"Why not be cruel?"

[Gipper]

"The intellectual class and the left still believe that secularism is an unalloyed blessing. They are wrong. Secularism is good for government. But it is terrible for society (though still preferable to bad religion) and for the individual. One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good and evil are no more real than 'yummy' and 'yucky.' They are simply a matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, 'There is no answer to the question, "Why not be cruel?"' With the death of Judeo-Christian-God-based standards, people have simply substituted feelings for those standards. Millions of American young people have been raised by parents and schools with 'How do you feel about it?' as the only guide to what they ought to do. The heart has replaced God and the Bible as a moral guide. ... A vast number of American young people do not even ask whether an action is right or wrong. The question would strike them as foreign. Why? Because the question suggests that there is a right and wrong outside of themselves. And just as there is no God higher than them, there is no morality higher than them, either." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

I thank God every day that my beautiful wife and I have been able to see to it that our children NEVER walks the halls of a government school. As a result, they know the difference between right and wrong.

The consequences of liberalism are dreadful.

 

[dogtowner]

Astute commentary, thanks for posting.

 

[Dr.Who]

Good topic. Lets see how it develops.

 

[Pandora]

it might explain why people with this belief system fight for the right to abort your child at any stage for any reason. Generally people who believe strongly in right and wrong consider abortion on demand as wrong.

 

[dogtowner]

it might explain why people with this belief system fight for the right to abort your child at any stage for any reason. Generally people who believe strongly in right and wrong consider abortion on demand as wrong.

when one rationalizes away right vs wrong in favor of doing what one wants then the outcomes of applications of this are to be expected.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Secularism has no awnser for why not be cruel?

God Christianity? if so, it seems to fail a ton threw history.

 

[Pandora]

when one rationalizes away right vs wrong in favor of doing what one wants then the outcomes of applications of this are to be expected.

I never really thought of it that way but I think I understand more now why some people feel so strongly that its ok to kill babies even into the 9th month. All the arguing I have done with pro abortionists I honestly never understood how they could hold such horrific opinions but if they do not understand right v wrong, it makes much more sense to me now than it ever has.

 

[Openmind]

I never really thought of it that way but I think I understand more now why some people feel so strongly that its ok to kill babies even into the 9th month. All the arguing I have done with pro abortionists I honestly never understood how they could hold such horrific opinions but if they do not understand right v wrong, it makes much more sense to me now than it ever has.

There are no "pro-abortionists," there are people who are "pro-choice, not FOR abortion.

And your constant focus on "killing babies even into the 9th month" is no more than canned propaganda. The number of late term abortions that occurs (and only for very specific reasons) is minimal.

And NO ONE likes to face the possibility that an unborn child went all the way through 7 or 8 month of development before the medical reasons to terminate the pregnancy are discovered.

 

[Pandora]

There are no "pro-abortionists," there are people who are "pro-choice, not FOR abortion.

And your constant focus on "killing babies even into the 9th month" is no more than canned propaganda. The number of late term abortions that occurs (and only for very specific reasons) is minimal.

And NO ONE likes to face the possibility that an unborn child went all the way through 7 or 8 month of development before the medical reasons to terminate the pregnancy are discovered.

I understand that is just your opinion and not even loosely based on any sort of fact.

You know I am still waiting for you're reply on the abortion thread. I asked you to give me an example, even a made up one of how it could ever be necessary or even helpful for that matter to partially birth then abort a 7, 8 or 9 month baby to save a woman's life.

There is no real life example or case so you will have to make one up but I would be happy to accept that. It just has to be reasonable. I need to understand how forcing a full term or almost full term baby breech is better than a C section for a dying woman and how holding the head in the woman and stabbing it in the back of the head till you are sure the baby is dead before you allow the baby to continue being born will ever save a dying woman. Just saying its "canned propaganda" is a cop out

I know you wont ever give me an example because its impossible, I have thought it over so many times trying to find any way or reason to justify and have never been able to come up with anything even close.

It is unreasonable to partially birth then kill a person and doing this will never save a woman's life. Logic and reason are on my side. Also it's morally wrong to kill another person but if a person does not understand or accept the difference between right and wrong, they would be clueless to understanding its not ok to partially birth a living person and then kill them before they get a chance to take their first breath.

So I for the first time actually understand where you are coming from. I do not agree with it but at least I understand it. and now instead of being utterly disgusted with people who feel it's ok to partially birth then kill a baby I instead feel sad for them.

 

[Gipper]

Back to the OP.

The premise of Prager's column is young people today do not know the difference between right and wrong. They have been raised in a secular society in which God and morality have been removed and in some cases, held in contempt. God and morality have no existence in their lives. The result is their decision making process is entirely based on their FEELINGS.

"Moral standards have been replaced by feelings." I believe this is evident among a large segment of Americans. To make a moral judgement, is an affront to many people. No one has the RIGHT to make a moral judgement.

Prager continues...

And now, as Brooks points out, we see the results. A vast number of American young people do not even ask whether an action is right or wrong. The question would strike them as foreign. Why? Because the question suggests that there is a right and wrong outside of themselves. And just as there is no God higher than them, there is no morality higher than them, either.

If correct, then everyone has their own idea of right and wrong. Which means in reality, there is no right and wrong. To say something is morally right or wrong, means nothing since everyone has their own definition. The consequences of this I suspect leads to chaos.

So, its okay to be cruel.

 

[Dr.Who]

it might explain why people with this belief system fight for the right to abort your child at any stage for any reason. Generally people who believe strongly in right and wrong consider abortion on demand as wrong.

Recently Openmind said that the right to life trumps all other rights. Maybe she is not one of the progressives who supports abortion? Maybe as she applies decency and empathy she finds it indecent to kill a living human before it is born. Maybe she has empathy for that living human.

Or maybe terms like decency and empathy are so wishy-washy that anyone can use them to defend any side of a moral argument.

 

[Dr.Who]

There are no "pro-abortionists," there are people who are "pro-choice, not FOR abortion.

That is just factually wrong.

A quick google search reveals this:

"
I am pro-abortion. Not pro-choice. Pro-abortion. I think this is an important distinction because I hear some pro-choicers say they support the right of a woman to choose, but they would never want to have or would want their lover/girlfriend/wife to have an abortion.

I don’t get that. I can’t say I support the right for a woman to get an abortion and then say abortion is bad. Abortion is good. When a woman evaluates where she is in the universe and decides that she should have an abortion, she is doing the right thing. And she is doing a good thing.

An abortion is nothing to be ashamed of. However, saying you are pro-choice and with the next breath saying you would never get an abortion is shaming those who have. "

I would add that the search for the term "I am pro abortion" revealed 441,000 hits.

And your constant focus on "killing babies even into the 9th month" is no more than canned propaganda. The number of late term abortions that occurs (and only for very specific reasons) is minimal.

How many are done at that stage is irrelvant to the question of how many people would support it.

And NO ONE likes to face the possibility that an unborn child went all the way through 7 or 8 month of development before the medical reasons to terminate the pregnancy are discovered.

I don;t get why you are saying this. Are you trying to show that those who are pro choice do not like the choice? We have an alternative: just try to save all the babies.

But for some this is not enough. Why one senator from Illinois even favored leaving babies that were meant to be aborted on a shelf in a laundry closet without water or food or warmth until that baby dies. One can't falsely claim at this point that a fetus is not a baby or a person. This is just a person who is so committed to the abortion cause that not a single exception can be made no matter how reasonable because it just might be the slippery slope that permits more restrictions on abortions. That person imo has crossed the line from pro choice to pro abortion. He is also a monster and he represents the democratic party pretty well. Please to meet you hope you guess my (his) name.

 

[Dr.Who]

Back to the OP.

The premise of Prager's column is young people today do not know the difference between right and wrong. They have been raised in a secular society in which God and morality have been removed and in some cases, held in contempt. God and morality have no existence in their lives. The result is their decision making process is entirely based on their FEELINGS.

"Moral standards have been replaced by feelings." I believe this is evident among a large segment of Americans. To make a moral judgement, is an affront to many people. No one has the RIGHT to make a moral judgement.

Prager continues...


If correct, then everyone has their own idea of right and wrong. Which means in reality, there is no right and wrong. To say something is morally right or wrong, means nothing since everyone has their own definition. The consequences of this I suspect leads to chaos.

So, its okay to be cruel.

Yes, to get back to the OP:

You are right that ones own feelings when that is the only justification for why a thing should be or not means that there are as many prefered outcomes as there are feelings.

I used to work with kids who had emotional/behavioral problems. Often we would have to restrain them to keep them from hurting someone. Far too many times four of us would be holding a kid down and all the while he would be yelling: "But I don't want [to be restrained]. Let me up." As if his desire not to be restrained were the only factor. This was despite the fact that there was a clear set of criteria known by all the kids for what they needed to do to be let up.

Moral relativism does lead to major problems.

 

[Gipper]

Yes, to get back to the OP:

You are right that ones own feelings when that is the only justification for why a thing should be or not means that there are as many prefered outcomes as there are feelings.

I used to work with kids who had emotional/behavioral problems. Often we would have to restrain them to keep them from hurting someone. Far too many times four of us would be holding a kid down and all the while he would be yelling: "But I don't want [to be restrained]. Let me up." As if his desire not to be restrained were the only factor. This was despite the fact that there was a clear set of criteria known by all the kids for what they needed to do to be let up.

Moral relativism does lead to major problems.

Yes, moral relativism does lead to problems. But, many do not agree with us.

We know there is a political ideology that is completely infected with moral relativism and for that matter, a whole bunch of other "isms." That ideology has caused tremendous damage to individuals and our nation. A nation or society lacking in morality, can't survive for long.