The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Moral Case is the Simple One

Posted on | August 16, 2014 | 56 Comments

by Smitty

The question is not: “What if your daughter was a porn star?” The question is “How shall one maximize joy in life?”

Linker starts off with observations that are fair as far as they go:

No, libertarianism hasn’t consistently changed how Americans think about taxation, government regulation, or foreign policy. But it is transforming how we think about morality. We can see it in rapidly changing views about gay marriage, in the growing acceptance of recreational marijuana usage, and in the rise of a non-judgmental outlook on sex and pleasure more generally.

The point here is that we’re being instructed NOT to think, to reflect, to ponder, to do cost/benefit analysis, to learn vicariously from the mistakes of others, to picture how we assume a matriarchal/patriarchal role in our extended families as a result of our choices.

No, we’re all eat, drink, and be merry these days. If we’re not having fun, it’s Bush’s fault.

Ask yourself how you would feel if Weeks — porn star Belle Knox — was your daughter.

I submit that virtually every honest person — those with children of their own, as well as those who merely possess a functional moral imagination — will admit to being appalled at the thought.

And with good reason. You put massive amounts of effort into raising a son/daughter. You want to impart timeless values that ensure continuity of society to them. And they. . .debase themselves. Now, the Godless Commie Sodomites have been quick to attack anything positive in the way of traditional morality, saying, essentially: “Hedonism is the new morality.”

Satan’s lies are neither new nor sustainable. Belle Knox–will she achieve happiness and honor under the sun? Can you name ANY porn stars who’ve EVER achieved any place of honor in society? It’s fairly simple: once you get on all fours and lower yourself to being a common dog, it’s not easily recoverable. Also simple: retaining some dignity.

This post is not even some hyper-morality play, trying to say you’re going to Hay-Ell if you [screw/smoke/sniff/sin]. No. This is an appeal to pragmatism. Look at who is successful: the sober, educated, modest, spiritually alive, professionally reliable people.

I haven’t had as much sex as Belle Knox. I’ve also never viewed sexuality as some kind of video game or competitive sport. I hope that she and her ilk repent of their ways and pursue that which is of lasting value in life, for such is not to be found in the canine position.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Quartermaster

    Where you make a serious mistake is holding that adultery is just a matter of the heart. All immorality is a matter of the heart, and crime, is a matter of the heart. The question is whose opinion gets legislated and what damage is done to society if certain things are ignored.

  • MoJoTee

    Swell many come to mind, butt too
    Nina Hartley.
    Ron Jeremy.
    The media that they now self-produce is rather popular, and well received instructional or humorous productions. In fact, many who (or think they) have never seen a bit of porn, may have already enjoyed their contributions to culture.
    Most people in fact are better off educated than fiddling, and thus are more likely and importantly: successfully enjoying pleasing your spouse.
    They pack lots of info in their recent written and web-works – not just smut – just clear advise from superior sexual EXPERIANCE. No pressure – stay at your skill level: don’t google them.
    Happy anniversary!

  • Joe Dokes

    Simply because bringing Satan into it – and rightly so – but then shifting the main point to worldly pragmatics weakens the strongest, most vital and genuinely (eternally) pragmatic point one can possibly make: that belief in Satan’s lies most certainly WILL consign people to the Lake of Fire, as Christ Himself assured us (Luke 13:3). That was His point, and so was all I wanted to point out.

  • Quartermaster

    Methinks you don’t see the point he is making. Knowing SMitty he would agree that buying into Satan’s lies will send you to hell. But that’s not the point. The point is simply in terms of worldly success and who reaches it. What he has done is use a rhetorical technique known as preterition. As a consequence, the train of thought is quite consistent and coherent.

  • NeoWayland

    I gave you example of laws that were not moral. I only mentioned one that was actually immoral. I didn’t mention the biggies, like how Prohibition made organized crime possible and highly profitable. Or how the income tax has turned everyone you do business with into an unpaid government spy.

    Don’t you see? Once you start claiming that laws have a moral basis, it’s only a short step to law = morality, Then the courts and the system can punish you for almost any reason.

    We have to fight over what makes a law a moral law that we ALL can accept, and reject any law that does not meet that standard.

    That’s how we protect freedom for everyone.

  • Joe Dokes

    I did see his point; he’s an excellent writer so it was very clear.

    That “the sober,
    educated, modest, spiritually alive, professionally reliable people” can still (and often do) reject Christ — hence may be “spiritual” but are NOT “spiritually alive” in God’s estimation and so will be cast into the Lake lest they repent — is beside the point. Again, when one brings an eternal, inescapable truth into a matter but dismisses it with what’s akin to a moralistic scoffer’s dismissal of sure judgment and the Lake of Fire, I have to wonder exactly why one even brought Satan into it in the first place. Who, exactly, is served by reducing such a grave matter to a matter of worldly pragmatics? But I’ll let it go.