Objective Morals and the Fish Slapping Dance

I was setting fire to old tires full of orphan kittens this morning when I realized that the only thing that has kept me from making arson (Burning down hospitals, specifically) a full time career is all the time I spend selling drugs to grade school kids as a way to fund the local chapter of the Illinois Nazis.

Racism isn’t cheep you know. Not the real, fascist, genocidal kind.

So, I thought I could start splitting my time between drugs and theft more efficiently by forcing other people to rob for me by threatening their wives and children with high explosives and anthrax. Every successful person has a team under them. Look at Jim Henson, Oprah, or Attila the Hun just to name a few examples. And I want my career as a Fascist polluting racist thieving drug czar to be more than just a hobby. I want it to be really big, because I want the world to be a better place.

It’s a lot of work, but I really feel it’s the right thing to do.

OK, none of the above is true. However, I think it served to give everyone something which they found to be… let’s call it a “non-preferred lifestyle choice.” What I mean is, you found something in the above paragraph which you feel is wrong, but in modern America we’re not allowed to say things like “wrong” or “Wicked” (unless we mean that Broadway musical). But admit it- there was at least ONE thing in the list above that caused you to think “He should not do that.” And the awful truth is: you REALLY meant it.

Despite the various post modern or politically correct gurus who have the taken over our universities, airwaves and periodicals, everyone still believes that there is right and wrong, good and evil, even if they say they don’t. Getting them to admit it is fairly easy. If anyone tells you there is no real standard of right and wrong, just say that you think the government should pass laws supporting your own point of view and punishing those who don’t act according to your morals. Any post modernist thinker sober enough to comprehend the cut of your jib will climb up onto the nearest coffee table and monologue ad nauseum about how WRONG and EVIL that would be. They will tell you: YOU SHOULD NOT force your beliefs on other people. THAT would be WRONG!

No, really. I’ve had this conversation. I’ve also had the one where my liberal friend started by saying, “People who believe stereotypes are stupid.” And I said, “Yes, they all suck. Every single one of them. I hate them too.” And she suddenly understood what I was saying and refused to talk to me anymore.

You might be thinking, “Everyone seems to think some things are right and some things are wrong. So what? I thought you were going to prove the existence of God.” And you are correct! In fact, by pointing out that everyone does have a moral code I have begun to prove the existence of God. This is what is known as the Moral Argument.It’s pretty simple. It goes like this:

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  2. Objective Moral Laws do exist
  3. Therefore, God must exist

Let me put on my DJ Jazzy Jeff hat and “Break it down” for you. About Premise 1: I’ve given you the atheist, nihilist, and post modernist position. That’s right. I’m starting this argument by AGREEING with atheists, nihilists and Post Modernists. Objective morals are dependant on God, and if God is non-existent, morals go with him. It’s on my next two points that we will part ways. Our atheist friends would say “Since there is no God, there is no binding moral law.” I will show that, since there is a binding moral law, there must be a God.

The fight starts at premise 2, because this is where a lot of people lose the plot. In short, they argue that Morals are not objective (meaning they are not TRUE FACTS like how many miles away the moon is, or what you get when you subtract 4 from 7) but rather, they say, morals are personal feelings, like whether you should put ketchup on a Chicago style hot dog (I’m always told no, but I do it anyway. Don’t you judge me!). However, the truth is found, not in our actions, but in our REACTIONS. Everyone will prove, by his reactions that he believes in objective morals. For this experiment, you will need a post modern relativist and a three hundred pound tuna.

For example- if you steal from me, you will justify it by saying there was some great need which made it OK, or I had more than was fair, or you had been drinking and mistook yourself for the federal government, etc. You will defend your actions and reject the idea that you are guilty and worthy of punishment. If I slap you with a fish, you will want me arrested. How you REACT to evils will show that you know them to BE evils. Again, imagine someone you love very much. Now imagine I choose to slap THEM with a fish. A big one too- like a three hundred pound tuna. You would NOT you say to yourself, There is no transcendent standard of good and evil against which to judge this action. It is simply different than the actions I would have chosen in this stage of my emotional development.” 

You would probably be thinking, “Let’s see how he feels with that fish shoved into his left nostril…”

I’d also like you to notice that you justify things which are wrong. No one justifies a right action. If I see you stealing you will come up with a list of excuses longer than the Treaty of Ghent (1814-1964)“It wasn’t me!” you will say. “It was my evil twin/the pain of poverty/peer pressure/the booze!” 

No one does this if they are caught doing right. If I catch you doing something selfless and kind for someone else, you don’t turn red and say, “Oh, you saw that huh? Well, I had a LOT to drink. I didn’t know what I was doing.” If I were to accuse you of something which I thought was wrong, but you TRULY felt was right, why would you come up with excuses? You would not. You’d just say, “Yes, I did. It was the right thing to do.” Most of our justifications are made to ourselves. If you find yourself preparing excuses as to why something is ok for you to do, it probably isn’t.

Let me bring this pot to a boil: To say there is no objective moral standards is to say that the worst, most horrible crime you can imagine differs from the greatest act of selfless charity only in the emotional response you feel. If you can REALLY and with honesty say you feel the actions of Hitler and the Nazis- who slaughtered six million people- and those of Mother Teresa- who gave her life, blood, sweat and tears to comfort and serve the poor- were different only in the average emotional response they evoke, then you are a sick, sick puppy. Though, most likely you are just a big liar and you know better. Lying is wrong, so knock it off or I will slap you with a fish- a big one too- just as soon as this tire fire stops burning.


This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s