American arrogance. That arrogance is fed by military power. And the difference between Trump and past Presidents is that our previous Presidents were clever enough and cared about being more subtle. Trump is rather subtlety-impaired.
Trump's base doesn't care about subtlety either. They love his tough guy image. They love the wielding of power. That is because when America's power is used by a tough guy like Trump, not only do they feel protected, they feel proud. They feel like their country can do anything it wants and the rest of the world is helpless. Nobody can mess with us now. And that is where many of us find significance.
Trump is not the first President to use American military power arrogantly. He is not the first president to act in ways that ignore what other nations, and international law, say. Obama extended Bush's use of drone warfare. Bush invaded two nations one of which had nothing to do with 9/11 despite his claims otherwise. That Bush said to the world that you are either with us or with the terrorists. Clinton carried out the sanctions that followed the war led by the first Bush. The result of the actions of Presidents George H. W. Bush and Clinton were the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Those actions consisted of the combination of the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions. That result was buried so that we Americans would not have to feel bad about our nation. George H. W. Bush also attacked Panama. And then there was Reagan.
The latest example of arrogant American exceptionalism was the drone assassination of Iran's General Soleimani. That was followed by Trump's threat that he had put potential targets on 52 Iranian sites including cultural sites. Attacking those sites would be a war crime. But Trump and his base say 'who cares.' Why? Because we are militarily powerful enough to make the rules but are too weak in character to follow international laws.
So what happens when Trump's assassination of a foreign government's official starts to serve as a precedent? What happens when other nations use drones to attack leaders from other nations? Will other such assassinations be acceptable to the US? That depends on who is assassinating whom. And that is the definition of moral relativity.
And the conservative Christian part of Trump's base should alarmed at their acceptance of moral relativity, but it is not. Trump's conservative Christian followers should be alarmed at becoming more and more like the world because they preach so strongly against such conformity. But they are not. They should be afraid because such an acceptance of moral relativity shows that they have traded at least a part of their faith for things of the world which Trump has offered. But they have no such fear.
That selective acceptance of moral relativity by the Christian part of Trump's base only shows that those Christians have joined the same world they preach against. They are like Old Testament Israel that began to worship the idols of their neighbors and allies. These Christians have traded in part of their faith for worldly advantages. And lest those of us religiously conservative Never-Trump Christians opportunistically pounce on their Trump supporting brothers and sisters, we should recognize that we have all, at times, traded part of our faith in for worldly gain. And that fact should temper how we sound the alarm for our fellow religiously conservative Christians who have been deceived by what Trump appears to be offering.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label moral relativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label moral relativity. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Friday, August 16, 2019
Morality's Great Divide
In a recent article, Tara Isabella Burton (click here for a bio) has recently written an article for Religion News Service about the influence that Iris Murdoch has had on Millennials. Iris Murdoch is a 20th century British literature writer and atheist who would have just turned 100 years old. She wrote about seeking the good in life without a belief in God. And in so doing, she has encouraged Millennials to embrace moral relativity in terms of their personal morals, that is to look for what is right for just them. But something rather different from that occurred in how Millennials reacted to social justice issues (click here for the article).
For in terms of social justice issues, Millennials have tended to pursue universal morals. That pursuit was partially inspired by Murdoch's call to 'unself' when it comes to the world. For in that call to unself is a call to look to the world is to realize that something else exists besides oneself. Thus, to unself is a call to both love and truth.
Burton then makes the point that Millennials are more likely to embrace moral relativity in terms of personal morals than previous generations. However, Millennials are looking for universal morals in terms of social justice. And the question is, are those from generations that preceded Millennials looking to embrace universal morals in terms of social justice or do they prefer moral relativity regarding social justice issues?
It is at this point, that perhaps Burton has discovered, or at least mentioned, the moral divide that has been a part of Americans for at least a half a century. The moral divide is that there are two distinct sets of moral standards for which one can either hold to universal morals or moral relativity. One set concerns itself with personal morals and the other set is concerned with social justice issues.
For religiously conservative Christians, moral absolutes and moral relativity have always concerned themselves with individual moral choices, especially those choices that revolve around sexual practices. To hold to traditional values, especially regarding sex, is to hold to universal values. At the same time, because older Christians tend to be nationalists, or base too much of their identity on their ethnicity, or cling to some ideological allegiance, they tended to embrace moral relativity when it came to at least some social justice issues. Because of those loyalties that are competing with loyalty to God, all of a sudden the moral standards that older Christians expect others to follow depended on the group others belonged to. For example, many older Christians morally oppose the idea of certain other nations trying to at least partially act like the U.S. in policing their corner of the world. Such a view is an exercise in moral relativity since the same morals are not being applied to the nations in question.
And what that points to is that one doesn't have to fail to hold to universal morals regarding personal behavior to also practice moral relativity. For in accepting one's nation's attempts to rule over other nations while opposing other nations from doing the same is to reject a universal moral standard and thus embrace moral relativity.
Thus, both following and avoiding the practice of following moral relativity becomes more complicated than just following traditional values about one's personal behavior. It also involves how one approaches social justice issues. For those who refuse to work for social justice have embraced moral relativity for they have shown preference as to how some can exploit others.
So perhaps Millennials and older Christians have something to teach each other when it comes to following universal morals. While older Christians will tend to be able to teach Millennials about universal morals regarding personal behavior, Millennials can teach older Christians how to apply universal morals to social justice issues.
References
For in terms of social justice issues, Millennials have tended to pursue universal morals. That pursuit was partially inspired by Murdoch's call to 'unself' when it comes to the world. For in that call to unself is a call to look to the world is to realize that something else exists besides oneself. Thus, to unself is a call to both love and truth.
Burton then makes the point that Millennials are more likely to embrace moral relativity in terms of personal morals than previous generations. However, Millennials are looking for universal morals in terms of social justice. And the question is, are those from generations that preceded Millennials looking to embrace universal morals in terms of social justice or do they prefer moral relativity regarding social justice issues?
It is at this point, that perhaps Burton has discovered, or at least mentioned, the moral divide that has been a part of Americans for at least a half a century. The moral divide is that there are two distinct sets of moral standards for which one can either hold to universal morals or moral relativity. One set concerns itself with personal morals and the other set is concerned with social justice issues.
For religiously conservative Christians, moral absolutes and moral relativity have always concerned themselves with individual moral choices, especially those choices that revolve around sexual practices. To hold to traditional values, especially regarding sex, is to hold to universal values. At the same time, because older Christians tend to be nationalists, or base too much of their identity on their ethnicity, or cling to some ideological allegiance, they tended to embrace moral relativity when it came to at least some social justice issues. Because of those loyalties that are competing with loyalty to God, all of a sudden the moral standards that older Christians expect others to follow depended on the group others belonged to. For example, many older Christians morally oppose the idea of certain other nations trying to at least partially act like the U.S. in policing their corner of the world. Such a view is an exercise in moral relativity since the same morals are not being applied to the nations in question.
And what that points to is that one doesn't have to fail to hold to universal morals regarding personal behavior to also practice moral relativity. For in accepting one's nation's attempts to rule over other nations while opposing other nations from doing the same is to reject a universal moral standard and thus embrace moral relativity.
Thus, both following and avoiding the practice of following moral relativity becomes more complicated than just following traditional values about one's personal behavior. It also involves how one approaches social justice issues. For those who refuse to work for social justice have embraced moral relativity for they have shown preference as to how some can exploit others.
So perhaps Millennials and older Christians have something to teach each other when it comes to following universal morals. While older Christians will tend to be able to teach Millennials about universal morals regarding personal behavior, Millennials can teach older Christians how to apply universal morals to social justice issues.
References
- https://religionnews.com/2019/07/19/millennials-moral-relativism-and-iris-murdoch/
- http://www.taraisabellaburton.com/
- https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_universalism.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
- https://chomsky.info/20020702/
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Equality And Inequality For Israel-Palestine
For as long as so many have divided themselves into camps for either side, there is no way that a peaceful settlement can be found between the Israelis and the Palestinians . Such is the price we pay for tribalism. Tribalism can make us feel good especially when it causes us to feel proud of belonging to our groups, but divisions, envy, and enmity are soon to follow. And sometimes, as has occurred with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, tribalism irrevocably leads down an irrational path to moral suicide and even physical destruction.
If we are going to search for a peaceful settlement that relies on justice, we must abhor the abduction and killing of the 3 Israeli teenagers as much as we abhor the Occupation and Israel's detention, torture, and killing of Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers. And if we want a peace by justice settlement, we must oppose Hamas' rockets fired at Israel as much as we oppose Israel's current coldhearted attack on Gaza. For if one has the right to attack civilians in the name of self-defense, so does the other. If Israel claims the right to attack Gaza because no country would tolerate being attacked by missiles, realize that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israel because no people should have to tolerate being permanently occupied--which includes having resources destroyed and land stolen--by a foreign power. Of course, allowing both to attack each other the way they do is to do nothing but let others be attacked because they are not us. If we continue with that philosophy, who will be left to protect us when we are attacked?
We should note that there is an argument against equating the attacks of one's enemies with own attacks on others. The argument against calls such a comparison 'moral equivalency.' Those who use this term do so to denounce the equating of one's own actions with that of one's enemies. But what those who oppose moral equivalency seem to not notice is that their rejection of moral equivalency is due to their embracing of moral relativity. And moral relativity, from a Christian perspective is nothing short of a denial of God's Word as well as His character because He is not a respecter of persons.
The above is the equality aspect in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where the inequality exists is in the strength and oppression one side has exercised over the other. This was the witness of Rachel Corrie when she stayed in Gaza. It is also testified by the statistics gathered by B'Tselem (click here), an Israeli human rights group. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Israel continues to rob the Palestinians of their means to live. Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians. And Israel continues to treat the Palestinians like dogs and while feigning that some Palestinians would act like animals.
In the meantime, the world watches the World Cup or whatever follows it. Such is a denial of both our inter-connectivity and the humanity of all the victims, Israeli and Palestinian, of this conflict. Here, the greatest sins are being committed by both those with the most power and those who use a claim to having the moral high ground to take sides rather than work for justice for all.
If we are going to search for a peaceful settlement that relies on justice, we must abhor the abduction and killing of the 3 Israeli teenagers as much as we abhor the Occupation and Israel's detention, torture, and killing of Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers. And if we want a peace by justice settlement, we must oppose Hamas' rockets fired at Israel as much as we oppose Israel's current coldhearted attack on Gaza. For if one has the right to attack civilians in the name of self-defense, so does the other. If Israel claims the right to attack Gaza because no country would tolerate being attacked by missiles, realize that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israel because no people should have to tolerate being permanently occupied--which includes having resources destroyed and land stolen--by a foreign power. Of course, allowing both to attack each other the way they do is to do nothing but let others be attacked because they are not us. If we continue with that philosophy, who will be left to protect us when we are attacked?
We should note that there is an argument against equating the attacks of one's enemies with own attacks on others. The argument against calls such a comparison 'moral equivalency.' Those who use this term do so to denounce the equating of one's own actions with that of one's enemies. But what those who oppose moral equivalency seem to not notice is that their rejection of moral equivalency is due to their embracing of moral relativity. And moral relativity, from a Christian perspective is nothing short of a denial of God's Word as well as His character because He is not a respecter of persons.
The above is the equality aspect in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where the inequality exists is in the strength and oppression one side has exercised over the other. This was the witness of Rachel Corrie when she stayed in Gaza. It is also testified by the statistics gathered by B'Tselem (click here), an Israeli human rights group. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Israel continues to rob the Palestinians of their means to live. Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians. And Israel continues to treat the Palestinians like dogs and while feigning that some Palestinians would act like animals.
In the meantime, the world watches the World Cup or whatever follows it. Such is a denial of both our inter-connectivity and the humanity of all the victims, Israeli and Palestinian, of this conflict. Here, the greatest sins are being committed by both those with the most power and those who use a claim to having the moral high ground to take sides rather than work for justice for all.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
How To Turn A Small Protest Into A Big Protest
This month's anti-drone protest at the Horsham Air National Guard Station outside of Philly was smaller than last month's. That was sad. However, these protests could never be large enough to have an impact because of the location. So what is the point of a small protest?
Like all protests, a small protest can create awareness of a problem. But if the only result is that some have an increased awareness of the problem, then the protest has become insignificant. For it is just as when one's faith is dead without works, awareness without followup is meaningless.
What we protesters have now is a mixture of responses from no comment to a few nay-sayers to people beeping their horns in support. It is like playing a football game before a crowd. Some, in the crowd, could care less about the game. Some, in the crowd, boo one of the teams on the field. While those who honk are satisfied with staying in the stands and cheering for us.
But when it comes to protests, we need are more players than fans. I don't mean that people who drive by should immediately park their cars and join us. What I do mean is that the people who honk for us should perform other activism that supports the cause. Other activism could include going to other protests, calling or writing their elected officials, talking to their friends about the issue, and publicly expressing their opinions.
Until we get enough players, we will get the same old, same old government behavior. That behavior consists of when business speaks, government listens. For it is business that benefits from drone attacks sans accountability. It is their equipment and support that the government pays for and those government checks come from our current taxes and our future debt. But the deficit spending is not the only debt we will incur. There is a moral debt that will be exacted on us by our current targets once they gain power. And history tells us that no empire lasts forever. The end will most likely be brutal unless we change our direction and game plan.
But as it stands now, there are not enough anti-drone players on the field to win the game. Why? It is partially because the fans whom we have are content to just cheer from the stands rather than play with the team. And those in government who make the decisions are not threatened by a small team with a large fan base. Rather, what changes their mind and behavior is when they have to face a big team that has a multiple threat offense.
My fellow Conservative Christians should be first to join the team to enter the fray. We could show why by playing Madlibs. We start with writing the following sentence:
What Conservative Christian should balk at actions that limit the power of the current government? But when we fill in the blanks, we see why many Conservative Christians don't even watch the game. Why? Look at the filled in words:
Are my fellow American Conservative Christians too conscious of how fellow-Christians are being either persecuted to care when others are being hurt? Are my fellow American Conservative Christians too infected by the tribalistic virus that kills one's sense of moral absolutes? If so, then for these Christians, right and wrong are determined by who does what to whom.
If American Conservative Christians have lost their sense of right and wrong in this issue, is there any chance that it can be found in nonChristians? And if it can, what shame will that bring to the Gospel? The answers to these questions and more will be answered by what happens after next protest.
What we protesters have now is a mixture of responses from no comment to a few nay-sayers to people beeping their horns in support. It is like playing a football game before a crowd. Some, in the crowd, could care less about the game. Some, in the crowd, boo one of the teams on the field. While those who honk are satisfied with staying in the stands and cheering for us.
But when it comes to protests, we need are more players than fans. I don't mean that people who drive by should immediately park their cars and join us. What I do mean is that the people who honk for us should perform other activism that supports the cause. Other activism could include going to other protests, calling or writing their elected officials, talking to their friends about the issue, and publicly expressing their opinions.
Until we get enough players, we will get the same old, same old government behavior. That behavior consists of when business speaks, government listens. For it is business that benefits from drone attacks sans accountability. It is their equipment and support that the government pays for and those government checks come from our current taxes and our future debt. But the deficit spending is not the only debt we will incur. There is a moral debt that will be exacted on us by our current targets once they gain power. And history tells us that no empire lasts forever. The end will most likely be brutal unless we change our direction and game plan.
But as it stands now, there are not enough anti-drone players on the field to win the game. Why? It is partially because the fans whom we have are content to just cheer from the stands rather than play with the team. And those in government who make the decisions are not threatened by a small team with a large fan base. Rather, what changes their mind and behavior is when they have to face a big team that has a multiple threat offense.
My fellow Conservative Christians should be first to join the team to enter the fray. We could show why by playing Madlibs. We start with writing the following sentence:
For with our _______ protests, we are talking about limiting the power of our government so that it becomes accountable for its _______ actions against _______________.
What Conservative Christian should balk at actions that limit the power of the current government? But when we fill in the blanks, we see why many Conservative Christians don't even watch the game. Why? Look at the filled in words:
With the anti-drone protests, we are talking about limiting the power of our government so that it becomes accountable for its deadly actions against those, including children, from other countries.
Are my fellow American Conservative Christians too conscious of how fellow-Christians are being either persecuted to care when others are being hurt? Are my fellow American Conservative Christians too infected by the tribalistic virus that kills one's sense of moral absolutes? If so, then for these Christians, right and wrong are determined by who does what to whom.
If American Conservative Christians have lost their sense of right and wrong in this issue, is there any chance that it can be found in nonChristians? And if it can, what shame will that bring to the Gospel? The answers to these questions and more will be answered by what happens after next protest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)