Lonewolf Diaries: Moral Absolutes are for Dumb Conservatives
by Steven Crowder“Right and Wrong.” It’s a silly dated idea, I know. As a progressive society after all, shouldn’t we be past the antiquated idea of moral absolutes? We’re big thinkers, and a higher-learned people. Let’s leave the obtuse “black and white” mindset to those simplistic conservatives. They’re so silly. Plus, they don’t like having sex.
It seems that over the past several decades, we haven’t been able to avoid having the “moral relativism” mantra pumped into our brains. Sometimes it’s subconscious (being planted in our minds from under-the-radar messages in the talkies of Tinseltown) and sometimes it’s less subtle than Johnny Depp’s awful pubic-hair goatee. How does this resonate with the American people, however? Do most of us believe that a majority of the worlds issues are really just shades of grey?
Well, if you look at the movies that have had great success in our country (The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.) it would appear to be just the opposite. All of these movies have a very clear-cut right and wrong, good and evil. As it would seem, most Americans actually really like to see the good guys… Beat the bad guys! What a nation of simps!
The truth is that evil is a part of human nature. Not only that, but it’s a part that most decent folk like to see conquered as early and often as possible. Sure there are plenty of murky films that blur the lines of right and wrong in a “study of the human condition.” They’re practically released weekly… But they hardly end up being box-office smashes.
Why? The whole moral relativism shtick is tired, old and Americans aren’t buying it anymore. One needs only look to Hollywood’s domestic abuse, divorce, and drug addiction to see that it doesn’t work.
What really chaps my buttocks though, is when a Hollywood high school drop-out tries to paint middle-American conservatives as simple-minded for putting some “cut and dry” issues on the shelf. Listen, Tinseltown, we understand the complexities of life and examine our moral dilemma’s just as as in-depthly as you do. The only difference is that at the end of the day, we have the testicular fortitude to decide where we line up. The only reason one wouldn’t would be due to one of two things:
1.) You lack a fuzzy pair.
2.) You lack the common sense to understand how the real world works.Take your pick.
Now Hollywood, I know that making a decision using a moral compass and better judgment may feel foreign, perhaps even painful to you, but you may want to give it a shot. At the very least, you’ll be able to produce more financially viable moving pictures that resonate with the American people.
And Sean Penn, if it doesn’t work out, you can always get another divorce.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
213 Comments
Avatar parody, please.
Yes, Avatar parody, courtesy of Steven Crowder (and maybe Alfonso Rachel too)! PLEEEEEASE!
Hollywood is so pathetic. The movie stars drop like flies from drug overdoses or STDS practically every other week and they're trying to tell US how to live.
How great would that be? 'Zo in blueface and Crowder as the bland white guy who needs to get his color on.
Dear Mr. Cameron,
Avatar is racist. And also super not cool, otherwise. But shiny! Congrats on that, at least.
Love,
Thorien
I was about to say 'What about Avatar?'
But then I remembered even as a left wing hit piece its about as morally ambiguous as The Bible.
Considering libs have a hard time deciding on something being evil, they sure rush to judgement on conservatives, corporate bigs, etc.
right and wrong as concepts? You must be joking…
Why judge when you can have it both ways? Hollywood just wants to be inclusive to all, y'know.
What's that?
You mean they JUDGE anyone outside the liberal bastions? They call them knuckledraggers?? Even worse???
We are simply devastated…
It's clear why much of Hollywood is so lost. They get their inspiration from the wrong source!
Because Avatar is a left wing propaganda tool…a parody is due!
Good vs Evil, Man vs Nature….
Good should always win….nature always wins (Jack London knew that).
As much as I enjoy the Harry Potter books on occasion, I'm not sure that I'd include them, or the movies based on them, on any list about moral absolutes. Yes, Harry and his friends fight the bad guys, but they also lie, cheat, steal, etc., whenever they feel like it. Harry even repeatedly tries to torture and murder people when it's not a case of self-defense. Of course nobody's perfect, and nobody is going to behave the way they should 100% of the time, but these kids (and their adult counterparts) see nothing wrong in doing whatever it takes to get what they want, whether it's honest and moral or not, and they never show any remorse for doing so. It's all a fun bit of escapism, and they're basically decent kids, but they're also not exactly honest when honesty gets in the way of their desires.
ASK most people and they'll tell you that there are moral-absolutes to cover EVERYTHING.
WATCH most people, and you'll see that however many moral-absolutes they claim to believe in, EVERYONE has a "yeah but" for them and theirs.
A man who's honest – with himself AND with you – will tell you that of course there are "moral absolutes"… there just aren't very MANY of them.
No one's calling the Death Eaters "freedom fighters" though, or protesting outside of Azkaban over the Dementors' use of enhanced interrogation techniques, are they?
There is only freedom or control. Absolutes and the wishy-washy of the undecided, do only one of two things: attempt to control or uphold/expand freedom. Doesn't mean we live in a lawless nation, it means laws need only be based on whether or not the action against another is with or without consent. The government implementing morality, an ever changing zeitgeist, is a waste of time. Gov't upholding contracts between consenting adults is all that is needed in this regard. And Conservatives wanting gov't to be involved in their religious beliefs, have left Republican values of limited gov't – unless of course by limited they mean limited to only the things they think are important…and we're back where we started – the age of subjectivism; looking like liberals.
and to the man who would say there IS a moral absolute, I would ask: great, tell us what it is? I agree with you MovieBob, there is no such thing. Value of anything is placed by the individual, like it should be in a free society that encourages free markets, free choice and freedom of the individual mind. We need only concern ourselves with laws that present consequences for those who would infringe on the freedom of others without consent. There is simplicity in law, you just wouldn't know it by our legislators!
Of course not, but you're not addressing the point I was making. Yes, there are good things in the books/movies, and yes, the kids are on the good side. It's easily a parallel of Nazi Germany, and there are some interesting metaphors about the government and the press and all that included. But the people in the books are highly morally relativistic. Their entire philosophy is to do whatever they can get away with so long as it gets them what they want. Everytime the wind blows, their morals change with the situation. The only absolute that they believe in is that Voldemort and his buddies are bad guys. I
t's easy to look at WWII and say that Hitler was a bad guy, but that doesn't cover your everyday normal situations. Your morals are what direct you, and if you don't have any beyond recognizing that Hitler was evil, you're not somebody that should be held up as an ideal of moral absolutes.
A man on a plane started talking to me because he saw that I was reading the Brother's Karamozov. Anyhow we got into a huge discussion about abortion. He was all for population control by forced abortion etc. I remember he asked whether I thought it wouldn't be justified to abort a child that was being born to a hereoine addict. I explained that the baby was being born into an evil situation but human life is always good. I continued to say that the drug use in the scenario is the probelm in the picture not the pregnancy. I finished by saying that human life in itself is fundamentally good and that in every case of abortion, the erradication of innocent life, abortion is the grievous loss for all men and the world. What was his response?
Well, that's an absolutist position. He was right.
@iconicfreedom, may I point out the logical fallacy in your assertion there are no absolutes? The assertion there are no absolutes is itself an absolute claim about the nature of reality. In your statement, you destroy the logic of your premise. In essence, you violate the fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, which says: nothing can share contrary attributes at the same time and in the same sense. You are claiming a) reality if comprised of no absolutes at the same time and in the same sense that b) reality is comprised of one absolute and that is, that there are no absolutes. This is a contradiction. No rational mind can for long entertain a contradiction. Yet, it's done by the left all the time, which is why you get, from the same person, such absurd ideas as "abortion should always be allowed" but "pregnant lobsters must be protected at all costs to prohibit inhumane treatment of animals" and so on. Embracing a contradiction is a form of mental illness because it splits the human mind in two by asking it accept at the same time, that which is knowable and true and that which is unknowable and false. Our society has lost it's ability to think clearly on this matter and this is why we are in such deep, deep trouble.
Are you brutally honest with your friends regarding their appearances or do you compliment them even if you think their clothes make them look less than attractive? If someone gives you a gift you don't like, are you honest with the giver about your feelings? If so, you are honest. Points for that. BUT you are also hurting the feelings of friends, which loses you points. Is it more important to be honest, or to be kind to your friends? You know which is more important. As for the Potter gang, they are not perfect people, and this makes them more like us. They wrestle with ethics, they suffer consequences, they grow. But when it comes right down to it, they know good from evil. If cheating a bit to gain an advantage for a contest ultimately advances the good (and not just the GOAL but the GOOD- let's not get confused with Liberals here), then maybe Harry ISN'T the Tri-Wizard champion, but he is still a hero for saving his friends and thinking of other people besides himself.
Erratum: it's past, not passed.
By the way, Avatar Parody! Avatar Parody!
Also by the way I don't remember Harry Potter and his friends abusing people – but then I've only read one book and maybe seen one movie.
We do not treat all life as equal and we do not value all life, we pick n choose based on the value we place – it’s an aspect of development our society has not achieved as of yet but we’re headed there. If we leave the child in her hands, she is free to destroy the life of the child since no oversight will hold her accountable. Action toward her will be in the aftermath of the child’s death. Is our humanity developed as such we would avoid such outcomes? Is all of this "good"? It’s subjective, based on the individual. When we come to value ALL of life and do not take a life with little concern, then society develops toward its own integrity; then society moves closer to valuing all of life and having regard for the life it does take. Eventually the need for abortion is limited or not needed because a woman doesn't get pregnant if she cannot respond to the choice of having sex without contraception – which we call responsibility (the ability to respond).
this guy revealed everything by talking about population control – it's all about control, never about freedom. liberals are anything but liberal
If the absolute argument is being made by deciding that something is inherently "right" or inherently "wrong", then there is no such thing, there is only value placed by the individual who decides through self-interest what a choice will be in life. The term "absolute" itself is created by man to force or coerce. There is observation of action – that's reality – void of emotion, rationalization or justification. We say that abortion is "wrong" because it is the taking of life, yet, we take life every day in many ways because we have placed a different value on the life we take. It's not a criticism, it's a pointing out of reality. It would be great if we had regard for ALL of life. This doesn't mean we favor one species over our own (in the case of environmentalists). We educate women with all options, develop personal responsibility and eventually the taking of life is limited. This isn't a contradiction, it's development of society.
Just once I'd like the author of a article like this to list the exact absolute rights and absolute wrongs they believe exist in the world.
Supposedly there can't be too many. I've never seen it done before so who knows, maybe Steven will be the first.
What do you say, Mr. Crowder? Don't mean to 'chap your buttocks' or anything. Also, are you under the impression that somehow Hollywood isn't making financially viable movies that resonate with people?
Your assumption is that there is no hope for change in the addict and that her pregnancy will result in the death of her child. That is not a given outcome. Abortion has a certain outcome, the loss of life, which is good, the loss of potential. Abortion heaps another injustice and suffering on an already afflicted human being. Yes an addict makes a choice for evil and yes pre-marital sex is irresponsible and wrong, but it is wrong to misidentify the evil in the scenario. The man mistook the baby as a burden instead of a good, a potentially redeeming occurance. Things and people are not good because we say they are or we say they are not. That is precisely the relatavism that is being discussed in the article. Some things in this world are absolutely, fundamentally, good, one of which is life.
I know, I was really shocked when he came out with that, I didn't think it was really possible for someone to think forced abortion could be ok. crazy, literally.
Also, the woman in the scenario is not evil either. Her actions are evil, but she, in herself is still good and still deserving of human compassion.
well, the "assumption" was merely based on the individual presenting the scenario. With all of life, we don't know something until it's "done" and we can evaluate it, of course. Actually, people and things are good because we say they are – it is precisely the problem right now in our government – everyone placing subjective value onto legislation instead of creating legislation that only deals with advancing freedom. You place "good" on life, but that's your value placed; others do not; politicians are doing the same thing: deciding what is and isn't good, then trying to impose their idea of good. We need no one to tell us how or what the value of anything is, including life, we have the individual conscious mind to decide; we need only freedom & we'll figure it out.
plus, if our development in society has reached the integrity of not infringing on the freedoms of others without their consent, then what is good, bad, right, wrong, will be decided by the ones involved in the contract and no others.
Again, the woman as "evil" is a value you place, I understand your position. However, I merely see her behavior as choices which are either moving toward or away from health, toward or away from freedom. Compassion is again another value placed. I don't wish to see the suffering of humanity, I also realize some people create that suffering for self through the lack of personal responsibility; some we can support if they want it; others we end up leaving to their fate ( a great lesson I learned doing crisis intervention with the police department)
when you think about it, that is really who liberals are though: they have a specific idea of how life ought to be lived – they're really quite self-righteous, if it works for them then everyone has to subjugate; the very antithesis of freedom itself. They are really an undeveloped variant in the species.
Can you give me specific examples where Harry "repeatedly" tries to "torture" and "murder" people when it's not a case of self-defense. The only occasion I can remember where he came close was after Bellatrix murdered his godfather. Along with that, Voldemort was having a certain amount of control over him at that time for reasons that are revealed in the last book. I haven't read the books in a while, but I don't recall any other time that Harry did anything like that. In fact, he spared Wormtail's life when Sirius and Lupin wanted to kill him for what he did to the Potters.
Cont'd
Yes, the kids do "break the rules", usually for good reasons and usually in the end it's a good thing they did otherwise some of the good guys wouldn't be alive, including Harry. And some of the rules are put in place by the fascistic Ministry of Magic, are they not?
I know this forum doesn't give much room for long discussions on such things, but I think your post is too general and I agree with Don't Tread on Me in the sense that it appears that you are looking for some kind of perfection where we are all automatons and just obey "rules" because they are the "rules" and there are never any exceptions.
For a book written by an admitted European liberal (and therefore more liberal than most American liberals), I think the books came off as rather conservative and definitely showing the difference between good and evil.
So are you saying that you are right that there is no absolute right or wrong?
Salt Lick, Stubbs, or County Line?
[...] Read the Full Article @Big Hollywood Celebrity, Film News, Hollywood, Hot Gossip, Lone Wolf Diaries, Moral, Moral Absolutes, morality, News, sean penn, the dark knight, TinseltownNo Comments » [...]
I wouldn't think of asking someone to list the patterns in a Mandelbrot set.
Requesting evidence in the form of a list is rather self-defeating. Perhaps that is why you have difficulty understanding the idea of a moral compass, and recognizing the directions in which they point. You are so eager to find exceptions, that you fail to recognize them as the manifestation of an underlying order.
I appreciate your response and I'll even defer to your, most likely, greater understanding of the 'moral absolutes' issue.
Maybe you can clarify the issue for me. If someone says something like "There are moral absolutes in the world, Right and Wrong" I naturally want to know what they believe these absolutes are and where they come from. Are they found in the Bible? The Koran? Is the 10 Commandments the ultimate list? Can they be concretely explained or is it something people just "know". I'm asking this as honestly as I know how. You obviously think it's the wrong way to approach the concept so how do you suggest I start looking for the Absolutes of Morality?
Also, I'm intrigued by the the idea of an underlying order. Do you think God is responsible for the order or is it natural? If God, how do you explain the myriad attempts at translating God's words into absolutes, even within the same religion?
Thanks. I'm going to bed but I look forward to coming back in the morning.
"Morally ambiguous as the Bible"?……..Ahhhh,satire, correct?
"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men, GODZILLA!"
Bob, are you saying that the only moral-absolute that exists is that there are no moral-absolutes ?
"WE" means everyone, believe it or not, everyone may not agree with you.
But, if the woman in the scenario is a heroin addict, pregnant and not trying to find help for her addiction, she most certainly is, at least, selfish, and, in my thinking, not "good". Obviously, she still deserves compassion and, of course, help.
How true, liberals are the most small-minded, intolerant, tyrannical species on Earth. It's always their way or no way. "Liberal Democrat", what an oxymoron.
How about one "moral absolute"? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
As I replied to chaosdrew above, I can truly think of only one "moral absolute" with no shades of gray, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I believe the greatest man to ever grace the surface of the Earth said that….
i have no idea what this article is actually supposed to be about or what prompted it. Has Sean Penn said anything controversial recently?
moral absolutes seem only to apply to others. When one commits a 'sin' or does an evil, he tries like hell to find a way to 'justify' his actions, thereby absolving himself of any moral wrongdoing. However when one considers himself totally sin free and contemplates the evils of others it is much easier to draw those lines between right and wrong. Progressives are excellent at justification, just look at the paradox's of Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
If your parents didn't give you any guidelines of how to tell right from wrong when you were a child, it is hardly likely that one could do it now. I am assuming of course, that you are an adult.
It's not a unique idea that everyone lives by a set of moral absolutes – it's just a matter of how they are defined. Mine come from God as presented in the Bible. Others' come from some other source, but we all have them. Otherwise there would be no basis for disapproval and the anger/hatred that arises when someone disagrees with us. How can we get angry with someone if we don't believe it is even possible for them to be wrong? The aggravating thing to me is that this argument seems not to impact them at all. Liberals remind me of the Schmoo from L'il Abner – logical arguments just seem to have no effect on them. They do not want to be thought of as intolerant and so they simply believe themselves not to be. When logic ceases to work, public discourse will not accomplish much.
As for Hollywood, this goes way back. One example: my wife thinks I'm a crab for disliking "I Love Lucy." Even as a kid I could not stand the fact that Lucy's entire life centered on deceitfulness. I recall few episodes where her lying to her husband wasn't the heart of the plot. When we watch this stuff, this philosophy works its way into us like a heartworm.
I don't expect the kids to be perfect, goodness knows I'm about as far from it as a person can be, but a little consistancy in their behavior would be nice. Every time they turn around, they're doing something immoral to get what they want. I'm not talking about breaking the rules set up by the MoM. They lie constantly, they cheat at everything – except Quidditch, because that's "important", they steal, they do all kinds of things that are considered wrong by honest people. Things they consider wrong in one book, they do willingly in another.
And as for examples of Harry's behavior, I haven't read the books in awhile either, but he tried it with Bellatrix two or three times, not just the one time, he tried it with Snape several times, he did it to the Carrow guy in the last book, and there were at least two other instances that I vaguely remember, but not well enough to describe. He flings around those unforgivable curses like they were nothing, every time he gets mad at somebody.
I'm not saying I have huge issues with the books or the characters, because I honestly don't. I like them, and re-read the series on occasion when I'm looking for something fluffy. But the characters ARE morally relativistic. Whenever their morals get in the way of what they want, they're tossed out the window. I just don't think they're good examples of moral absolutes, because their morals change on a whim in every book.
"works its way into us like a heartworm"
Line of the day.
The failure of individuals to abide by moral absolutes has nothing to do with whether they exist or not. Rather it speaks to the nature of man, who is a fallen creature.
Is the value of an individual decided on by an individual? Which individual? The individual in question or another individual? What about those individuals who cannot decide for themselves?
What makes a contract so important? In upholding a contract is one not upholding the moral standard of truth, honest, integrity? Are you in favor of the government enforcing such morality?
I feel this way about shows like the Sopranos. Here, murderers and criminals are glorified. This particular type of murderer and criminal is always glorified. When I see a young kid with a t-shirt that has Al Pacino's Scarface on it I wonder if anyone explained to them that Tony Montana was murdering drug peddler?
I'd really like to see a show or movie that depicts these criminals a little more like the bad guys they really are.
It would appear to me that the need for a sinner to rationalize his sin is a clear indication of the existence of moral absolutes. If they did not exist then there would be no need to justify an action – even to one's self.
It is morally wrong to torture. It is morally wrong to invade other nations. It is morally wrong to murder people with missiles from drones. It is morally wrong to pile debt upon my child and grandchildren. It is morally wrong for a government to force people to subsidize the education of other people's children. It is morally wrong for a government to force people to buy insurance.
Hey Steve, you talk about having a pair, did you ever get the guts to go talk to a Marine recruiter?
Evil?
Good and Bad?
Black and White?
Right and Wrong?
Testicular and NonTesticular?
Boy, those sure sound like the ingredients for a box of Whoparse Surprise!
The ingredients for a serving of Liberal Amuse Bouche would include:
nuance
greyness
tolerance
inclusiveness
It comes down to life.
The one moral absolute I can think of is this: I value my life, and I have a right to keep my life. Any attack on my life will be met with all the resistance I can muster. You can take away my freedom, you can take away my money, you can take away my posessions–I can recover all of these. You take away my life, and that's it. There are no do-overs for that. I have a right to fight tooth and nail to preserve my life, up to and including killing my antagonist. By infringing my right to life, he forfeits his. If I try to kill someone who is not actively trying to kill me or my family, I deserve whatever happens.
hat-tip:Terry Goodkind
Nice article, Stephen, but you failed to make the point that “moral relativism” is one of the foundation stones of liberalism.
The liberal mind operates on emotions, not logic, reason, and common sense. Whatever feels good, do it. Truth is anathema to liberalism.
Moral relativism allows liberals to do anything they want regardless of the consequences while accusing conservatives of wanting to “make rules” and “control their lives”.
Moral relativism fosters other concepts such as “diversity”, multi-culturalism”, etc. While these concepts sound “fair” on the surface, their implementation is always immoral.
Since liberalism always starts with either immoral or amoral assumptions, it should not be given legitimacy by allowing it’s concepts to be debated in a moral context.
Here's an exercise:
Next time you talk to you someone who has bought into this ethos-du-jour (relativism), ask them: "So when is it acceptable to rape someone?"
When they answer, "Never."
You reply, "That seems pretty absolute, but to take this a step further, on what authority do base that answer? If right and wrong are entirely relative, that is painfully judgmental of you to establish that it is never ok to rape. If I happen to have a proclivity for rape, it is offensive to me for you to force your values on me."
They will stutter, stammer, and say something unintelligent.
Then you may say, "Perhaps there are absolutes. If there are absolutes, the idea that there are no absolutes seems a little silly…"
Upon closer scrutiny, any kind of relativism will ultimately argue itself out of existence.
You're conflating the existence of moral absolutes with the experience of moral behavior. I can behave as if moral absolutes do not exist but that does not prove that they do not exist. In the same manner, I can behave as if civil and criminal laws do not exist but the laws remain in force.
Moral absolutes are goals toward which we can strive. But given that we are not perfect and cannot act perfectly we will occassionally fail in our progress toward those goals. And like any failure, we should learn from it and, hopefully, not repeat it.
I've seen a lot of this attitude toward Harry Potter, and usually it means that the person has seen the movies and hasn't read the books.
In the movies the storylines have to be shortened and lots of material has to be cut. The hours of studying, the lessons, the morals are skipped over to get to the action.
Sarah, you mention that the kids "doing whatever it takes to get what they want." That never happens, not once, not in thousands and thousands of pages of Rowling's work. At all times Harry is given a choice to sit back and let evil happen, or take a risk to his very life and fight back. Of course in the movies this is never seen, because you have two hours to tell a tale that takes days to read.
I would suggest that you read the novels before you start talking about Harry Potter in statements like "Harry even repeatedly tries to torture and murder people when it's not a case of self defense." The novels, not the movies. The novels.
"What really chaps my buttocks …."
LOL – great line.
I hope that it soon becomes a cliche.
Excuse me, I may resemble that remark…
and it was YOU they had in mind. Useful tip: kevlar gloves keep the knuckles from blistering. Works for us…
A most illuminating post….I had no idea that Kool-aid now has a new flavor – Code Pink!
It appears that you are stating that it is always wrong for one individual to infringe upon the freedom of another individual? Is that not a moral absolute? Or is there a time when it is right for an individual to deny liberty to another?
Individual liberty does not exist. We do not exist in a vacuum and our actions and ideas do have consequences for others whether we intend them to or not. The lie I tell my wife is morally wrong whether any physical, mentally or emotional harm comes to her through it. In telling that lie I have manipulated her. I have treated her as an object instead of another human being of equal worth. This action is not relatively wrong, it is absolutely wrong.
For that matter, if absolutes do not exist, why bother arguing oughts? The government oaught to do this, individuals ought to that, society ought to the other thing. That is the waste.
I think my point is that no one would want to read about characters who are "morally absolute". Those characters aren't interesting because they're not "human"; they have no depth or complexity.
And one doesn't have to be perfectly, consistently good or evil to be either good or evil overall.
Why didn't the greatest writer and commentator of our time, David Sedaris, not have the guts to stand on a stage alone in front of thousands of a mostly non-English speakers at age seventeen and perform a headlining set of his cutting edge commentary? Why did he wait until he was almost forty and even then only read out of his diary in front of a late-night coffee house crowd?
Ironically, you're talking in moral absolutes, lefty.
Maybe more importantly, when we fail we keep on trying to do better anyway.
The only thing I can think of is use of the sectum sempra curse used against Malfoy. It was a curse Snape had developed and created deep physical wounds in the target. Potter regretted its effects, I think.
Man, I feel like a nerd.
For a European liberal, JK Rowling deserves credit for getting off welfare and using her talents to write a best-selling series of books that kids and adults can enjoy! Yea, self-determination! Yea, Capitalism! Yea, entrepreneurial spirit!
"there is no such thing"
Absolutely?
I'd guess that "murder is wrong" is one of those absolutes.
Even to someone who posits that killing Adolph Hitler earlier would have saved millions of lives, I'd have to say yes, that's correct, but it still does not change that fact that Hitler was still assassinated, or murdered, and that was wrong. Maybe less wrong than killing someone like MLK, but still wrong.
Selfishness is not always bad. Sometimes we need selfishness to assert ourselves, to do what is good, to develop. What comes from the selfish act may help determine if it is good or bad selfishness.
The addict we imagine here may not be bright, or motivated or care enough about herself or her child to get help. She does still deserve compassion, as does the child.
Oh sure he doesn't believe in moral absolutes……………………….
Until somebody steal from HIM
or rapes HIM
or murders HIM
or commits adultery with HIS wife
or believes in whatever HE doesn't
Why have law at all genius. These are all examples of moral absolutes. Result:
Liberlism = Anarchy
P.S. My wife and I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE sex
Harry Potter, I'll give you. Lord of the Rings, maybe (none of us is perfectly Good being a major theme of the series makes me skeptical). But The Dark Knight? That movie was essentially a study in moral relativism, wasn't it?
For instance, we have the two Gotham heroes, Harvey Dent and Batman, each representing a different set of moralities. That is, what we expect and is acceptable of Batman would be crossing the line for Dent. I feel like something can be said about the depiction of Two-Face in regards to the idea of moral absolutes (every decision is made with a coin flip–Right or Wrong), but I'm not sure that's really explored as deeply.
Anyway, moral relativism is hardly a progressive idea–it's one of the philosophical foundations of democracy. Check of Aeschylus' Ortesia, which explores the morality behind violent acts and who gets to decide if they are justified (spoiler: it's a jury).
Phishaw on Hollywood, what about academia? Hollywood I can turn off and tune out, but required classes that forced me to listen to moral relativistic dreck and then write a paper on it are just criminal. I did what I had to do to get my grades, but I'm glad I was raised on morals and values and that college couldn't make see the world as anything other than black and white. Teach your children well, people. It starts at home, and as the old saying goes, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything".
Sean Penn: "I heart Hugo Chavez."
"Upon closer scrutiny, any kind of relativism will ultimately argue itself out of existence." You'd like to think so, but I am continually amazed at people's ability to ignore reason when it slaps them in the face.
Don't Tread, if I may take issue on a couple of, I feel, salient points. I stated my comments from a Christian view point, perhaps I should have mentioned this.As selfishness is the act of taking interest in only one's self, the very fact that the "addict" is, supposedly, pregnant, this is, indeed , selfishness in it's worst form possible. Endangering anothers life is the epitome of selfishness, besides the taking of one's life(exception~self -defense)
What sort of selfishness could help us to develop as a person? I agree self-assertiveness can help to enrich our personal development.However, in order to do what is good, to develop as a person, I feel that "selflessness" is going to help one develop a desirable character more so than "selfishness". If one is truly desiring to do good and develop as a person, selfishness may also add a certain amount of guilt to one's conscience. If we all could live by the "Golden Rule", utopia would be achieveable as truly enlightened beings.
Also, as I stated in my original comment, the addict and her unborn child certainly deserve and require our help and compassion. It would be far too easy for some to sit in judgement of this person. Although self responsibility comes along with our very own self-determination, the adage "walk a mile in my shoes " comes to mind……Hanzo
One of the other things that the Potter series shows is that you choose how to use your abilities. With the exception of the Unforgivable Curses, all the magic spells are neutral – they can be used for good or evil.
So the person chooses which side of the fence they are on and uses his talents accordingly. But wait, that kinda seems like personal responsibility, doesn't it?
He means that it's not morally ambiguous.
He did not know what it was when he did it. He immediately regretted it and was horrified with what he did. Hermione uses this as a reason to nag him again about getting rid of the Half-blood princes book.
I am a nerd, and proud of it (I may as well be, I have no choice…..)
But Avatar IS morally ambiguous……;-)
I don't think you understand moral relativity. Just because there is an overwhelming consensus regarding the morality of rape (that it's bad) doesn't mean nothing is relative.
My sister is a vegetarian. She believes that is morally wrong for humans to eat meat. I disagree! Yet, somehow, we manage to coexist, and we have to, because as of yet there is no moral absolute regarding the consumption of living creatures.
See? Morality can be a lot more subtle than rape and murder, and often is in our daily existence.
County Line. (Don't hate, y'all!)
It isn't that the Left doesn't believe in right and wrong and evil; they have just redefined those concepts to suit their own agenda. For instance, they have no problems labeling conservatives wrong and evil but they wouldn't dare label a terrorist as wrong or evil. It's the same with hypocrisy: a Christian who cheats on his wife but tells everone that adultery is a sin is rightfully labeled a hypocrite. The Liberal who preaches against capitalism, wealth, and global warming gets a pass for benefiting from capitalism, being wealthy, and living a lavish lifestyle.
A Liberal is a person who believes that a Christian who non-violently states that abortion is a sin is much worse that the Muslims who stone a woman to death for being raped.
As for the Harry Potter controversy- surely we can't judge a book or film solely by the moral choices made by the protagonists. That would disqualify just about every piece of great literature I can think of…
The more you try to distort liberals into some kind of demonic, drooling monsters that possess no moral compass, the more you make honest, compassionate individuals around you see you as a demonic, conniving monster attempting to fuel conflict, hatred and other generally un-Christian values.
You have gone way beyond disagreeing with liberal policies and have sunken deep into vilification and dehumanization. Frankly, it scares me that you are not alone in your sentiments, as it's not very conducive to a peaceful, civil environment, but rather the same kind of vitriolic hatred that fuels the radical Muslims (that we all condemn) into feeling justified in killing as many "infidels" as possible. Liberals are your infidels, really, and you should be ashamed. In fact, a whole lot of the commenters here should be ashamed when they fail to be the better man and seek reconciliation and understanding, but instead just express disgust upon disgust at "libs" and "lefties". That is not what the Jesus I know would do, and you all know it.
Blogs like this prove to me that neither side is ever really morally superior, though both always claim to be. In the end it's just the playing out of human nature, of Us versus Them. I would have just hoped that considering that there are more Christians on the conservative end, they, following the teachings of Christ, would be less hateful and more good-willed.
I do try to be honest. If I don't like a friend's outfit, I find something else about their appearance that day to compliment them on instead. I'm also not talking about the big things here. I get that sometimes people have to do things they normally wouldn't do when somebody's life is at stake. I'm talking about the everyday behavior. These kids change their minds about what's right every time it conflicts with what they want that day. They do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like it. I get that people act like that, and of course nobody's perfect. I just think it's dumb to hold them up as examples of characters who know what's right and wrong when the way they define them changes whenever they change their clothes.
People obviously make mistakes every single day. But when characters spout off about being honest one day, then turn around and tell a bald-faced lie the next – and not in order to spare somebody's feelings, but to spare themselves punishment for their earlier behavior, or something similar – and this happens regularly throughout the series, then no, that's not being morally absolute.
Good for you. Now you have ammunition that you couldn't provide for yourself, and you'll use it to shame someone who may or may not have the intellectual ammunition to defend themselves. Surely if they do, you will be the one to stammer and say something unintelligent, and then feel spiteful.
Here's a thought: Moral relativists don't claim that they don't know right from wrong. The grey area they refer to is what exists in between a gradient of black and white, which also exist. Therefore, they may find that on a scale of 1 (evil) to 10 (good), they would find rape to be 1. As for abortion, they may find it to be somewhere between 1 and 4, depending on the circumstance. A moral absolutist on the other hand must always know instinctually because they have a strong moral compass that something is good or evil on a scale of 1 to 2. I'm sure that you can find the latter to be silly through even the most boring example: a wife asking a husband whether a dress makes her look fat. The answer is always no, despite what you may think of honesty.
Actually, no.
It posits that invasion for profit is bad and natives in touch with their environment are good. Seems pretty black-and-white to me.
I'm having difficulty picturing a "good" use for sectumsempra. Granted, the spell was created by Snape, and Potter only used it once (as far as I can recall), without knowing what it did, other than it was "for enemies". Whatever spell Umbridge used to enchant her special quill also strikes me as not being particularly neutral.
But yeah, those are nits. In general, the protagonists of the books do try to do good, even if there are occasional lapses.
Point taken, especially with sectumsempra. I honestly forgot about those. I would guess that in both cases they were neutral spells modified by their casters into their no-longer-neutral forms. Maybe sectumsempra was originally a type of dehydration spell or somesuch.
I still stand by my original point – you choose what to do with your talents and those choices make you good or evil.
Sorry, I am in the process of re-reading the books, and I do NOT see any of what you are talking about. Harry is a human being. Does Harry lie, yes, to people who are trying to harm him or others (case in point, Order of the Phoenix he does lie to Dolores Umbridge). The Death Eaters will harm people for fun, never did Harry or any of his friends do this. As for moral relativism, she strikes that idea down in the first book. In the final scene with Quirrell, Quirrell says that he used to have this stupid idea of right and wrong but Voldemort showed him that there is no right and wrong. You use your power, however you see fit.
Harry is a role model, however he is not perfect. He makes mistakes and he pays for them (his Godfather's death). He makes sacrifices even when they do not benefit him (ending of the series, being the most obvious). Writing a book where the character is perfect only works for one book I know….the Gospels of the New Testament. We try to live up to His example, but we fail, just like Harry.
Not that anybody asked me, but Salt Lick. Of course, that's the only TX BBQ I had when I visited Austin back in October…but DANG that was some GOOD STUFF!
Yes, yes! Parody of Avatar! Please!
You must be logged in to post a comment.