One More Thought

To add to the first thought below: There is also a difference between ‘conceptually justified’ and ‘practically justified.’ That is, something may be morally justifiable in an abstract, conceptual form, but its implementation is beset by so many moral caveats as to be practically illicit. Thus, one could make the argument that, say, slavery in and of itself  (the legal state of owning another human being) is not morally wrong, but that practically speaking it can’t be implemented without moral abuses and so should be considered immoral.

Various Short Thoughts

-There’s a difference between making a moral argument and a factual argument. If you want to argue that, say, the death penalty is immoral, well and good; we can have a debate on the point because arguments can be made on either side. But if you want to argue that the Bible forbids the death penalty, then there’s no debate: you’re simply wrong, because, as a mere matter of fact, it doesn’t. The same can be said for slavery, war, and so on.

-I don’t know if it’s callous of me or not, but whenever I hear of big sex scandals like the one current rocking Hollywood, my reaction is always “what did you think was going to happen?” For the past century or so, all the ‘best people’ have been championing what they call ‘sexual liberation.’ What about the record of human experience made you think that removing almost all social and legal checks on mankind’s most fickle, voracious, and unreasoning appetite, while simultaneously minimizing standards of interpersonal courtesy and decorum would turn out differently? That’s not to take away any of either the guilt of the perpetrators or the innocence of the victims, of course, but to add a bit more blame to the mix. This is what your new, liberated world looks like.

-Actually, “what did you think was going to happen?” is a pretty good response to most of our current social, economic, and political problems.

-On that note, something we need to relearn is that morality is a continuous whole: you can’t cut out or compromise on any one part without doing damage to the entire structure. Every aspect of our lives effects every other aspect, so that dishonesty, cowardice, or weakness in one will cause deterioration in the others. This doesn’t mean all sin is equal, but it does mean that all sin is bad and has a cumulative effect on our character. This is something everyone used to know (“he who is faithful in small matters will be faithful in large ones”), but which we today have forgotten.

-By the way, one modern work that does get this and explicitly makes a point of it? You guessed it; My Little Pony.

-I notice, incidentally, that ‘sexual liberation’ tends to go hand-in-hand with Marxist thought. I also notice that the ‘fruits of lust,’ as described by St. Gregory and St. Thomas, are…revealing.

“Blindness of mind, thoughtlessness, inconstancy, rashness, self-love, hatred of God, love of this world and abhorrence or despair of a future world.”

Not only do these pretty fairly describe the modern world, but they also are exactly what a Marxist / materialist philosophy would consider desirable for the majority of men. I’ve been toying with the idea of doing an essay exploring this in detail, though I think to do it right would require more research than I’m currently able to devote to it. I put it here for your consideration.