" IS precisely MORAL RELATIVISM. It's the definition. Either killing is wrong in all cases (moral absolutism) or it's not. Either stealing is wrong in all cases or it's not (what if the CIA steals documents from rogue governments that mean us harm? - Is stealing okay too in "self-defense"?)

There is no such thing as an ABSENCE of moral relativism in human beings, EVERYTHING is relative; relative to your culture, relative to the time period you grow up in, etc.


I believe that "moral relativism" simply is a wink-wink code phrase for some of you social cons: The BIBLE is the answer! God's word is absolute! Even your own magical deity drown the world in a great FLood, then decided he was wrong to do it and gave us "rainbows" as a covenant (read the mythology), letting his peeps know that this particular form of murder would never happen again.


Moral relativism is not a BAD THING. It's enlightened. Of course, the more dullish among you have to reduce everything to "good" and "bad", "good" vs. "evil", like a superhero comic book.

As An Outsider Who...
...has been reading these pages for quite a while, the answer seems obvious. Good = Anything done by the US in pursuit of its own interests no matter who has to suffer. It does of course help if its a Republican behind it. Evil = Anything done by other countries (or indeedthe US) that are not in line with US right wing orthodoxy.
This is not to say that many good things haven't come about due to the US acting in it's own interests, defeat of Nazism, Communism etc but there does appear to be a rather simplistic view in some quarters

remember 9/11
video re-runs of the planes flying into the towers on that day should be reminder enough to bring people back to their senses.

A Couple Quotes
"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-- John Adams

"Relativism"
The problem isn't moral relativism, it's warped morality. Those who claim relativism don't believe it for a nanosecond. On the one hand, they claim that everyone is the ultimate arbitor of their own moral lives (usually dealing with sexuality and its consequences) and that every culture is equal. On the other hand, they have a list of sins and evil deeds that they universally, unanimously, and "absolutely" decry: discrimination (for a wide, deep, and highly dynamic list of traits and behaviors), insufficiantly energetic support for gay privileges, environmental damage (starting with tossing that gum wrapper on the ground), permitting smoking (though, oddly, not smoking itself, a passtime I've seen frequented by many liberals), earning money through commerce, and so forth.

My blog has a post (http://happyjake.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/18/absolute_relativism.thtml) on this topic where I go into a little more detail.

The irony of Moral Relativism
is that it is the notion whereby many on the Left presume to occupy the moral high ground by having declared that there is no such thing.

It is not, as they proclaim, like they don’t make moral judgments. They do that all the time. Just read many of their comments in this forum regarding the Right. (The Right makes moral judgments to; we just don’t deny it.) Advocates for Moral Relativism just don’t want to be bound by any set of historically consistent rules that might require them to come to a judgment they do not fancy in any particular case

The ad has some merit
“In time, democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

There will be nothing left because Islam will have destroyed everything.

RE: SJ Dolt
You are a freaking kook, kiddo. I probably have more knowledge of the Federal Reserve in my left pinky than your entire family. You've been screaming about the Fed on these boards, displaying your absolute and total ignorance of it, every day for what? Months? You don't have the SLIGHTEST clue. You read some wacko's blog and take it seriously without first taking the time to find out the facts.

Put your tin foil back on before those evil Federal Reserve aliens from the planet Zimbob fry your last remaining brain cell with their evil death rays from outer space.

M Sederoff
I would make one comment about your post. God is ALLOWING the wheat to grow WITH the chaff. In this way, no wheat shall be lost while trying to root the chaff. At the harvest all of the wheat will be gathered. The chaff will be bundled and destroyed.

beowulfe
You are right that moral relativism makes no sense. But it helps to keep in mind that there are not really a lot of moral relativists on the left. Instead what you have are people on the right who think that since they have the objective truth, anyone who disagrees with them must be a moral relativist. And so you get the nonsense above.

So while a true moral relativist could not say more than that while it may be ok for you to kill pro-choice people from your perspective, from their perspective it would be appropriate to lock you up for life if you did. An actual pro-choice person would be puzzled as to why you think they are a moral relativist.

In fact there is nothing in Gallagher's article above that even hints at moral relativism. The muslims, like Gallagher, think they have the truth and are trying to spread it. America values the free market and free speech. And the campaign to prostletyze for Islam on the subway seems in keeping with both. That is true even if one of the spokesman for it has been under suspicion while convicted of nothing.

On the other hand it is not clear whether by the glory days when people knew right from wrong in the country Gallagher means to be going back to the days of slavery, or just the days of jim crow. Of course support for slavery was not moral relativism either. It was just bad moral thinking.

SJ Doc
sounds like a horses patui whaaaa whaaaa. He loves his filth and want to rub wants everyones face in it.

Hooper is a shill for Hamas
I remember in 2001 he asked the mayor of Columbus, OH to cancel Holocaust Memorial Day making much about "Palestinians".

I sent a nastygram to both the mayor (cc'ing it to Hooper) making comparison of "Palestinians" to mohajirs (FYI, "Palestinians" still came off worse in the comparison--especially considering that I am an Indian non-Muslim) and mentioning the historical fact of "Palestinian" collaboration with Nazi regime. The mayor's reply was cordial (he was a little surprised that someone from outside Columbus had interest in the issue), contrasting with Hooper's "outrage" at my comparison of "Palestine" with Pakistan.

Basically, I have no doubts that Hooper and Wahaj are evil!

No no. Tell us what you REALLY think
"Just focus on this, you idiots.

(1) Government is fundamentally immoral.

(2) Setting fundamentally immoral people (and institutions) in charge of public morality is insane.

(3) You're out of your friggin' minds."

Yup, yup and yup. And that's on a good day.

Tell us what you really think, SJ Doc
"However you goddamned "social" pseudoconservatives" maunder and moan and masturbate over the putative decadences (however you might choose to define them) of the private citizen, the core assault upon the moral fiber of this nation has nothing at all to do with sexual behavior or drug use or boozing or cussing or any other sort of activity that does not violate the life, liberty, or property of another person."

LOL!

"It's your goddam government, aggressively and insidiously (see "currency inflation") plundering the individual American citizen."

Now you're talkin'!

"And here you are, Gallagher and the rest of you mindless dolts, *DEMANDING* that that same thieving, raping, murdering government jump the butts of your neighbors and force them to quit all the awful-nasty-incontinent behaviors that *YOU* don't want them to flaunt in front of you."

_Love_ the "flaunt."

"Probably because you're finding all that stuff pretty goddam tempting, and unless you can keep it out of sight (and thoroughly punished), you're afraid that *YOU* might just give in and indulge in the same sorts of self-abuse."

Self-abuse? No kidding! All those sticky keyboards whenever a gay-bashing article comes up (which is better than daily just now).

They must be rubbed raw!

SJ DOC hasen't a Clue...
Read the Founders SJ. Remember ancient Greece...the Roman Empire? Morality is everything. That is, the morality on which the Creator established his laws. The very same on which the corner stone of this Nation was laid.
The founders knew that only a religious and moral people could keep the republic.
We as a nation no longer fit that description as secularism/moral relativism is being shoved down our throats by left wing special interests.
You complain about the government!
I fear the radical left wing agenda driven groups.
The ACLU, The Gay lobby, The radical feminists, The race hustleres...
All whom push our nation down the road to perdition and divisivness whether the majority agrees or not.
I.E. the Marriage Amendment(protecting traditional marriage)is overwhelmingly supported by the people yet even when it is voted upon the left does an end run if it doesn't turn out to their liking.
The ACLU strips this nation of it's Judeo-Christian identity while protecting NAMBLA, perverts, radical islamists...
Your concern is sorely misguided I'm afraid.

Define hypocrite.
"Now, let's discuss ways to destroy the Federal Reserve System and save our nation."

So much for "keep your friggin' hands off."

You want moral absolutes?
--
Okay, here's a moral absolute.


Keep your friggin' hands off.


That can be applied to all entities, from the private citizen to - emphatically! - the government of these United States.

And it had better be.

However you goddamned "social" pseudoconservatives" maunder and moan and masturbate over the putative decadences (however you might choose to define them) of the private citizen, the core assault upon the moral fiber of this nation has nothing at all to do with sexual behavior or drug use or boozing or cussing or any other sort of activity that does not violate the life, liberty, or property of another person.

It's your goddam government, aggressively and insidiously (see "currency inflation") plundering the individual American citizen.

And here you are, Gallagher and the rest of you mindless dolts, *DEMANDING* that that same thieving, raping, murdering government jump the butts of your neighbors and force them to quit all the awful-nasty-incontinent behaviors that *YOU* don't want them to flaunt in front of you.

Probably because you're finding all that stuff pretty goddam tempting, and unless you can keep it out of sight (and thoroughly punished), you're afraid that *YOU* might just give in and indulge in the same sorts of self-abuse.

Gawd, how Freudian.

Just focus on this, you idiots.

(1) Government is fundamentally immoral.

(2) Setting fundamentally immoral people (and institutions) in charge of public morality is insane.

(3) You're out of your friggin' minds.


Got that "moral absolute" down solidly?

Good. Now, let's discuss ways to destroy the Federal Reserve System and save our nation.

--

Truth and Righteousness Will Prevail
Thanks Mike for speaking out...for pointing out that the battle is between good and evil..the battle is real and rages in America today..good will triumph...truth and righteousness will prevail....PRAY... that truth is the victor now.

God, please forgive us, May truth and righteousness prevail..please Bless America

We have or are turning in to a ....
We have or are turning in to a group of moral wimps! If you believe in something, then stand up for it, fighting if necessary those who want to take away your rights to your beliefs. YOu have no right to impose you moral belifs on anyone else; and they have no right to impose their moral beliefs on you.

However, do not get moral beliefs / rights confused with what laws should exist. For example, morally I am against killing! This, however, is no justification for a law against killing! The justification for laws against killing is in our Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...."! That is justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, liberity are the bases for laws, not any moral rights!

It's not rocket science
In my personal opinion it takes a very closed and small mind to swallow the deception of moral relativism. We exit the womb with an inate understanding or instinct of what is right or wrong and what is an inherent truth and what is false. We are given the tools from that point of birth onward by our parents and/or society to hone and sharpen the skills and understanding of right/wrong, truth/lie or we are given the tools to blunt them. Lately (over the last 35 years), I see it being the latter.

More ''dismal science''
--
Gallagher's a jerkwad. Let's just read more Rothbard:


"Indeed, the major economic grievance agitating the public has little or nothing to do with the [business] cycle, with boom or recession: it is secular and seemingly permanent, specifically a slow, inexorable, debilitating decline in the standard of living that grinds down the people's spirit as well as their pocketbooks. Taxes, and the tax bite into their earnings, keep going up, on the federal, state, county, and local levels of government. Semantic disguises don't work any more: call them 'fees,' or 'contributions,' or 'insurance premiums,' they are taxes nevertheless, and they are increasingly draining the people's substance.

"And while Establishment economists, statisticians, and financial experts keep proclaiming that 'inflation has been licked,' that 'structural economic factors preclude a return to inflation,' and all the rest of the blather, all consumers know in their hearts and wallets that the prices they pay at the supermarket, at the store, in tuition, in insurance, in magazine subscriptions, keep going up and up, and that the dollar's value keeps going down and down.

"The contemptuous charge by economic 'scientists' that all this experience by consumers is merely 'anecdotal,' that hard quantitative data and their statistical manipulations demonstrate that economic growth is lively, that the economy is doing splendidly, that inflation is over, and all the rest, doesn't cut any ice either. In the end, all this 'science' has only succeeded in convincing the public that economic and statistical experts rank up there with lawyers and politicians as a bunch of - how shall we put it? - 'disinformation specialists.'"



-- From *Making Economic Sense*

The whole book can be read online. Go to:
http://mises.org/econsense/econsense.asp

Since morality is 'relative'...
...is it ok for me to ram a rusty pair of scissors into the back of every kooky commie's head merely because I think "the right of abortion" for Democrats ought to be extended until their death?

Hey, who are YOU, or anyone else, to impose your version of "morality" on me, will? I hereby decree it is a moral imperative to kill all Democrats, ergo, ipso facto, and therefore it must be so!

The fact of the matter is that "moral relativism" doesn't even make rational sense. If we were to say that what is right or wrong merely depends on who you are, what church you attend, your current geographic location, or what time of day it is, we might as well say that there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". That being the case, then where does anyone get the authority to prohibit such abominable things as murder or rape? After all, according to will, if you really, really, REALLY believe raping a 5-year-old then tossing them into a woodchipper is a-ok, well, by God, it must be so!

The ones I always love pissing off are the utilitarians like crackpot Peter Singer. Utilitarians believe whatever makes the most people the most happy is, by definition, moral. Of course when I point out that the Nazis thought EXACTLY the same thing when they got a whole bunch of people to be convinced slaughtering Jews was a moral imperative, those utilitarians, no matter how "smart" they think they are, sound like B. Hussein Obama after being asked whether he'd vote for the surge now that it has been proven to be a monumental success.

Just because people may disagree on what is right and wrong does NOT mean "morality is relative". It merely means some (or all) people are WRONG about what is right and wrong.

My problem with this article is that
I agree with some parts (e.g., I agree that the surge reduced violence in Iraq)and I diasagree with others (e.g., I do think raising the min wage will not do much due to the increased cost of food and fuel). The point is, not everyone will agree about everything, and saying one position is "good " and one position is "evil" does not really help that much. It also seems to me that there is a major moral difference between celebrating the release of a murderer and favoring more govt help for poor people --does that mean I am a "relative moralist?" Or is it just that everyone who disagrees with Mike G is a "reltive moralist?"

The 9/11 split and moral relativism
It's wrong to say that the pro-Islamic posters in the subways represent moral relativism. I'd say it's stupidity that arrogantly believes it is intelligence, sophistication and sensitivity.

Go back to 9/11. Despite the claims of unity, we were never unified. One faction (the left) saw the attackers as paying us back for the awful things we've done in the Middle East. Their strategy has been to be as accommodating to Muslims as possible. If that means putting up pro-Islamic posters in a government-run subway that should be neutral toward all religions, so be it. This faction dominates our media and schools and the civil service.

The rest of us think the attackers were out to impose shari'a on us. Our strategy has been to contain them as much as possible.

Every step taken by one faction seems utterly wrongheaded to the other faction.

I've said many times before why I think the left faction is being stupid: because the people they are accommodating will destroy the left once they are in power.

Another way to say PC
There are a number of instances of these so called "honor killings" lately, they seem to only occur amongst muslims, how anyone can argue that islam doesn't condone this amazes me, one woman held her daughter down while the father stabbed the child to death.
Therefore to continue to promote this "religion of peace" garbage while hiding behind the 1st Amendment and PC philosophy is to continue down the path to our own destruction.
One cannot serve 2 masters, either you support the Constitution first and whatever religion you believe in 2nd or you cannot be considered an American in my eyes.
Any religion that encourages it's adherents to lie to everyone else in order to advance it's nefarious ends is no religion at all and it's practitioners constitute a 5th column in any country they inhabit. Europe is a perfect example of societies that are being destroyed from within because of this very thing.

Mike Gallagher
"I yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes this country great. "

Oh, sweet, gentle soul. I hate to tell you this, but...it aint gonna happen. God is separating the wheat from the chaff. Those who want God will eventually "come out from among them and be separate". But the masses will never return to righteousness.

I know I will get hoots and hollers about right-wing religious nuts being the problem of the conservative camp, but it doesn't matter. Time will prove me right. You scoffers just remember this when you are swimming in your own vomit.

RCB - Minimum wage, maximum malignancy
--
Asks RCB:

"Should people have a negative attitude towards the minimum wage rises?"


If they have any sound education at all in the principles of economics, you bet your butt they should.

You're reading Townhall.com, and so I presume you regularly access the columns of Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams.

If you don't, you're a wastrel.

Both of these men are professional economists, though they write on other subjects, and you would do well to examine *their* observations on what "minum wage" really is, how it works, and what are its Christlessly horrible effects throughout the American economy.

Consider beginning with Dr. Sowell's many comments, including:

(1) http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110503.asp

(2) http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

(3) http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4472







=====
"In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is COMPULSORY UNEMPLOYMENT, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result."

-- Murray Rothbard

Will, mrbmrb
You guys are confused. Please distinguish between the following three kinds of people:

1. The moral absolutist who is convinced he has all the answers.
2. The moral absolutist who admits that finding the answers can be hard.
3. The moral relativist, who thinks there are no answers.

You seem to think that if the first person is wrong, one must agree with the third person. Not so, because one could also agree with the second person and disagree with the third person.

Of course, the left generally is utterly confused on this business of moral relativism. A few years ago in the Wall Street Journal, a conservative was chortling about how he had flattened a left-wing moral relativist. The relativist was a lesbian who was a former nun, and she challenged the conservative to cite just one moral absolute. Without hesitation, he replied, "Thou shall not rape." That shut her up quick.

RCB
Negative view: Gas prices and food prices swallow minimum wage increases.

Positive view: Minimum wage increases offset gas and food increases.

Real view: Minimum wage increases CONTRIBUTE TO gas and food increases (by artificially affecting the market for that most expensive of business costs: people.)

Jim - Not a "dismal science" at all
--
I started paying attention to economics during the disastrous stagflation of the Jimmy Carter years.

In the summer of 1980, the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve was increasing the M3 at a rate - if annualized - would amount to an astonishing 20%.

We were calling the O.M.C. "the Committee to Re-Elect Jimmy Carter."

They were "priming the pump" so hard that they goddam near drowned the American economy.

It was that utterly insane currency inflation which caused the corrective recession of 1981.

Remember, I'm a country GP, *not* an economist. I began studying economics in much the same way (and for precisely the same reason) that a doctor studies pathology.

Your misunderstanding of the Federal Reserve System (the present instantiation of the concept of a "National Bank" so deservedly hated by Jefferson and his successors) is normal.

You've been lied to all through your education, and like the victim of a gang-rape, you're not to be blamed for your current condition of stunned, overwhelmed, fumbling incapacity.

But you're responsible for getting yourself educated. Accordingly, I recommend to you Murray Rothbard's *What Has Government Done to Our Money?*, available free online at:

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

You'll find it easy to read and easy to understand.

Which is why, of course, none of your teachers or instructors in school - or the politicians of either "mainstream" party - ever wanted you to know about it.

=====
"The emergence of money was a great boon to the human race. Without money - without a general medium of exchange - there could be no real specialization, no advancement of the economy above a bare, primitive level. With money, the problems of indivisibility and 'coincidence of wants' that plagued the barter society all vanish."

-- Murray Rothbard

Jim
Your wasting your time trying to explain the free market to a Liberal/Fascist. It is the Liberals that have caused the moral decay of our country as they seek their dream world Utopia. To them, there is no true right or wrong. One only has to look at that cesspool San Francisco to see their so-called Utopia at work!

Great article Mr. Gallagher!

Opposite spin
I heard the news reports stating that the minimum wage increases will be gobbled up by rising gas and food prices. But then I heard another news report stating that the minimum wage increases come just in time to offset rising gas and food prices. Both are probably true, but the second report exhibits a positive attitude while the first one exhibits a negative attitude.

Put this together, and one sees that even when the news media reports facts, they can advocate the attitude people should have in light of those facts.

Should people have a negative attitude towards the minimum wage rises? The answer shouldn't depend on which news report they listen to. Otherwise, the news media has too much power.

Free Speech
Freedom of speech does NOT mean you must be provided with a podium. In another way to put it, the right to speak does not include or presume the right to be heard. You cannot be put in jail for speaking your mind (unless speaking your mind intentionally incites panic or riot ("Fire!" in a crowded theater), threatens anyone -- especially a public official -- with ACTUAL harm, or disseminates protected private, law enforcement, or national security information to those unauthorized to have it), but you do not have to be given a platform from which to speak. An organization, even a government organization, can refuse to carry an advertisement that organization finds objectionable without infringing freedom of speech.

SJ Doc
and the vile filth they spews over this country is the problem with this country.

Question for S.J.Doc!
The "dismal science" of economics is not my forte so perhaps you can enlighten me. You cite Mathew Beller for the premise that an increase in the money supply leads to an increase in the price of goods and services. OK! But if no Federal Reserve [or similar entity] existed, and the economy was reduced to barter exclusively, would the price of petroleum [and goods dependent upon cheap oil] decline? I contend that the iron principles of supply and demand drive the price of oil [we've got too little and we use too much]. I'll grant that a weakened dollar contributes but that weakness is largely a result of outrageous trade inbalance and not from the FedRes adding to the money supply. We've been buying cheap Chinese consumer goods and OPEC oil with abandon, and [obviously] we're paying the bill with dollars. The Chines and OPEC have [metaphorically speaking] warehouses so full of our "funny money" which has been rendered essentially worthless. We can attribute most inflation to our unrestrained trade policies, and energy policy [or the lack thereof] rather than FedRes excesses. Discussion please!

Jim-Too

moral relativism
It's funny 'cause if I wanted to plaster banners that said anything about Christ, the responsible parties in NY would have laughted me out of the room and never accepted it. I would have been called a 'hate-mongering, ultra-right christian'. So if it isn't or wouldn't be ok for christian messages to be put up, why Muslim ones?

Fr. Photios Cooper
Beaverton, Oregon

Gallagher, you magnificent idiot...
--
...you have no friggin' idea about the real moral crisis that is "killing our country."

Not at all.

Y'know what morality is?

Morality is keeping your goddam hands to yourself.

Y'know the immorality that's destroying the people of these United States?

It's the federal government stealing the property of every private citizen in this country through currency inflation.

See http://mises.org/content/nofed/chart.aspx?series=TMS for a look at what the government has done to the money in the average American's wallet, in his paycheck, his pension plan, his bank account, everywhere.

By massively inflating the currency, these sonzabitches have *STOLEN* the value of the money each of us is forced (by "legal tender" laws) to use for everything we do.

Do you have any idea what "morality" means, Gallagher?

It means "NOT STEALING FROM PEOPLE," you butt-hole!




=====
"The most commonly used definition of inflation — a general increase in the prices of goods and services — is probably the least descriptive, and it is certainly the most misleading. By no coincidence, this is the definition used by politicians, major financial newspaper columnists, and CNBC pundits; and it is the one taught in public high schools and colleges. The reason that this definition is misleading is because it detaches the cause of the phenomenon (an increase in the money supply) from its eventual effects (an increase in the prices of goods and services)."

-- Matthew Beller

Contempt is not "homophobia"
There should be a tax on stupidity!
Queers like Will, Mellor & MRB (or MRC?) are nothing but desperate to justify their behaviour to everyone and, most importantly to themselves. They can't! Hence their despicable, stupid behaviour.
Right and wrong are quite simple, it's wrong to steal (no matter what excuses or names it's called) covet your neighbour's wife, to lie,to envy, to cheat, to be slothfull and parasitical, to kill or wound others unless for self defense.
Right is simple too, the main purpose for our lives is to procreate (and that takes a man and a woman) and to raise our children (again a man and a woman)there nothing "relative" with that!

Brent Bozell column
Forgot one thing, Mellor finally admitted he is a homosexual who has been posing as a straight man here. That should be factored in to his comments, his purpose here is disingenuous and fraudulent.


MellorSJ2, Will and the others
Are homosexual militants who attack others who disagree with their views.They coordinate their attacks. Mellor is an especially rabid anti Christian homosexual militant who poses as a straight male. Others in his group were outed on Dennis Pragers column and Star Parke's.

Will posts on all of Dr. Adams columns with repugnant homosexual militant posts. Both are part of a larger circle of militant homosexual posters who try the facade of claiming to be straight when they are in fact, homosexual militants doing their best to interrupt honest debate.

Some others Are MikeR, du, LovelsEqual, 7 sticks, Higene. Just to name a few. It is sad that they do their best to shove their beliefs down the throats of those simply here for debate.

Very hateful people.

Anyone here
get O'Reilly's show (I think that's where I saw it) last night? Where we learned that a Moslem father here IN THIS COUNTRY actually killed his two lovely teenaged daughters (yesterday I think) for having become "too Westernized"? I only caught it in passing so am not sure just where this hideous crime took place.

And "wee Willy" and "Mellor" are worried about those of us who believe in the Bible, when nobody here has ever so much as done nor would do anything more than disagree with them...

Selective outrage, anyone?

This is such nonsense,
You are outraged at this when people in this country and on this very site scorn the mention of the Bible and the Gospel Peace it want to bring.

My goodness the people on this site can't even be outraged at the right things. Talk about moral relativism. Talk about moral confusion instead.

Good job
Great match with Ibrahim. I think their talking points are getting a little stale.
Great job Mike, he doesn't know what to say when we laugh at the idiotic defense posturing. Hey, everyone else is just a biggot to them..."where does this stuff come from", he wonders? Gee, that is funny.

Will
You cite one example of a zealot and you think that's what all Christians believe? You would do well to learn to think. I'm a Christian who believes God created the universe. How He did it is moot; I can accept evolution as a means to an end. You run into a cult of literalists and you think that's what everyone who believes in Christ believes? So sad.

And what's sadder is that you seem to accept that morality IS relative. It is not. There is a right and a wrong, a good and an evil in the world. As the saying goes, the greatest lie the devil ever perpetrated on the world is the notion that he doesn't exist. By turning your back on evil because you want to be considered "smarter" and "tolerant" is but another form of evil based on the classic liberal symptom known as Vanity.

good vs evil
please make trwo lists showing good on one side and evil on the other, be sure not to let youir personal prejudices interfere with your objectivity and above all be comprehensive . i really want to know what is good and what is evul in in every circumstance i find myself. if you cant do this then admit that a certain amount of moral relativisim is necessary in any culture and you are wrong. if this is true please tell me how much relativism is proper. do you have any idea what you are talking about? can you prove it by rewriting your column so that it makes sense.? ? . please apologize for your error which although not evil although you may include it on the evil side was certainly bad.

Why, thank you, Will!
But somehow I don't think I had to teach you that... unlike most others on this site.

Gestell got off a good one on some thread I can't find now (grumble!). He responded to someone who was busy explaining that we (i.e., they) have to impose their morality on other people that he (the someone) was a real conservative. After all, the rest of 'em pretend they're doing it to "protect the children," or because it's yucky or not "normal."

I don't get it. They have World Youth Day (that lasted a week and shut down the city) and churches on every corner, but if you put a picture of your boyfriend on your desk, you're "flaunting."

And then they claim they're persecuted because they are required--in a foreign country yet--to moderate their speech that directly harms people.

And they spend like drunken sailors while ranting about "socialized medicine" drug benefits.

Bizarre.

I miss reading your posts, Mellor!
Your common sense goes a long way in cutting through the bull and beating down the gossip and half-truths and superstitions that pass for conservative wisdom on this increasingly moralistic website.

You have taught me that real conservativism is about personal resposibility and sound economics.... not about what the skygod thinks about Johnny buggering Luke.

Will,
Nobody holds all the answers to the world's problems but it pretty clear you do not hold any of them.
As for the Islamic posters, they may be free speech and it would be my freedom of speech to deface them if I were to have the pleasure of seeing them there.
How ridiculous are things going to get before we say "enough?"

Your friend is wrong, will
The earth is 5999 years old. The Great Elf told me so.

Mike writes,
"I yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes this country great. Right and wrong are not relative terms. There are fundamental truths. Evil flourishes, but good men continue to battle it – and win.

Good can and will triumph over evil."

-----------------------------------------

Mike, if this conservative columnist gig doesn't work out for you, you can always get a job at DC Comics. Obviously you were raised on Superman and Aquaman and Batman and Wonder Woman where "good can and will triumph over evil."


YES. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS MORAL RELATIVISM. NOBODY holds all the answers to all the world's problems or questions. There is hardly ever only "ONE WAY" to solve a moral problem. Moral absolutists are misguided and dangerous to a democratic society (although you may very well work out in a theocracy).

I know a Christian evangelical who tells me that the world ABSOLUTELY began 6 thousand years ago. There is no "relativism" with him on this point. The young earth had a definate start point 6 thousand years ago, Adam was created by "God" from dirt, Eve from Adam's rib, and various dinosaurs roamed the Garden of Eden with this dynamic duo (my friend tells me that dinosaurs became extinct when Noah built his Ark and these dinosaurs were "too big" to fit aboard and thus perished in the Flood).

If you don't believe this story LITERALLY, creationists tell me, then you are a "moral relativist", one of those godless heathens that can incorpoate evolution and carbon dating and a 5 billion year old earth into your sick relativist philosophy.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.