Millennial celebrates the jacking of his A4

Moral Relativist Applauds Ingenuity Of Man Who Just Stole His Car


When self-described moral relativist and certified accountant John Hampson walked out of his local gym to discover his Audi A4 being stolen, onlookers expected him to charge the thief and attempt to stop the carjacking.

But Hampson doesn’t believe in objective moral standards, and so, acting in a manner consistent with his lack of beliefs in universal concepts of right and wrong, he merely began nodding in approval and clapping loudly for the man’s clever method of jimmying his car door lock, forcing the door open, popping the ignition, and starting the vehicle with a flat-head screwdriver.

“Man, this guy is good,” Hampson said. “Great job, dude! I applaud your willingness to take any action necessary for your own advancement at the expense of others. You’re the real hero, carjacker guy!” “I am completely unable to condemn your actions, so I congratulate you on your initiative and creative problem-solving in quickly and efficiently stealing my vehicle, bro!” he yelled.

As the man sped off in the car he had paid over $38,000 for, Hampson attempted to get the bewildered crowd that had gathered to join him in a standing ovation for the carjacker’s selfish behavior, which he called a “completely natural human instinct” that no one should condemn.
60% of Millennials Don't Believe in Right and Wrong


A majority of young people now say that standards of right and wrong are changeable: In other words, the modern quest for relativism has been realized.

Esteemed philosophers like Plato and Aristotle insisted that children be trained in objective morality in order that they may grow up to be sound and rational thinkers:

“Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. When the age for reflective thought comes, the pupil who has been thus trained in ‘ordinate affections’ or ‘just sentiments’ will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all and he can make no progress in that science. Plato before him had said the same. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful. In the Republic, the well-nurtured youth is one ‘who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill-grown works of nature, and with a just distaste would blame and hate the ugly even from his earliest years and would give delighted praise to beauty, receiving it into his soul and being nourished by it, so that he becomes a man of gentle heart. All this before he is of an age to reason; so that when Reason at length comes to him, then, bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her.’”

Based on these thoughts, is it possible that we are experiencing such a dramatic decline in rational discourse because so many young people don’t have an objective standard of right and wrong on which to base their reasoning?
Comment: The first article is satire from the Babylon Bee. I changed several items (like the car) to catch the attention. The second article is not satire. For readers who have read this far, the following is important:

What makes wrong wrong?

Christians appeal to God as the establisher of right and wrong (as in the Decalogue):

[Philosophically consider] Aquinas's view of the claim that the natural law is an aspect of divine providence. The fundamental thesis affirmed ... by Aquinas is that the natural law is a participation in the eternal law. The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered; the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law. While nonrational beings have a share in the eternal law only by being determined by it — their action nonfreely results from their determinate natures, natures the existence of which results from God's will in accordance with God's eternal plan — rational beings like us are able to grasp our share in the eternal law and freely act on it. It is this feature of the natural law that justifies, on Aquinas's view, our calling the natural law ‘law.’ For law, as Aquinas defines it, is a rule of action put into place by one who has care of the community; and as God has care of the entire universe, God's choosing to bring into existence beings who can act freely and in accordance with principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those principles of reason as law.
Douglas Groothuis observes:
[The problem for] Relativists [is that they] contradict themselves by their statements. Despite their relativism, they will issue universal and absolute moral imperatives, such as
  1. We should never affirm our own moral views as universal and absolute.
  2. Moral absolutists are absolutely wrong.
  3. Everyone should be a relativist.
None of these imperatives survives the acid bath of relativism. The terms never (1), absolutely (2), everyone (3) do not cohere logically with the rules laid down by relativism itself. Therefore, on relativistic grounds, statements 1-3 cannot be true. Whenever relativists make such statements, they show that their moral system is unlivable and contradictory, and therefore false.

Douglas Groothuis. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Kindle Locations 3574-3577). Kindle Edition.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic