Reason

views

  • White Facebook Icon
  • White Twitter Icon

Poulin, Mark

2019-05-15

First, I would like to thank my new host, Y'er Talkin' Over Me for welcoming me a new platform. For those of you that don't know, my editorials from this point on will also be made available on a new website. The address of the website will soon be announced. Check here for updates when Y'er Talkin' Over Me will go live: https://www.facebook.com/yertalkinoverme/

It's a liberty minded group that I am excited to be a part of.

 

Now to the business of this editorial:

 

Reason has fallen to the wayside. We have given up the pursuit of true critical thinking. At this point I would appreciate if people simply applying their logic, which they apply to those who disagree, to themselves to see if it holds up. I’m not going to get everyone reading the philosophers of the Enlightenment nor even the American Revolution tomorrow, sadly; but the baby step of ensuring we aren't throwing around "arguments" which could be applied equally to any point of view would be nice.

Yer Talkin Over Me.jpg

Here are the arguments that appear to be prevailing in politics today (at least amongst talking heads and on social media), despite that they don’t hold any water:

- It is charity to demand taxes be taken involuntarily from everyone I disagree with, to fund what I find moral.

- It is small minded and closed minded to believe your opinions are correct, if they oppose my opinions.

- If you disagree with my solution then you don’t believe there is a problem, and therefore are in support of whatever amoral thing I am trying to solve.

- Morality is relative, different cultures have different values and none are superior to one another; all morals are equally valid.

- Moral causes must be supported by government authority.

 

Apply these arguments against your own opinions. Do they hold water? I would argue they can’t even stand amongst themselves, as they are contradictory (but that’s a discussion for another time).

Is it charity to force people against abortion to pay for abortions through tax dollars and bureaucrats? Is it charity to force people against pro-life organizations to pay for crisis pregnancy centers through tax dollars and bureaucrats? Is it moral to force someone to pay for the border wall who doesn’t want it? Is it moral to force someone to pay for the care of every single illegal immigrant, even the violent criminals, if they don’t want to support lawbreakers? Is it charity to force all taxpayers regardless of their political affiliation to fund the primary elections of both the Democratic and Republican parties?

Can one hold an opinion if they don’t think it’s the correct one? Is everyone who ever held an opinion small minded and closed minded? Do you believe your opinions are correct?

Are all pro-life people absolutely against women’s healthcare? Are all pro-choice people for every abortion ever, even late term and partial birth abortions purely for convenience? Is every war hawk for the death of their nation’s young soldiers? Is every conscientious objector completely against the political or moral goals of a war?

If you hold opinions and have a moral compass aren’t you opposed to the idea of moral relativity, since you believe your opinions and moral compass is correct?

Is government historically a good moral arbiter? Consider the following before answering: American slavery, English slavery and slave trade, historic slavery before that, colonialism, imperialism, oppression, genocides, holocausts, etc. etc. Do you trust your government entirely (including every politician, every official, every bureaucrat), and if not why then should all moral causes be backed by government authority?

I’m not asking much; just realize these are not effective lines of reasoning much less arguments of any kind. These sorts of ideas just prove to enrage us, because there is no rationality behind them and to use such arguments is to entrench yourself into an opinion regardless of any facts which may present themselves.

The most harmful (and useless to discourse) of these lines of reasoning is the belief that morality is relative. By holding the opinion that morals are relative you have disregarded every other opinion opposed to moral relativity (all other opinions are opposed to moral relativity) as invalid, you have not held them up as equally true but equally false. Why? Well no other philosophy, religion, or opinion in existence holds up opposing philosophies, religions, and opinions as equal. One cannot hold any opinion while believing it is just as correct as any other, that’s contrary. Why would you hold any opinion if you believe all opinions equally valid? In fact you’re even disregarding moral relativity as equally false, since to believe morals can be relative you must believe that the opposing moral views are also correct; when all other moral views are in stark contrast to moral relativity.

For instance: Imagine a moral relativist who is also a conscientious objector of their nation entering a war, how can such a person back up both of these views? They believe that their nation waging a war is amoral, while they also believe the morals of all cultures are equally valid. Clearly their own nation’s culture (or at the very least a subculture within the nation’s leadership) believes the war is moral (otherwise the war wouldn’t be happening); if that culture’s morals are equal to all other morals, due to relativity, then the war must be moral and the objection to that war must be what? Amoral? No, because according to moral relativity some subculture if finds objection to be moral then it's moral. These two contrasting views cannot both be valid (especially not in the same paradigm: such as moral relativity); a nation’s decision to wage war cannot be moral and immoral. An aggressor may be moral or immoral, a defender may use moral or amoral tactics, a nation’s decision to enter into war may be moral or amoral, a soldier or group of soldiers may make a moral or amoral decision; but one cannot claim moral relativism to be absolute while also choosing a side of an argument.