In our modern world, almost nothing is more provoking than insisting on the fact that there are moral truths. Holding that moral principles are factual and provable truths that stipulate clear the criteria for all human action and attitudes, all human passions and thinking, all human desires and intentions, is oddly a guilt of the first ordering now.
In keeping with this aversion for moral truths, the modern world also aggressively repudiates the inherent “judgement” such moral truths must of necessity and nature entail. In fact, such “moral judgement” is perhaps the greatest moral wrongdoing, acted in accordance with countless in our modern world.
Now, moral “judgement” is the first and foremost moral sin. For it is a direct violation of the modern assertion that moral is only a matter of individual feelings, a product of personal ideologies and convictions, a by-product of individual personal freedom. Now, any moral “judgement” is perceived as a matter of personal freedom and perception, outside the purview of objective moral judgement.
This is what moral relativism is all about. And, it has replaced the historical and orthodox view of honesty. It has replaced the view that moral principles are real objective truths knowable and provable with reasonablenes and confirmed by Judeo-Christian revelation and lore. For moral relativism constitutes philosophy simply such matters of personal alternative, personal ethics, personal creeds.
This moral relativism residuals on the statement of the absence of all objective moral truths and on the certainty of each individual’s right to practise their intrinsic personal freedom and their complete sovereignty to define and to determine morality as they see fit. This is why “judging” is the first and most prominent modern moral transgression.
In our reigning modern worldview, “judging” any person is deeply and dogmatically wrong , no matter how sweetly worded or extensively clarified. Now, almost everyone knows this. Now, such “judgers” are really the bigoted and the scornful, the fundamentalists and the zealots, those without compassion, compassion or respect for others. Often, these “judgers” are the Christian religious or the politically republican, who seek to impose their moral standards on everyone through legislative activity, judicial enforcement and cultural conformity.
But, these attitudes decrying such judgements and the judgers who furnish them are flagrantly and fatally contradicting themselves. On the surface, their principle of non-judgement necessary judgement. For to know someone is being judgmental requires a judgement. A judgement is unavoidably required in some species or other, whether explicit or implicit, whether articulate or attitudinal, whether universally conceptual or more finely nuanced.
Anyone, everyone must make a judgement about the person they believe is being judgmental. They must judge the person’s acts and stances, their disagreement and their more and even their metaphysics( their first principles ). You see, all ethic is, by nature, judgmental.
So, if moral judgement is unavoidable, if arbitration is an inherent inevitability of any and every moral issue , no matter how harmless or relativistic, then it is crucial to make sound moral judgements ground in moral truth. This causes any and all of us back to the necessity of objective moral truths. It results back to rationale and to the nature of goodness and its numerous magnitudes and its sophisticated nuances.
To draw out the certainty of definite, objective moral truths, let’s look at some simple samples that are morally self-evident. How about some scandalous a few examples of moral breaches that all good beings readily identify? How about slavery? Or genocide? Or copulation trafficking and white slavery, pedophilia or necrophilia? Clearly no decent person would call these morally good or even morally neutral acts. Clearly there are some profound moral truths that are objective and knowable in spite of our modern moral relativism.
There are also other less significant moral misbehaviours we are able to accurately gues just as well. How about tone of voice or facial expressions? Car driving behavior? Discourtesy or instigation, lying or selfishness? Surely these minor moral flaws divulge just how finely sung our moral principles genuinely are. Not only are our moral principles finely aria, but internally they even govern how we ascribe degrees of guilt to the transgressors of these moral principles, even the adolescent ones.
For instance, when we are slighted by others, we often weigh the guilt of the transgressor and conjecture about their incitements, or even morally question our own sensings and our probable answers to these big insignificants. Again, such thought and analysis are common occurrences in our daily lives, where we use known moral truths and routinely apply them with sophistication to others and to ourselves. We make such moral judgements without the slightest wavering, even though they are we happen to be a moral relativist.
Not exclusively do moral truths exist objectively, factually, certainly. But, we can apply them on a gloriou scale and on a smaller one. We implementing them externally and internally, both individually and collectively, socially and culturally, legally, even legislatively. This is how we can determine the nature of an unjust or flawed law or an fallacious judicial judgment. It is too how we evaluate our own persona and the character of others.
Just look at the common evils like voracity or slothfulness. How often do we freely apply these moral axioms when we examine our own personal living and dress? Morality’s reach is clear to most of us, particularly when we are being honest with ourselves and trying to improve by resolving to change our eating wonts or our ” activities.
Most of us know intuitively where we need to improve. And, the stronger and clearer we become convinced of our moral weakness in these all too common moral falls, the more eager we become to try to do something about them. Morality is the guide to self-improvement and to all our relationships.
Also, large areas of moral judgement is nuanced by other contributing factors such as the scale and severity of the moral breach, different degrees of knowledge of the moral transgressor, the intent and ability of the transgressor, as well as situational variances and the actions of others that may lessen culpability or deepen it. All these factors come into play in legal proceedings and judgements.
They too apply in the many human interactions and decisions we move or are inadequate to originate in our professional and personal lives each and every day of “peoples lives”. We know we are free to do and to decide things, but most of us know instinctively we can evaluate ourselves in light of what is right, true and good.
For freedom is our right. But, it is also our responsibility. We may use our free actively or passively, but our war or inaction is the result of our free will decisions. True freedom is not to do, speak or reckon anything as we see fit. It is not to reduce freedom to personal description and forbearance , nor is it to reduce any moral re-examine to our personal rules. It is not for everyone “to do what is right in their own eyes.”
The goal and return of true-life sovereignty is goodness, truth, attractivenes and love. It is to embody the extent and width of goodness. To be honest, hitherto kind. To be inspiring, hitherto understanding. To be righteous, yet case. To be demanding, yet compassionate. To be really, more forgiving. To hold to the moral truth, yet tantrum it with love. As John Milton said, “Only good husbands can enjoy freedom. The rest charity not discretion, but license.” This why the knowledge of Milton is so important in our deteriorating and depraved meter.
Just look at the pervasive and hurtful principles enshrined in law and fouling our culture. Take abortion. Abortion is legal because women have the sovereign right to kill a newborn. And , no ordinance can affect that liberty. Women’s individual freedom is above moral review and reproach. Any appeal to moral truths is denied. Abortion is justified legally by an appeal to personal freedom. This is the quintessential example of moral relativism.
A baby can be killed because it is solely a matter of individual honesty without any credible appeal to objective moral truth grounded in deductive rationale supported by Judeo-Christian revelation and heritage. And, over sixty million babes have been killed, apologized alone by each woman’s personal freedom, with no recourse to moral reason or discus. Can the dominance of “moral relativism” be any clearer?
Surely, any mom killing an unborn newborn is a moral cruelty of a profound nature. But, to have this enshrined in law apologized solely on the grounds of personal freedom is a mockery of genuine freedom and its inherent moral evaluation and justification. And, smart lawmakers and adjudicators have concluded this consistently over the last fifty years. They have decided and apologized this on the grounds of personal freedom and moral relativism.
Do we need any more evidence than this when it comes to the factual nature of decency and the moral review of human behavior and attitudes? If we can see the moral errors in colours of tone or facial expressions. If we can see the moral scourge of bondage, or racism, or genocide. If we can see the child, the major and the middling honesty of the human experience, how can we really spawn moral such matters of personal feeling and decision? How is impossible to mull freedom’s use is above review, above judgement?
Of course, there are moral certainties, moral principles, moral truths. True morality is a matter of fact, a fact as common and clearly defined as the physical world, a fact as particular as our life and our beloved. The exhibit is right before us. Just look in the reflect. We are good. But , none of us is perfect. Yet, we know it matters how close we get to moral purity. It matters to those who are closest to us. It matters to all those who are touched by our lives.
And, it matters to all of us collectively. So, it is consummately crucial to confront and proselytize those who propound and promote the philosophy of personal taste and the philosophy of moral relativism and its numerous manifestations. For timeless moral truth tells us where we are right and where we wrong. And, it compels us to climb the meridians of goodness and charm, to scale the summit of compassion and truth.
But, it is not a solitary adventure. For we do not live lonely lives. We all live together. And, God is there for each of us. To enable and to encourage us. To scold and to reward us. To kindle us with His love and to induce us with His truth. For His truth is love. And, His love truth.
We likewise recommend Mr. Cronin’s latest notebook, The World According to God: The Whole Truth About Life and Living. It is available from your favorite bookstore and through Sophia Institute Press.
Read more: feedproxy.google.com