Skip to comments.A Squib Regarding Moral Relativism
Posted on 01/31/2016 2:07:26 AM PST by Jacquerie
It is natural to compare things in our daily lives, and discriminate between alternatives. When it comes to important matters, decisions are best made on the basis of cool reason. For instance, having decided to separate from Great Britain, our Founders asked mankind to judge the rectitude of their decision. After setting forth a theory of free government and itemizing British violations of it, they submitted their work to a "candid world," out of "respect to the Opinions of Mankind."
In order to respect the opinions of others at all, we must assume from the start that their beliefs are based at least partly on truth. After examination of the opinions of others, suppose we determine them to be erroneous. Like our Founders, courteous men in all ages will explain their reasoning; they will detail why they disagree.
But what if one or more of the parties to the discussion tosses reason aside? What if they were taught from an early age that all opinions are subjective and not subject to any rational or objective standards? Without reason, it is impossible to determine whether the opinions of one group are morally preferable to those of another. What could have been a reasoned opinion has been reduced to nothing more than an emotional, arbitrary like or dislike. Such people, those who substitute feelings and passion for reason are moral relativists.
Relativists resolve disputes in one of three, sometimes overlapping ways. Their methods are on regular display in congress, where herd-like men and women conduct their business all the while oblivious to what is noble and what is base.
1.) As long as one side doesn't have a monopoly on power, moral relativists will bargain. Negotiations typically feature outrageous demands that reflect man's appetites rather than any respect for the public good.
2.) Relativists easily resort to blackmail or extortion. It occurs when they refuse to perform some vital function unless its demands are satisfied. Once again, there is no respect for the public good.
3.) Related to #2 is the use of brute force. Relativists ruthlessly grasp political power in order to suppress opposition and establish hegemony.
Notice the progression of less and less reason. These three methods reflect the stages by which moral and intellectual anarchy imposed by moral relativists culminate in undisguised tyranny.
After decades of appeals to America's emotions, modern Leftists have let slip their masks, for behind the mask of the relativist, of one who preaches toleration, is an intolerant tyrant waiting to spring forth. His feelings, his lust for power are immune to reason. In this sense he is little more than a beast, and a rabid one at that, who must, in the interest of the civil society, be caged or put down.
Nowadays, instead of asking civil society to merely look the other way from perversions and various crimes against the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, the modern Leftist demands not only society's acquiescence, but its full support. The thoughts and deeds of all must submit to that which denies reason. This is an impossibility, for no amount of brow beating can long depress man's nature, his instinctive resort to shun emotion when necessary and use his God-given reason.
America is harvesting the bitter fruit of decades of moral relativism. Continual indoctrination from government, public schools, news media and entertainment portray America and Americans as no better than any other country or people. A nation that thinks itself no better than another, or even not worth defending, will eventually not be defended. Such a nation will be invaded, for instance, by muslims who cannot be both faithful followers of islam and the American tradition as ensconced in the Declaration of Independence.
Elections alone have proved incapable of halting the Left's relativistic assaults. Nor can they reverse America's departure from free government and head-first dive into tyranny.
Good points, all.
It should be pointed out that moral relativism is not confined solely to the fever swamps of the modern Democrat Party. This deadly disease has made deep inroads into the Republican Party as well, and is also publicly-manifesting daily in much of what passes for “the conservative movement.”
Very well written. Marx was perhaps the most notorious of moral relativists, summing up his lust for power in the oft-repeated slogan “The end justifies the means.”
Ask people if they consider themselves to be a pragmatist. Then ask then if they know the content of that philosophy.
And what can restrain evil? God alone.
Are you a fatalist? Do you believe that human beings bear the responsibility for their actions?
Coming up [in post to self] ...
The math of pragmatism in the real world.
Math of Pragmatism in the Real World
[by, uh, me]
The old question — what’s the difference between moral relativism and pragmatism?
Truth is math. Most people stop there and accept it as a ‘single truth’.
But the real world is different.
Patriotic pragmatism agrees with ONE TRUTH, but it’s ‘advanced math’.
It calculates dynamically and factors in deadlines — windows of opportunity that will close. For example: FDR and Truman accepting communists as allies during WWII [Stalin, Mao, and Tito]. That is the ‘advanced math’ of patriotic pragmatism.
Students learn the math of pure theory which tends to be static.
And then there is the messy side of math that factors in the need to solve unforeseen problems, the dynamics of growing problems, the dynamics of trusting/hoping that others might solve problems in the future, shifts in human behavior, etc. In fact, many math formulas are about randomness.
For example ...
World’s first robot-run farm will harvest 30,000 heads of lettuce daily...
Currently, people assume that we will need cheap labor to harvest lettuce. They assume that human error will cause ecoli to spread over lettuce. Others might jump to the conclusion that the need for cheap labor is gone at this moment.
Both are wrong.
A smart farmer might try to build up a cash reserve until he or she knows more about this project. If it’s already cost effective — how does it turn out?
1. What are the costs?
2. How much attrition will the robots suffer?
3. Will counter-measures against theft of robots be sufficient?
4. What will be the availability of these robots?
5. What are the logistics of repairs? Will there be enough technicians near a given farm?
6. Is the programming in the current robots sufficient?
7. How quickly will their programming improve?
8. How will the price of these robots shift in the future? [Odds are costs will drop.]
9. Then factor in our current Wall Street Roller Coaster — how could that affect this innovation?
10. Are there temporary components? How much will they cost in the future?
11. Will some parts routinely break down? And what assurances are there against spare part price gouging?
12. Is there a need for constant online streaming to make these robots work? How buggy would that streaming be? What will the hidden costs be in that area? Is sabotage of the online streaming easy or likely?
Messy, messy math. Each answer to each question has one truth, but in reality there are many truths that overlap. It often renders previous questions redundant.
Normally, a farmer would ‘test the waters’, maybe dip a toe, etc. That is what ‘real world’ savviness leads to. And such a strategy could be calculated in math formulas founded on pragmatism rather than ‘pure theory’.
Of course, to a farmer it’s just common sense. But to a government bureaucrat? An agressive Food and Drug Administration might want to mandate that farmers modernize immediately — only robots touch lettuce. Less ecoli risk. And lawsuits could argue that a farmer who failed to use robots caused unnecessary risk to consumers.
Thus, some ‘single truths’ without pragmatism can hurt us. ‘Free market forces work best’ is the ultimate pragmatic math formula.
I can't recall the screen-name of the Freeper who posted material on Paul Eidelberg's On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence, 1976 around Independence Day last year.
Anyway, I highly recommend it. I paused and re-read probably every page.
Another one of his works is The Philosophy of the American Constitution, 1968. It is out of print but I found a used ex-library copy of it at Amazon. It is also terrific. The Anti-Federalist historian Herbert J. Storing wrote the Foreward.
Yes, we can act as moral agents but ultimately God is sovereign.
-On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence-
Just ordered the book from Amazon...
I love books on this subject...
Thanks for the tip...
Great! You won’t be disappointed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.