News

Do moral dilemmas undermine objective moral absolutes?

6 Comments

One reason why some people reject the existence of objective morality is because moral absolutes can conflict.

Canadian philosopher Michael Horner to explains the problem.

He writes:

You may have been confronted with the story of the Nazi soldier coming to the door of the family who are hiding some Jewish people in their home and asking them point blankly, “Are there any Jews here?” The person telling the story then asks you, “What would you say?” or more precisely, “What should you say?”

[…]I think for many people the term moral absolutes connotes ideas like inflexibility and rigidity, and that there can never be exemptions. I have also found that many people believe that holding to moral absolutes means that circumstances are not relevant in a moral evaluation and that moral absolutism cannot handle moral dilemmas. But in fact it is possible to believe in moral absolutes, or as I prefer to call them objective moral values, without adhering to these connotations I have mentioned.

For many people to believe in moral absolutes is to believe in rules that no other rules can ever trump. It follows from this that moral absolutes are all equal and there can never be any exemptions. But what if moral absolutes exist in a hierarchy?

We know from experience that very often more than one moral rule applies to a situation. This often leads to moral dilemmas. So in the ‘hiding the Jews example’ the moral rule of telling the truth seems to apply to the situation, but it would seem that the moral rule to protect innocent human life from torture and murder applies also.

If absolutes are all equal there is no way out of the dilemma. You can’t choose one absolute over another because in doing so you would be violating at least one absolute which, in their view, is supposed to be inviolable.

So, in this case, it seems as if the moral absolutist is stuck in a dilemma. If you lie to save the innocent life, then that would be wrong. But if you tell the truth and hand the innocent person over to murderers, then that would be wrong. Does this really disprove objective moral absolutes?

This problem annoys me, because I know this is the kind of objection to objective morality that annoying philosophy lecturers like to push onto freshmen in order to convince them that morality is nonsense.  But does the moral dilemma objection really work?

More Horner:

[…][I]f moral absolutes exist in a hierarchy and the circumstances or the situation were relevant in determining which absolute takes precedent, then there may be a solution to the moral dilemma. That is exactly what I think is the case in the example. I for one have no difficulty knowing that the morally right thing to do in that situation is to protect the life of innocent people from torture and murder rather than tell the truth to a person who has torture and murder in their plans. My moral intuitions are very clear about this.

If someone objects and says, “No, you must always tell the truth. After all it is an absolute, and absolutes by definition can never be violated,” I would point out that they are just using a different hierarchy, putting truth telling above protecting the life of innocent people from torture and murder. There is no way to avoid making a judgment like that since more than one absolute does apply to the situation. I would just ask them to think it through again, and once they see that they have to make a judgment based on some sort of hierarchy in that situation, then I think most people’s moral intuitions will affirm that protecting the lives of innocent people from torture and murder, in that situation, trumps truth telling. There is no way to avoid choosing one over the other.

But isn’t this moral relativism? After all, we are deciding what to do based on the situation! It’s relativism, isn’t it?

No, it isn’t, because there is always one right thing to do in every situation. In every situation, you always follow the weightiest moral rule. The right thing to do does not depend on your subjective state of mind. It is an objective moral duty, and it is the same for everyone, across all times and in all places. That’s what objective morality means -what is right and wrong is not determined by personal preferences or cultural conventions, which vary by time and place.

And of course, God is the ground of this hierarchy of objective moral absolutes. They existed through him before human beings even appeared, as part of his design for us, his creatures. How we ought to behave is grounded ontologically in God’s design for us.

News

New poll: secular leftist women far more likely to feel lonely than conservative women

1 Comment

Our society is going through an age of feminism. Everyone agrees that feminism is a wonderful thing for women. Secular leftists and pro-marriage conservatives agree: women should follow their hearts, and never face judgment or accountability. Christian leaders tell us that modern women are entitled to protection, and provision from any man they choose. But is that a good deal for men?

Here’s a fun new article from the New York Post about a recent survey showing how well things are working out for women.

It says:

Liberal women are the least likely to report being fully satisfied with their lives and are far more likely to report feeling lonely often, according to analysis from a recently published poll.

The 2024 American Family Survey reportedly found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women, between the ages of 18-40, reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives, but just 12% of liberal women in the same age group said the same.

Liberal women were also nearly three times more likely than conservative women to say they experienced loneliness at least a few times a week.

And the survey author, feminist professor Brad Wilcox, has an idea about what’s behind these findings:

Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia and fellow at the Institute for Family Studies who analyzed the survey’s data, said he believes there are a couple of reasons why conservative young women are more likely to be happier than their liberal counterparts.

“We’ve seen in the research that conservative women tend to be more likely to embrace a sense of agency and to have the sense that they are not, in any way, the victim of larger structural realities or forces,” he told Fox News Digital.

“They’re also less likely to catastrophize about public events and concerns,” and “more likely to think of themselves as captains of their own fate,” Wilcox added.

The victim mentality is a central feature of the feminist ideology that is promoted to young women. To me making yourself into a victim is a mental illness. Is anyone challenging women about it? It seems like good men would not marry a woman who blames her bad outcomes on other people instead of on her own choices.

Consider this article from Evie Magazine, a moderate feminist website:

A 2020 survey showed that 56% of white liberal women between ages 18 and 29 were diagnosed with a mental health condition, compared to 27% of conservative women in the same age bracket. 40% of liberal women between 30 and 49 reported having a mental health condition, compared to 26% of conservative women of the same age.

Will good men bail out women who are diagnosed with a mental health condition? Is that safe? Is it a good deal for men?

It seems to me that good men don’t want to deal with secular leftist women’s student loan debts. They don’t want to be punished with her STIs and mental illnesses. They don’t want to be the man that women “settle” for when they fail to land the hot bad boy they really wanted. Good men don’t want to lose half their assets and future income in a divorce. They don’t want to be servants to women who see male leadership as something to be avoided.

Good men want to retire at 50. And that means steering well clear of aging secular leftist women. Sorry, Brad Wilcox. No deal.

News

Call your senators and ask them to vote against Lori Chavez-DeRemer

2 Comments

I like about a third of Trump’s Cabinet picks. A third are OK. And a third are terrible. The worst pick of all is his pick for Secretary of Labor. He picked Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who is endorsed by a teacher union leader. Lori opposes right-to-work laws. She supports job-killing labor unions. And she is a former employee of Planned Parenthood. Democrats love this pick.

Here’s an article from Christian Post:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as secretary of labor, who is expected to face opposition from Senate Republicans, admitted to lawmakers that she once worked at a Planned Parenthood facility.

A source close to the situation confirmed to The Christian Post Thursday that Lori Chavez-DeRemer worked for a Planned Parenthood in Fresno, California, from January 1989 through February 1991.

Chavez-DeRemer, a Republican who represented Oregon’s 5th Congressional District in the 118th United States Congress, took appointments at the abortion provider’s front desk.

That’s a problem with her on moral issues, but there are also problems with her economic views.

Daily Caller explains:

Chavez-DeRemer, who represented Oregon’s 5th congressional district from 2023 to 2025, supported several pieces of legislation favored by Democrats, including the PRO Act, a bill championed by former President Joe Biden that targeted the private sector. Notably, Chavez-DeRemer also supports the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which would “strengthen” the rights of public sector workers who want to join unions and or bargain collectively.

Rand Paul, author of “The Case Against Socialism” is opposed to her:

“I’m not going to support her,” Paul told NBC News in January. “I’m the national spokesman and lead author of the right-to-work bill. Her support for the PRO Act, which would not only oppose national right to work but would pre-empt state law on right to work — I think it’s not a good thing.”

And the far-left website The Atlantic has this to say about her:

After Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination was announced, two senior Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Patty Murray of Washington State, issued cautiously optimistic statements about her—a rare sentiment for Democrats to express about any Trump nominee.

[…]“It’s a positive move for those of us who represent workers and who want workers to have a better life,” Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers and a close ally of Democratic Party leaders, told me. She noted that Chavez-DeRemer bucked her party not only by supporting the PRO Act but also by voting against private-school vouchers and cuts to public-education funding.

[…]An anti-union group, the National Right to Work Committee, wrote in a letter to Trump before he announced Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination that she “should have no place” in his administration: “She would not be out of place in the Biden-Harris Department of Labor, which completely sold out to Big Labor from the start.”

She should be withdrawn as a candidate, and someone who understands economics, and is pro-business, should be nominated in her place.

If I have time, and it’s not too complicated, I’m going to call both of my senators this week and urge them not to vote for her.