Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 15 results found
The key to answering the claims of same-sex marriage advocates is understanding the basic rule of justice: Treat equals equally. If parties are not equal in a relevant sense, then there is no obligation of justice to treat them the same.
Once I participated in a debate on California’s Initiative 161 concerning physician-assisted suicide. My opponents charged that I was forcing my religious views on others. They didn’t realize they were making some religious assumptions of their own.
Yes and no. No, because they'd answer for different crimes and, as such, their judgment would be different. Just as there are degrees of sin (see John 19:11), there are degrees of punishment. Jesus said Sodom would fare better than Capernaum in the day of judgment (Matthew 11:24), though each would be condemned. Yes, because each person must ultimately answer for his own sins--Hitler for his, Mother Teresa for hers, you and I for ours. Unless, of course, Jesus is allowed to answer for them.
Philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher scoffed at the concept that God gave good creatures the freedom to do bad. If a being is perfect in its goodness, he held, it would never sin even if it were free to.
If you encounter someone who thinks he’s a relativist, you can usually prove him wrong in five minutes or less when moral words like “should” creep into his conversation. Don’t him them get away with it. Expose the inconsistency. If morals are relative to the individual, then all “shoulds” are meaningless.
Even if relativists are right that cultures differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction. In logic this is called a non-sequitur; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
If you’re placed in a situation where you suspect your convictions will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, and judgmental, turn the tables. When someone asks for your personal views about a moral issue—homosexuality, for example—preface your remarks with a question.
A person can wax eloquent with you in a discussion on moral relativism, but he will complain when somebody cuts in front of him in line. He'll object to the unfair treatment he gets at work and denounce injustice in the legal system. He'll criticize crooked politicians who betray the public trust and condemn intolerant fundamentalists who force their moral views on others. Yet each of these objections is a meaningless concept in the twisted world of moral relativism.
If relativism is true, then all moral categories are meaningless. Any attempt at moral discourse is reduced to incoherence. Therefore, the only course of action truly consistent with moral relativism is complete silence. If you view all morality as relative and you're consistent, you can't ever make a moral recommendation.
The approach many relativists take at this point is confused. First, they say that the Holocaust was evil and ask why God would allow such depravity? Later, when the tables turn and their own behavior is in question, they argue that morality is merely a matter of opinion. This reduces their earlier objection to: "How could a good God allow things that are contrary to my opinion?" or, to put it more bluntly, "I can't believe in the existence of a God who would disagree with me."