Archive for Morality

On Weddings and the Modern Vision of Marriage

Posted in Humanity, Religion, Top Posts with tags , , , , on January 25, 2010 by raingeg

Marriage is in the spotlight a lot these days as the issue of gay marriage is hotly debated in California. I’d like to turn away from the issue of gay marriage to address marriage and modern conceptions of heterosexual marriage.

Last weekend a good friend of mine was married. It was a very nice wedding and even a couple days after I am still feeling a little elevated by the happiness that it brought me. Pretty much anything sentimental will leave me with a good feeling afterward, I’m just that kind of guy.

One of the most powerful things that I took away from the wedding was its emphasis on purity and Godliness, something that is often left out of marriages in the 21st century.

First, purity is almost completely absent from the marriage scene. Society has put a large emphasis on sex, and that has made purity something that is seen as bad or “uncool.” But just think of all the problems that could be solved with sexual purity before marriage. Abortions would greatly decrease, single mothers would go down, divorce might decrease given the ability to compare lovers would be nonexistent and we would have stronger ideas of what commitment and family are really supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, society decided some time ago, that it is better to follow our emotions where ever they lead us. And if those emotions lead us to a society that has and condones a large number of abortions, has more and more single mother households and a good number of broken families, then so be it, at least we are following our “true emotions.” This is all based on the idea that what comes from within the human is good, noble and true, a notion that I despise.

An excuse often used to promote promiscuity is the need for experience. The claim that one needs experience has become a talking point of a world of humans that seek justification of vile practices and lack in the area of good  judgment. This mode of thinking has made its way into many social debates on sex, drugs, alcohol and war. When it comes to any certain act we find ourselves debating whether or not the given act is moral and ethical, and what is often said is that if you haven’t experienced the act personally you are not qualified to judge its moral and ethical value. This would only be true if the one judging was the only person alive on the earth, a situation that will most likely never happen. If a person can perceive and judge the actual effects of something on a person or a society then experience is not required.

We live in a society that is completely appalled by judgment of actions, even in Christian circles. The “whatever floats your boat” ideology has permeated society, as judgment of right and wrong action becomes based more and more on ones own interpretation of what is right and wrong. We are loosing objective standards in favor of subjective standards, which inevitably makes judgment of another humans actions impossible. And as we get more subjective it almost becomes a requirement that one must experience something in order to judge its moral and ethical value.

Second, Godliness too has made its way out of the marriage process. Just look at some of the reasons that some people get married. Contrary to the Kardashian’s, marriage is not just a reason to stop using a prophylactic. Marriage is however a very strong lifelong commitment, and it requires all of you and more to make it work. Hence the reason for God to be a part of a marriage.

For some, marriage is just a piece of paper, and if it is a piece of paper then what is the difference between being an unmarried couple and a married couple, a bigger sense of commitment? The argument that marriage is the difference between having a piece of paper and not having one makes sense, coming from the world we live in now, where Godliness is a thing of the past. It seems that people put their college degree in higher regard than they do their marriage. Your degree is just a piece of paper, your marriage is not.

The divorce rate now makes sense. Marriage has been reduced to a piece of paper, a stronger commitment (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and a reason to stop wearing a condom. It is now not a binding vow, a life long commitment and a reason to remain pure. And when something gets demoralized as much as marriage has in America and around the world, I don’t have to wonder why we are finally having the debate over changing the definition of marriage and further corrupt marriage. We’ve already changed the definition, it is no longer what it once was, let this be seen as a plea to fix what has been broken and not further damage marriage, because I fear that if we do that it will soon not be salvageable.


Question of Morality

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on January 20, 2010 by raingeg

I did this on Facebook and I’ll do it on my blog now. I’m looking for some good answers. Morally, is the world better or worse today than in the past? Think about all other civilizations up until now. I have my own theory but I’d like to hear yours!

Moral Redundancy

Posted in Politics with tags , , on October 23, 2009 by raingeg

I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, it is very important that we do not allow redundancies between our state and federal government. That means we should let state government do its job, and if the federal government is not needed, let the states create laws as they see fit.

Hate crimes legislation goes beyond the federal and state redundancy problem, it is morally and ethically redundant. Do we really need the federal government to affirm that beating someone or killing someone because they are homosexual or disabled is a crime? The answer is no. It is a crime no matter what the case. If someone was beaten and killed because he had hair that was too long or eyes that were brown, would that not be equally as bad as beating a killing someone because they are gay? Yes! Please understand I only use a hyperbolic situation like that to show how inane this legislation really is.

Unfortunately we are dealing with a government and a whole host of groups that lack common sense. Common sense tells us that if someone is murdered, no matter what the reason or motive, the murder should be punished as a murder. Common sense tells us that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” If any person seeks to willingly take away those “unalienable” rights, especially life, they should be willing face the consequences.

Hate crimes legislation is in effect saying that murder is bad, but if you murder someone because they are black, gay, white, or in a wheelchair, then that is an especially bad type of murder. That mode of thinking is disgusting. Any clear thinking individual can easily understand that murder is murder, whether it is committed after a drug deal gone bad or if it is committed because of any other reason. Murder, beating or abuse has always been murder, beating and abuse, even before this legislation was passed.

Admin To Make Obamacare A Moral Issue?

Posted in Health Insurance, Politics, Religion with tags , , , , , , , on August 19, 2009 by raingeg

Supporters of Obamacare want to see it turn into a moral issue, and it looks like President Obama and his administration going to do just that. They say they want to make an appeal to the religious left “tailored to the groups’ moral emphases.” I already went over the qualms that I have with the “religious left” in my post about the morality of Obamacare. I think turning this into a moral issue is a huge mistake for the administration.

For years conservatives have lived and died on moral issues. Morality and religion is the conservatives home court. Not only is the left not used to fighting issues based on morality, they are going to find it hard to fight on the side of morality for the same reasons that conservatives find it hard to back up their moral shortcomings.

Won’t it look a little contrived if all of the sudden the administration starts turning this into a moral issue and throwing out all kinds of moral rhetoric?

From The Wall Street Journal:

The president is expected to present a more emotional appeal during a conference call Wednesday with liberal religious groups. A senior White House official said the message would be tailored to the groups’ moral emphases, although he cautioned the president’s message to religious groups may not herald a broader shift in themes.

“This is such a technical issue, it’s easy to get bogged down in the weeds,” said Dan Nejfelt, a spokesman for Faith in Public Life, one of the groups scheduled for the Wednesday call. “It’s important to have a voice saying, ‘This is about right and wrong. This is about honoring faith.'”

Again, I will ask the great moral question about Obamacare. Is it virtuous and good for a society to, at gunpoint, have money taken away from its people to help those in need? I find nothing virtuous about wealth redistribution. It is not a good thing for society, it hurts society, creating less givers, more takers, and a whole lot of angry and unhappy people. Unhappy people, who either can’t get the money or care from the government that they wanted to get because it will be rationed. And angry people that are seeing their hard earned money taken away by the federal government. It is a loose-loose situation, whereas charity is not.

There has to be a better way than government take over. The free market works by creating incentives and making commerce easier. We do not have that in America right now. We should at least try to fix what we have now before we start turning everything upside down. Until we’ve done that, at least tried, via allowing insurance to be sold over state lines and tort reform, I see no need for an overhaul and nationalization of the system.

How about the president gives a call to the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, and have him formulate something that works. Because even his UK employees, that have nationalized health insurance, want HSA plans because it provides the employee more options via health care.

The fight is not over people. This president is known for his good branding abilities. He will take the message and repackage it, change the definition of some words and make it look new and better, when its nothing more than the same old thing. Don’t fall for it.

Morality Shmorality: Moral equivalency and its dangerous consequences

Posted in American Literature, Humanity, Politics with tags , , on June 9, 2009 by raingeg

It amazes me that there are people that are afraid to make moral judgments, and for that they claim moral superiority over those who do. Allow me to show you how these people think, take Al Qaeda and The United States, lets stand back for a second and look at these two entities, but we must refrain from making any moral judgments about them. Lets point out something obvious and go from there, the United States kills people, as does Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

See, we’re both using the same tactics, we’re killing people! Often times that is as far as the argument goes with those that have this irrational fear of making moral judgments. It stems from another irrational fear, the fear to take a side. And that fear stems from the desire to live in a perfect world. A desire labored for in vain. They mistakenly make this assumption that peace and war are different positions on the political spectrum, when they are not, they are states of being. They also make the assumption that we are to blame because we’ve “offended” the enemy. First, you can be at war and you can be in a time of peace. You can be in favor of peace, as all should be, but you cannot have desire for peace and have it exist if it does not, because its existence is vastly out of your control. Secondly, just because you cower in the corner offending no one does not mean that you are at peace, and it surely does not mean that the enemy won’t kill you, that type of “peace” if it is a type, is artificial.

You’d be hard pressed to find moral humans that are actually in favor of war or like war, but you can find a lot of moral people that don’t mind a bit the needed action of killing a killer or the needed action of freeing a people from an oppressor.

This problem comes from what I call a perspective deprived world and a world that desires easy moral decisions rather than difficult ones. It is very easy to say that something is bad, but it is incredibly hard to say that something that looks bad might not be bad, but in fact it might be good. The easy road can work for a while, but at some point as you lackadaisically make your way down the “easy” road you become complacent with its easiness, you become weak and defenseless, and you will find yourself at the end of an oppressors boot heel and eventually dead.

Lets apply this idea to the original argument against war, which essentially boils down to the idea that because people die it must be bad, and because the United States is doing the killing they too must be bad. Allow me to shed light on the issue. Who is the US killing? They are killing the enemy, an enemy that seeks to kill and destroy innocent lives. But the US is killing innocents, are they not just as guilty as the terrorists? No, why should they be, the United States is not aiming to kill civilians, they don’t want it to happen. But just because you don’t want something to happen doesn’t justify it happening? Yes, in fact it does, the death of innocents is to be blamed on the terrorist and not the one trying save the innocent ones form these terrorists. Conversely, just because you want something to happen does not at all mean that it will happen.

Take for example a man held at gunpoint while driving a car. You must assume that this man has no way of fighting back, no way of removing himself from the situation. The maniacal man holding the driver at gunpoint has a bomb laden building down the street filled with 200 hostages just waiting to be detonated. The man with the gun wants the driver to deliver some drugs. If the man does not drive through a crosswalk filled with people, essentially running them over and killing them, the man will blow up the building. What, then, should this man do? A. Run over the people killing 10 or 15 people? B. Refuse to drive through the crosswalk, because its “morally” wrong, essentially letting the 200 perish? It seems only right that the man should choose A, run over the 15 and save the 200. Is the man driving then to blame for the death of the 15? He cannot be blamed because the only reason he is in that situation is because of the hostage taker.

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short story “The Gray Champion” an oppressed New England is at the brink of a small war. “James II, the bigoted successor of Charles the Voluptuous, had annulled the charters of all the colonies, and sent a harsh and unprincipled soldier to take away our liberties and endanger our religion.” That soldier was Sir Edmund Andros, Sir Edmund and his men begin marching on a crowd of civilians, who are undoubtedly overpowered by the Red Coats. Cry’s for a “champion” come from the crowd as the people are looking for a way out of the situation. Then an old venerable man comes from the crowd, fearlessly walks up to Sir Edmunds army and speaks with them in a voice that beacons listeners. He brings news of James II soon to be demise. His words rally the crowd and start a fire underneath them, his voice “stirred their souls” and helped them confront the soldiers, “ready to convert the very stones of the street into deadly weapons.” Needless to say Sir Edmund does the smart thing and backs down, for reasons unknown.

Where is our gray champion? I wish he would come and save us. It is not the Red Coats or people of the like that we face, it is not even the terrorists that are our worst enemy. We are our own worst enemy, our desire to appease and to please those who wish to kill us will weaken us, as well as our desire to wish peace into existence. Imagine if the Gray Champion in all his glory had gone up to Sir Edmund and said “I wish we didn’t have to fight” or “no offense but can‘t we work this out?” Sir Edmund would’ve trampled over the champion and the people would have been complacent and had no desire to overthrow Sir Edmund.

In C.S. Lewis’ “Why I Am Not A Pacifist” he says “all we have to fear from all the kinds of adversity, severally, is collected together in the life of a soldier on active duty.” He then goes on to list everything that is to be feared from a soldier. Later he says that “…pacifism threatens you with almost nothing.” He goes on to say that he cannot be pacifist because he suspects that his wishes had directed his decision. That is a very good reason why the plight of the pacifist or the modern person that refuses to make a decision about moral questions, for fear that one might offend, actually lacks morality, because it is in fact based on artificial or contrived morality. And it all stems from their “wishes” or their desire for something to be, therefore, if I desire it, it must be, when that reasoning is completely false and baseless.

If one wishes for the sun to stop shining at noon it will not happen, one must pick himself up and go indoors to escape its burn. We have to act, if feelings are hurt in the process we must regard that as a small casualty. It would be far worse to have no feelings hurt with large human casualties, while we all sit helpless at the hands of a maniacal dictator as he keeps the “peace.” Surely, if the same liberty seeking spirit that existed in hearts of the revolutionaries, in the abolitionists and slaves, and in the men that stormed the beaches of Normandy exists today, I fear not, despots will be overturned. But if that spirit is dying, or close to dead, I fear, not for myself or the others like me, but for those who killed it. Freedom is a large responsibility, and if you freely abdicate your liberty and allow for evil to triumph, all out of fear, a fear that you might offend, you might as well just count yourselves as dead subjects.