The Hatred of Objective Morality stems from the Hatred of Law
From the Uncommon Descent article Why Deny Objective Morality?
First, I’d like to thank Zeroseven for having the courage to admit what few moral subjetivists will; all sane people act as if morality refers to an objective commodity. This implies that he agrees that sane people also act as if their conscience is a sensory capacity telling them what they must do, and not as if it is the impulse of personal preference they can easily choose to indulge or dismiss. Violated conscience can also leave wounds that last a lifetime, unlike the transient pang of not getting your favorite meal for dinner.
Note how, even though Zeroseven admits we all act like morality is objective in nature, he flatly denies the possibility of pre-existing, objective law with prejudice:
That’s all very well as a theory, and its nice to think of the law in this way, but of course its crap.
And the same for morality:
But of course its a pure fiction.
This is an a priori worldview denial of even the possibility that morality (and justice under the law) might refer to an objective, pre-existing commodity. Zeroseven simply, flatly denies it, even though he agrees he and all sane people must act as if morality is objective in nature, and that he should treat law in his profession as if it objectively existed. His dismissive attitude is demonstrated by calling such sentiment “a nice way of looking at it” and simultaneously betrays, IMO, an utter lack of thought about the crucial role such ideas play in fostering the kind of culture we live in. He doesn’t for a second ponder if it’s perhaps a necessary way of looking at it, a necessity arrived at by the weight of scholars and legal, ethical and moral philosophers through history far more worthy of respect and consideration, I would think, than Zeroseven offers with his casual dismissal.
I would suspect that Zeroseven would champion the idea that we’re all equals and that we all have certain inviolable rights as individuals that apply regardless of what anyone in power says, and regardless of if the majority says otherwise. These spiritual ideas are the basis of our constitutional rights and came from deep belief in natural law objective morality. But these ideas are bound to theistic, objective morality and cannot be extracted from the premise of subjective morality and subjective justice. How can a moral subjectivist (especially an atheistic one) have the idea that all people are equal, when clearly, in the physical world, they simply, factually are not? People are not physically or intellectually equal. How would a moral subjectivist come up with the idea of liberty and rights that transcend government authority and the will of the majority? Such ideas would be a deceit for moral subjectivists to employ.
At best, moral subjectivists might come up not with “inviolable human rights”, but rather “license for certain behaviors temporarily and arbitrarily granted by those in local power”. Not exactly a concept one expects to found a long-lasting, just and moral society upon. Also, why should everyone have the same
rightstemporarily and arbitrarily granted behavioral license, since people are not physical, social or intellectual equals, and since – under moral subjectivism – those in power cannot (and should not) be expected to dole out such privilege equally, fairly, or in a just manner? Can you imagine someone attempting to make an argument, under logically consistent moral subjectivism, that 0.3% of the population has a right to go to any public restrooms they want, male or female, despite what the majority of the population prefers? There is no such argument to be made. There are no such “rights” under moral subjectivism., there are just privileges and licenses handed out by those in power as they wish.
Exactly. The current push for the government-mandated acceptance of homosexuality and transexual behaviour has nothing to do about “rights”. There are no such absolute rights, so far as a moral subjectivist is concerned.
But there is a need to privilege a select few above the many: not in the name of a transcendent morality, as a demonstration of power and control. “The Friends of the Masters will be blessed, and the Enemies of the Masters will be cursed.”
It makes one wonder about the Eternal Power of the Masters… especially the more stupid, childish, and short-sighted Masters, such as we have today.
The Hatred of Law, Backed by Cowardly (and/or Rebellious) Christians
The idiotic Elites we have today can be directly traced to the cowardice of the churches, and their love of retreat from authority (and the shunning of accountability and responsibility – all in a desperate manoeuvre to evade Divine Judgement for their failures).
As Gary North wrote in his excellent article Progressive Responsibility:
Nevertheless, within the agreed-upon framework of Christian institutional rule, the best men are to be elevated to positions of authority. God’s law, then competent judges: here is Paul’s message to the church. Men’s competence is to be attained by means of Gods law. Technical competence in law is not to be preferred to biblical law, for there is no such thing as technical competence as such, or neutral law as such. The standard is biblical law, administered with or without great technical competence.
Where are men to gain the preferred competence? Obviously, by becoming familiar with the terms of biblical law. First, they learn as children (Deut. 6:6-7). Second, they learn as church members in churches governed by elders who respect biblical law (I Cor. 6). Third, they learn as deacons, who assist the elders in the less crucial responsibilities, like the administration of charity (Acts 6:1-4). This office is a son of apprenticeship position. Fourth, men may be appointed to the office of church elder (I Tim. 3). But this presumes that they have already approved themselves in the fifth office, that of family head (I Tim. 3:4-5), which is also a requirement for deacons (I Tim. 3:12).
This, however, is only the beginning. Men are also to serve in positions of authority in business, the military, medicine and other professions, the civil government, and wherever God’s law applies. (It applies wherever men make decisions for which they are responsible before God; only in those zones of life for which men will never have to give an account of their actions–in the neutral zones of life- does biblical law not apply. Anyone who denies the rule of God’s law must explain, using the Bible as his source, just where such zones are.) Men are to become competent rulers–judges, if you prefer–in their labor. Their callings before God are training grounds for the exercise of godly judgment.
The doctrine that the church and its members will experience an endless set of failures until the day of judgment, whereupon the saints shall judge the world with Christ, has this curious implication: experience in exercising godly judgment is best attained through constant failure and the inability of saints to gain positions of authority, in time and on earth. In other words, Christians will never rule on earth, and therefore they will rule after the final judgment. Those Christians who argue that individual saints will be far removed forever from the seats of power or even the corridors of power, until the day of judgment itself, are building a theoretical case for the success of off-the-job training. They are arguing for perpetual childhood and subservience: domination by rebellious rulers–ever-more consistent, ruthless, and lawless rulers–is the way to become competent rulers. But the Bible tells us that a sign of God’s judgment is to be ruled by children (Isa. 3:4). We need an eschatology which offers us a doctrine of progressive responsibility, a doctrine of maturing judgment. We need a concept of on-the-job training and promotion through competence.
To end church cowardice, disband the seminaries. Instead of seminaries – which has never been authorized by the Bible, but only by power-seeking churchmen (and later, power-seeking liberals) – turn to the Biblical model: apprenticeships. The learner learns about preaching, counselling, and Biblical study from a pastor, and eventually succeed him after maturing under his authority.
Our Masters: A Law Unto Themselves
Now that we have seen the cure, let’s turn back to discussing the disease.
What logical purpose can it serve to insist that morality is subjective in nature when we must all act and argue as if it is objective in nature? Why cling to a premise that renders the Nazi extermination of Jews the moral equivalent of feeding the hungry or housing the homeless when we all know that simply is not true? In an argument about morality and about what is good, why insist on a premise that renders the argument itself entirely moot and forces the very concept of morality into a defenseless position? Why dismiss the only concept that gives any moral position you have any value at all beyond what flavor of a thing you prefer? Why dismiss the only concept that can rationally justify moral interventions, moral judgements and imposition of just laws? Why abandon the only concept that can provide inviolable rights, metaphysical equality and liberty? What is so important that one will cling to a concept that renders law and morality and ethics absurd, selfish notions instead of embracing one that grants them a solid foundation for how they must act anyway – as if they are very important, universally binding considerations worth fighting and dying for?
Why? Because it is critical to today’s rulers that there be no law above themselves. “Nothing Above the State, Nothing Outside the State, All Under the State.”
Summary and Action Point
This willfulness will remain critical to the rulers – and the masses, who support them either actively or by passive refusal to resist – until the money’s gone.
A morality-free society, after it loses the money needed to buy compliance, is going to be a really nasty place to live, though.
Even for the Protected Minorities.
To restore the Law, we need strong preaching and strong churches. To get both, dump the seminaries – which only exist to
- gut preaching and emasculate preachers,
- waste time (and so slow the growth of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God),
- enforce secularist control and philosophy,
- and load up new pastors with debt (so they have to toe the line when they find work).
Dump the utterly unbiblical seminaries, and institute apprenticeships, to restore sound doctrine, powerful preaching, the restoration of Biblical Law, and the security of a moral foundation that does not depend on the whims of Masters who have nothing but utter contempt and malice for us, our culture, and our God.