So I had a nightmare a few nights ago that will just not leave me. I woke up from it absolutely terrified and it took me a good bit of time to get back to sleep.
To describe the dream, I first have to ask if you have seen "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?" If you have, then do you remember in the opening scene when the one man is being forced to enter the gauntlet/test thing?
Anyway, in my dream, I was that man. Now, this doesn't sound too horrifying, but let me describe what it was that frightened me so much. In my dream, I am being forced to enter this gauntlet that no one has survived, so I am probably going to die doing it. But if I don't do it, I will be shot by the men who are forcing me to do it. And there lies the dilemma, the fact that I am going to die.
Now, again, not to frightening as we all have dreams where we experience dreams with death, but in this one, I felt a deep sense of fear that in my mind could only come from one place, which is a lack of a relationship with Christ. In my dream I was experiencing a near death experience without Christ.
Sitting here now, and thinking about this dream, I still try to figure out exactly why I had it, and the thought that comes to mind is that it was for me to catch a glimpse of what life is like without the hope and assurance of having a savior. I believe this because as you may or may not know, I am planning on entering the missions field after college, and if anything this is just motivation for reaching out to those who don't know Christ.
I can also use this as further motivation to reach out to those on my campus who don't know Christ. I only have one more year of having complete access to those at UNC and I don't want to let the chances that I have here pass me by.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Morality
I know, I know, I know, it has been over two months since I last posted, and for that I am really sorry.
Ok, now, here is what I am going to be basically ranting on.
The idea of the subjectivity of morality.
A popular train of thought that is prevalent right now is that morality, that is right and wrong, it subjective, meaning that what is right and wrong to me may not be right or wrong to you, and as a result there is no such thing as true right or wrong and as such it is wrong for us to judge others actions as they might view what they did as morally right.
Now, I am not going to try to point out how to disprove this thought. I am instead just going to put out why this idea is ridiculous.
First, I want to piggy back off a great mind, C.S. Lewis. In his masterpiece Mere Christianity, Lewis discusses what he calls the "Law of Human Nature," meaning the one moral code that is prevalent throughout every society in history. Lewis argues that morality is essentially a law that every human knows and understands yet still breaks. This is what we know as sin, but that is for another argument.
Lewis goes on to portray the thought that in the whole of human history every culture, though varied in numerous respects, has a pattern of showing the same ideals in many ways. For example, there has never been a culture that cherished those who fled in the face of battle in order to save themselves. Or there has never been a culture that has embraced and uplifted those who swindle their neighbors out of everything for their own gain. Or there has never been a culture that honored the man who was able to abduct and rape the most women. These ideals have been constant throughout history.
Secondly, on a personal level the idea of the subjectivity of morality does not work in that it is easy to say that something is subjective only when it is not affecting you. Case in point, say I am to walk up to you and take your laptop computer. You may think that this is wrong. However, if you have a subjective view of morality, and in my moral view taking things from others is a-ok, then you cannot say anything.
You may protest "You are breaking the law!" But I would like to point out that if morality is subjective, then what are these laws based on? Maybe I view the laws that we live under as being immoral. As such, according to the view of subjective morality, then why follow them if I don't like them?
You may further protest that I cannot take it because it is yours and that means that you keep it. Well then, you are just destroying your own case for subjective morality in that by trying to stop me you are imposing your morality over my morality, and that means that you think that your morality should apply to my morality, and as such you are an objective moralist.
Now, my final point and also my explanation for where this rant came from. I am in a class that is entitled "Ethics of Peace, War and Defense." In this classes discussion session, the idea came up that all morality is subjective depending on the nation and culture. Now, let me point out a few flaws with this train of thought.
First, if we are saying that morality is subjective in warfare, then why should we care to study the ethics of war in the first place? Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines ethics as "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation." So, taking the definition of the word ethics, why study them as they have to do with morals? If morals are subjective and can mean anything to any one person, group or nation, then why should we care?
Now, taken a step further, if morals are objective, then we cannot judge actions taken by nations in warfare, meaning that war is just fair game and that we can do whatever we want. Canada is weaker than us, and in my morality it is survival of the fittest, so have at them.
My last point on this ties directly into what I said above. If we adhere to an idea of subjective morality, then we are saying that the worst atrocities in the history of humanity are ok because we have no right to pass judgment on the people who perpetrated them.
Under the idea of subjective morality, the Khmer Rouge reign of terror in Cambodia is fine because Pol Pot believed he was being moral and so who am I to impose my morals on him.
Under the idea of subjective morality, the September 11 attacks were fine because that is what the terrorists believed in and who am I to impose my morals on them.
Under the idea of subjective morality, the Holocaust was fine because the Germans felt what they were doing was moral and so who am I to impose my morals on them.
It is only with a view of objective morality that we can pass any form of judgment, and as such when ever one person who claims to be a moral subjectivist passes judgment on another, I hope you will point that out to them.
Ok, now, here is what I am going to be basically ranting on.
The idea of the subjectivity of morality.
A popular train of thought that is prevalent right now is that morality, that is right and wrong, it subjective, meaning that what is right and wrong to me may not be right or wrong to you, and as a result there is no such thing as true right or wrong and as such it is wrong for us to judge others actions as they might view what they did as morally right.
Now, I am not going to try to point out how to disprove this thought. I am instead just going to put out why this idea is ridiculous.
First, I want to piggy back off a great mind, C.S. Lewis. In his masterpiece Mere Christianity, Lewis discusses what he calls the "Law of Human Nature," meaning the one moral code that is prevalent throughout every society in history. Lewis argues that morality is essentially a law that every human knows and understands yet still breaks. This is what we know as sin, but that is for another argument.
Lewis goes on to portray the thought that in the whole of human history every culture, though varied in numerous respects, has a pattern of showing the same ideals in many ways. For example, there has never been a culture that cherished those who fled in the face of battle in order to save themselves. Or there has never been a culture that has embraced and uplifted those who swindle their neighbors out of everything for their own gain. Or there has never been a culture that honored the man who was able to abduct and rape the most women. These ideals have been constant throughout history.
Secondly, on a personal level the idea of the subjectivity of morality does not work in that it is easy to say that something is subjective only when it is not affecting you. Case in point, say I am to walk up to you and take your laptop computer. You may think that this is wrong. However, if you have a subjective view of morality, and in my moral view taking things from others is a-ok, then you cannot say anything.
You may protest "You are breaking the law!" But I would like to point out that if morality is subjective, then what are these laws based on? Maybe I view the laws that we live under as being immoral. As such, according to the view of subjective morality, then why follow them if I don't like them?
You may further protest that I cannot take it because it is yours and that means that you keep it. Well then, you are just destroying your own case for subjective morality in that by trying to stop me you are imposing your morality over my morality, and that means that you think that your morality should apply to my morality, and as such you are an objective moralist.
Now, my final point and also my explanation for where this rant came from. I am in a class that is entitled "Ethics of Peace, War and Defense." In this classes discussion session, the idea came up that all morality is subjective depending on the nation and culture. Now, let me point out a few flaws with this train of thought.
First, if we are saying that morality is subjective in warfare, then why should we care to study the ethics of war in the first place? Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines ethics as "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation." So, taking the definition of the word ethics, why study them as they have to do with morals? If morals are subjective and can mean anything to any one person, group or nation, then why should we care?
Now, taken a step further, if morals are objective, then we cannot judge actions taken by nations in warfare, meaning that war is just fair game and that we can do whatever we want. Canada is weaker than us, and in my morality it is survival of the fittest, so have at them.
My last point on this ties directly into what I said above. If we adhere to an idea of subjective morality, then we are saying that the worst atrocities in the history of humanity are ok because we have no right to pass judgment on the people who perpetrated them.
Under the idea of subjective morality, the Khmer Rouge reign of terror in Cambodia is fine because Pol Pot believed he was being moral and so who am I to impose my morals on him.
Under the idea of subjective morality, the September 11 attacks were fine because that is what the terrorists believed in and who am I to impose my morals on them.
Under the idea of subjective morality, the Holocaust was fine because the Germans felt what they were doing was moral and so who am I to impose my morals on them.
It is only with a view of objective morality that we can pass any form of judgment, and as such when ever one person who claims to be a moral subjectivist passes judgment on another, I hope you will point that out to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
