This gives the receiver (owner of JMM’s web page) the permission

to post this essay on his web site and only on his web site provided the

first paragraph is included at the beginning.   

This essay is from “Essay for Thinkers and Other Philosophical Ruminations”

created by Jeffrey Stueber, available through Jstueberquest Publishers at

www.globaldialog.com/~jstueber.  For the complete package and ordering

information on any other products, see that web site.
“Morality – false arguments, bad propositions, and bad attitudes”
Copyright (C) 1997 by Jeffrey Stueber, all rights reserved.  No

part of this article may be reproduced without permission of

copyright owner.
How often have you heard the phrase, “There are no moral

absolutes.”  Sounds great if you want to do what you want.

However,  the person making such a statement usually backs down

from this belief  upon finding somebody doing something

unthinkable and wrong by his or her standards.
Two other good ones are “you have no business pushing your

morality on me”  and “nobody should push their moral views on

anybody.”  That’s great, but how can society function if nobody

can push their moral beliefs on anybody?  I fail to see how we

can have any laws (e.g. don’t kill or steal, etc.) if we really

take seriously the proposition that nobody can force their

morality on others.  What the people mean when they say that, but

don’t realize it, is that their personal decisions should be free

to be done and the rest of society should not force their moral

views on them while the rest of society ought to obey moral laws.

The person who says that there ought to be no moral laws

believes privately that this only applies to he or she, but not

to everyone else. How else is it that as soon as somebody

violates his or her beliefs, no claim appears that this

violation is fine because “there are no moral absolutes?”
Philosopher Peter Kreeft tells about an ethics class of his where

the class said they believed morality was relative.  And what

right did Kreeft have to impose his morality on them, they

wondered.  Kreeft said that this was fine and that he would run

the class by their beliefs that there are no absolutes.  Kreeft

then dropped a bombshell. He said, “And my particular set of

subjective personal moral values includes this one:  all women in

my class flunk.”  The students were outraged. They said this was

unfair.  Kreeft replied that this was unfair, but then asked them

what they meant by “fair.”  If they really believed in “fairness”

they would have to admit  that being fair and the concept of

fairness was an absolute that they and Kreeft had to abide by.

Kreeft said that if they really believed what they said, then he

had no right to push his views on anyone and they, in turn, had

no right to push their views on him.  He was certainly right in

flunking all women just as much as they were right in doing

whatever they wanted.(1)
Kreeft takes up several nontheist attempted rebuttals to the

concept of absolute morality and refutes them all.  I will not

reproduce them here, but urge you to get the book they are taken

from. I only hope here to discuss the contradictory mindset of

those who say that there are no moral absolutes.  When they say

this, what they really mean, although they don’t come right out

and say it, is that they want to do whatever they want but don’t

want this of others.  In short, others should obey moral laws but

not them. This is nothing but selfishness, pure and simple.
Such talk is something you might here from so-called “free

thinkers.”  They claim to be free thinkers because they are free

from the oppressive order of religion, free to make their own

judgements about it.  But if this is what you call being free,

they are not free at all.  They are in bondage.  They have their

own viewpoint to extol and they are ready to do anything,

including embrace of contradiction, to back it up. What they

really mean when they say they are a free thinker is that they

are free of monotheistic religion, especially the Christian kind,

free to think everything contrary to it, not free to think

whatever if correct or true.  Their world view controls

their logical outlook and does not allow free inquiry.
Unfortunately, some believe that ideology should allow us to

bypass these contradictions.   In a panel discussion which Alan

Bloom attended, a feminist defended the relativism of the

universities because there are no absolutes.  Bloom, quick on the

trigger, asked her if she considered sexism evil. She said,

“Yes.”  He said that she could not be a relativist if she

believed that sexism was evil because she was believing in an

absolute.  He further said that she had said nothing because her

stance was full of contradictions.  The moderator stopped Bloom

and moved the discussion on to another subject.  Later, women

denounced Bloom for his attitude. What a great time to focus in

on this woman and explore her contradictions.  Of course, for the

moderator and the women who denounced Bloom, ideology trumps

logic.(2)
I’ve clearly explained where this theory of morality comes from,

what false logic underlies it, and what psychological motives are

operative here.  I want to note one more opinion, that of Robert

Bork. 
     Egalitarianism is hostile to hierarchies and distinctions.

     Hence law must be used to weaken or eliminate them, striking

     at private morality and behaviour that is not egalitarian.

     For entirely innocent reasons, the preference and talents of

     people will not always produce equality of results. The

     egalitarian tendency is then to coerce equality of result by

     law.  That tendency is, of course,  frequently checked by

     public reaction, but it remains a tendency.  Law may not be

     used, however, to enforce moral standards that are not

     egalitarian.  This results in what may be seen as moral

     relativism or the privatisation of morality.  One person’s

     morality being as good as another’s, the community may not

     adopt moral standards in legislation. This viewpoint is

     often expressed by the common and wholly fallacious remark

     that “You can’t legislate morality.” Indeed . . . we

     legislate little else.(3)
For those not familiar with Bork, you can read my review of his

book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” included with this package.

You have to understand Bork’s term “egalitarianism.”

What he means when he says someone is egalitarian is that that

person wishes near total freedom to do as he or she pleases

politically and sexually and also wishes distinctions (monetary,

etc.) eliminated. In short, total autonomy and equality.  What

Bork is saying above, and I urge you to find his Tempting of

America book also, is that many have a tendency to prefer total

autonomy to do as they please and will be willing to advocate

legal measures to enforce their feelings and wishes.  He talks

about how the courts have become agents of this in both his

books.
This liberalised attitude partly explains some of the following:

people who tell you that you can’t legislate morality yet are

willing for the court to decide a moral issue like abortion and

people who tell you that you can’t legislate morality yet are

ready to place severe restrictions on expressions of religion.

Legalising abortion is fine as a legalised moral choice because

it backs up individual autonomy to do sexually as one pleases

without responsibility.  Placing restrictions on expression of

religion is fine because by doing so, people are not hampered by

religious rules and can do as they please.  Personal total

autonomy is the supreme moral law to these which trumps

restrictive moral laws.
One idea Bork mentions that I had never thought of is this:  why

is the moral feeling a person has in seeing people able to do as

they please any different than the feeling a person has in seeing

their version of right and wrong followed?   To give an example,

why is the satisfaction a person has in seeing only

non-pornographic music available any different from the

satisfaction a rapper has in seeing music played which advocates

killing cops? Secular idealists are happy to have others

accommodate their wishes and whims and back them with the chant

“you can’t legislate morality,” yet they fail to recognise that

by backing laws that prevent others from disagreeing with

them and codifying what they believe to be correct moral

behaviour,  they are legislating morality and preventing the

expression of  other’s wishes on moral problems.
                       When Comes Morality
Occasionally,  as I have seen in debate, people who need a

backing for their moral beliefs resort to society as their

reference point.  First, let’s hear from James Rachels who quotes

William Graham Sumner. 
     The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of

     them, of independent origin, and brought to test them.  In

     the folkways, whatever is, is right.(4)
If I understand Sumner correctly, he is referring to the ideas

and policies of society, ones that pertain to rights of others,

what is  or is not a crime, etc.  In other words, society

and nothing but society defines morality.
Dennis Wheeler follows this line of logic in judging

homosexuality.  He reacts to President Clinton’s argument that

the ban on gays in the military should be lifted  because gays

have always been there.  The issue, Wheeler says, is not that

gays have always been in the military, but instead what all of us

think about this lifestyle.
     The President was probably correct in his assessment that

     “gays” has always served in the military. But that is not

     the issue. The issue is:  “What is society’s judgement on

     homosexual conduct?”  Will such conduct be held up as worthy

     of special protection, will it simply be tolerated, or will

     it be punished?   Any answer we choose will have far-

     reaching consequences.(5)
Now, for a different understanding of where morality comes from,

let’s hear from Richard Mohr.
     Many people suppose society’s treatment of gays is justified

     because they think they are extremely immoral.  To evaluate this

     claim, different senses of “moral” must be distinguished.

     Sometimes “morality” means the values generally held by

     members of a society – its mores, norms, and customs.  On

     this understanding, gays certainly are not moral:  lots of

     people hate them, and social customs are designed to

     register widespread disapproval of gays.  The problem here

     is that this sense of morality is merely a descriptive one.

     Every society has this kind of morality – even Nazi society,

     which had racism and mob rule as central features of its

     “morality” understood in this sense.  Before one can use the

     notion of morality to praise or condemn behaviour, what is

     needed is a sense of morality that is  prescriptive or

     normative.(6)
Mohr goes on to say that just because so many people claim

something morally correct does not make it morally correct.

Slavery would not be correct even is society said so.
What is instructive about these examples is that the term

“morality” means that which follows from the whims of society,

at least to Sumner and Wheeler. However, when society is claiming

something which the individual deems incorrect, suddenly society

is no longer in charge of deciding what is or is not morally

correct, as Mohr claims.
This hits home for me.  In debate with atheists, they will tell

me that they judge God and what God says by the standards society

has brought about.  However, if society changes – say, society is

now dominated by fundamentalists who want to suppress atheism –

suddenly society is no longer to be trusted in shaping our

morality.  Even the atheist admits to a moral absolute in even

judging what society says.
I do not know whether Mohr is an atheist or not and I do not

care.  I have a hunch that if somebody would ask how we can make

moral judgements on thieves and murderers, he would say that is

what society deems incorrect.  Society is only capable of

claiming that something is incorrect if you agree with it

personally.  The newspeak of moral debate decrees that the word

“morality” varies with your preference – is based on society when

society agrees with you and is not based on society when you

disagree.
When people are not redefining morality and claiming their own

moral standards while simultaneously adopting society as the

arbiter, they are redefining words that are closely related to

morality. The key word here is “sin,” and the word seems to have

vanished as far as usage in American society. When it does pop

up, it is totally changed in order to mask an agenda.
C. Robert Nugent interviews John Shelby Spong over homosexuality.

Spong is famous for his liberalised viewpoints about the Bible

and  his catering to the  homosexual agenda.  Spong is

pro-homosexual and would not object to Nugent’s redefinition of

the word “sin.”
     [F]or all people “sin” means freely acting contrary to one’s

     deeply held moral or ethical convictions, whether these come

     from organised religion or a personally developed value

     system.(7)
Certainly those who speak about what the Bible has to say about

homosexuality, as they do, should know better than this.  The

Biblical concept of sin is not related to one’s own preferences

or moral convictions.  Sin is related to the absolute moral laws

instilled by God which do not change regardless of how society

changes.  According to Nugent, Hitler would not be sinning if

he went by his own moral convictions which seemed fine to him at

the time.
Notes:
1. Peter Kreeft in Brad Miner, ed., Good Order, 1995,  Simon and

Schuster, p. 87

2. Carol Iannone in Ibid, p. 134

3. Robert Bork, The Tempting of America:  The Political Seduction

of the Law, 1990, Free Press,  p. 245-246

4. Quoted by James Rachels in “Is Morality Relative to Culture?”

in Stephen Satris, ed., Taking Sides:  Clashing Views on

Controversial Issues, 1996, Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown &

Benchmark Publishers, p. 36

5. Dennis Wheeler, “The Civil Rights of Gays and Lesbians Should

Not Receive Special Protection” in Charles Cozic, ed., Sexual

Values, Opposing Viewpoints Series, 1995, Greenhaven

Press:  San Diego, CA, p. 106

6. Richard Mohr, “Prejudice and Homosexuality,” Taking Sides, p.

169

7. C. Robert Nugent and John Shelby Spong, “Homosexuality Does

not Erode Moral Values,” Sexual Values, p. 52
Postscript Review of the book Good Order

————————————————————-

This book is an exceptional group of essays by some of the

leading conservatives around, including Thomas Sowell, Myron

Magnet,  George Will, and others.  I hope to own this book

someday and would like you to also. Here I’ll briefly summarize

several of the chapters.
In chapter 1.1, G. K. Chesterton argues that you cannot get an

ideal to live by from nature by itself.  You cannot get it from

evolution either.  Chesterton has a criticism for Nietzsche too.

Chesterton says that Neitzsche was not strong at all, not at all

bold.  “He [Nietzsche] never put his own meaning before himself

in bald abstract words.”  Nietzsche escaped the questions he

invoked with a physical metaphor, like a poet.  So much for

Nietzsche.
Richard John Neuhaus,  editor of First Things,  writes in chapter

1.2 that taking religion out of the public square (referring to

his book “The Naked Public Square”)  says that the square is not

really naked. Rather, it is filled with what he calls “ersatz

religion” or secular religion.  This statement rings true as what

I call the religion of environmentalism is currently filling much

of politics.  This I’m finding out as I do research for a New Age

book I’m writing.
In chapter 2.1, James Wilson and George Keeling talk about the

environment we live in and how it breeds crime.  One psychologist

they cite, Philip Zimbardo, a man I first heard when I took my

psychology class to get my Accounting degree, did a survey in

1969.  Actually, he did an experiment.  He tested the “broken

window” theory, a theory that says that when a building has

broken windows, people will perceive it as run down and damage it

even further.  In other words, shoddiness breeds more shoddiness.

Zimbardo arranged to have an automobile parked in the

Bronx and one in California. The car in the Bronx had no license

plates and had the hood up, appearing to be abandoned.  The car

in the Bronx was attacked immediately.  The car in

California was untouched until Zimbardo smashed part of it. Then

others joined in until the car was wrecked.  The theme of this is

that recklessness breeds recklessness and, sad to say for this

society, slack morals breeds even slacker morals. 
Myron Magnet wrote a book on the 1960’s underclass and in chapter

2.2, writes on this same theme.  Attempts to help people by

extending benefits accidentally puts more people in poverty,

simply because many would rather live on some sort of

governmental welfare than work.
In chapter 2.3, Carol Iannone discusses the feminist movement, or

the radical anti-male feminism (what Rush Limbaugh would call the

“feminazi” movement) ,  and lists its flaws and contradictions.

She shows how the Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill mini-saga was

characteristic of the anti-male feminist perversion and also

shows that these feminists sometimes contradict themselves.  For

example, a man named Randy Daniels was accused by one Barbara

Wood of sexual harrasement.  Feminist writer Amy Pagnozzi was

furious.  What kind of politics is this woman [Wood] practicing

to get this accusation going, Pagnozzi fumed.  When it was

reported that Daniels wanted Wood to perform oral sex on him,

Pagnozzi just lamely pushed the issue off, saying that oral sex

was very popular these days. Why the contradiction?  I don’t know, but

it might all be related to political views.  I must note at this

point that a few people have noted that Paula Jones, the woman who

is suing Bill Clinton (or was), has very few feminists backing her up.

It seems sexual harassment is only sexual harassment when the political

views of the protagonist and antagonist are correct.  If Sue sues

Joe, Joe had better be a conservative, otherwise the deal is off.
In later chapters, Thomas Sowell discusses multiculturalism, sets

forth the arguments for it and refutes them all.  Alan Bloom

discusses the changing sexual viewpoints of our society, a topic

he briefly discusses in his epic book The Closing of the American

Mind, a book I am proud to own.