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.

Comments

56 Responses to “The Moral Case is the Simple One”

  1. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 8:46 am

    While part of the problem is excusing people from the consequences of the actions, an equal part of the problem is the group within society who believes that people should be shielded from bad choices.

    If you never let someone make bad choices and live with the consequences, you’re not letting them grow up. People learn from the choices they make if they face the consequences.

    You may believe you are morally superior, you may even be morally superior, but you’ll never prove it by using that morality to keep others in line.

    You want lapdogs, make other people’s choices for them. If you want strong allies, find people who have lived through their own tough decisions,

  2. maniakmedic
    August 16th, 2014 @ 8:50 am

    Well, regardless of your (in the general sense) belief in scripture, you do have to admit it has been remarkably prescient with regards to attitudes towards morality. Of course, those screaming the loudest about how one should “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” are also the first to discount the divinity of scripture, or even its basic societal and moral history even as they reenact the fall of civilizations contained therein.

    But far be it from me to point out that the problem isn’t that there are too many people with high standards and a sense of shame, but that the number of those people has been steadily dropping while hedonism has made inroads. Only in the fevered dreams of the morally bankrupt is a small group of people forming a bulwark against a rising tide of immorality the reason society is in trouble today.

  3. smitty
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:07 am

    Worth pondering: is shielding people from the effects of their lousy choices a great source of political power, or what?

  4. maniakmedic
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:18 am

    I doubt there are many here who want to make anybody else’s choices for them. It’s the constant drumbeat of disagreement=hate that is the problem. I can disgree with you – or anybody – on here and not hate you as a person. The problem is (and this is what eventually drove me away from being a libertarian or wanting to associate with them at all) that libertarians tend to want your opinion until you don’t agree with them, then they don’t want your opinion anymore. It’s remarkably liberal-like in its adherrence to dogma. In making my own choices and allowing other libertarians to do the same, I was still kicked out of the treehouse because I was making the wrong choices (according to them).

    It is not legislating morality to point out when you think somebody is wrong and that they would be better served doing things differently. It’s an opinion – oftentimes well-informed. Of course, nobody likes to be told they are wrong, even if they ask for the opinion, and even if they don’t believe in the system or code that informs that other person’s morality, so it’s far easier to assume those who disagree with you are holier-than-thou assholes trying to force you to do what they want than accepting they have a different viewpoint and were expressing it. Everybody is guilty of it to some degree.

  5. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:42 am

    The truly sad part is there are some so depraved that they would be proud of the notoriety.

  6. DaTechGuy on DaRadio
    August 16th, 2014 @ 10:12 am

    As a rule the right thing is usually the smart thing too

  7. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 10:16 am

    I’d say yes. It’s the Mighty Mouse syndrome.

    “Here I come to save the day!”

  8. Paul H. Lemmen
    August 16th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

    Exactly on point EBL. Sadly, I am notorious as a former imposter and criminal. This will always be with me no matter what I do and rightfully so. I own my past bad acts and crimes, no one else is responsible for them but me. No matter what I do for the remainder of my life, these bad acts are mine and will color with doubt all my future acts. Despite my road to redemption and reformation of my life, these acts rightfully will dog every action and effort. My studies in Seminary and work in Christian Social Work and mission to the fallen and marginalized in our society will be viewed with skepticism. I accept that and these factors spur me further to adhere to my path towards eternity with God.
    I believe that people (especially those who are notorious for previous bad acts and criminality) must own their past, accept their responsibility for them by truly confessing them to themselves first then publicly. That is the first step to redemption and a reformation of self.

  9. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

    It is not legislating morality to point out when you think somebody is wrong and that they would be better served doing things differently.

    It is when you make it the law.

    My objection is not that people disagree with me. It’s that they want government backing them up, ready to punish people who don’t agree with them.

  10. Chris Rock and Smitty | Batshit Crazy News
    August 16th, 2014 @ 11:30 am

    […] The Moral Case Is A Simple One TOM: The moral (and criminal) case is pretty simple here […]

  11. MichaelAdams
    August 16th, 2014 @ 11:35 am

    In my youth, and even my not-so-youth, I did a fair bit of psychiatric nursing, and we had the idea of ‘day-room diagnosis.’ It works surprisingly well. A patient is admitted to the unit, stands in the day room for a few minutes, and from the nursing station, across the day room, one sees: A bi-polar, a schizophrenic, an opiate addict in the first stages of withdrawal. (If you ask, “Why are the addicts in a general ward, and not a med-surge ward?” you are not alone. We nursing staff took steps, even if the psych resident is a bit behind the curve.)

    The easy day room diagnosis for JJ Rousseau is bi-polar. affective disorder. It’s all in there, the delusions, the hypersexuality, the grandiosity leading to the TWO prefaces to Inequality. That one bi-polar fellow set up a problem, like some famous mathematician of past ages, who describes a problem, which subsequent generations try to solve. For Rousseau, the problem was le Bourgeoisie. His solution to all the difficulties of the world was to destroy the Bourgeoisie, and later disciples offered their versions of how to do it. Marx, Proudhon, Lenin, Hitler, Goebbels, Freud, de Sade, all offered their contributions, and all were taken seriously, by idiots who believed Rousseau. There are, and always have been, people who did not believe in God. Big deal. They can go to Hell, and, by some people’s reckoning, they will, but it won’t happen until they are dead, so there’s naught to do about it in this life. And, if they turn out to be right, we’ll never know, either. However, Rousseau made atheism a virtue. He tried to say that wars come from religion. There’s actually very little empirical evidence for this, but, it fits the theory. So, destroy religion, bourgeois institutions and morals, bourgeois economics, etc, and all the problems disappear, and we revert to our natural, “noble-savage” state. This is a part, of course, of the push for abortion, to make coitus independent of reproduction, in order to “free” women.(The other part comes from David Rockefeller and his belief in “overpopulation.”) Libertarianism appeals to many Conservatives, because leaving us alone is pretty basic to our thinking. But what we call conservative in America is what Europeans call “Liberal.” Liberalism is the movement of the bourgeoisie. Liberalism, called by that name, was in the ascendent in Europe and the Americas, just when Rousseau was getting published. The old upper class, being displaced by the bourgeoisie, loved Rousseau. Even the sexual libertinism that he advocated, was pretty much the pattern of sexual behavior of the “nobility.” Nowadays, pushing churches to accept and approve various types of sexual perversion and immorality has two effects: It tears churches apart; and it further pushes the hedonist agenda, inside and outside the churches. For the Rousseavian, what’s not to like? For the entertainment industry, bourgeois values have always been the turds in the punchbowl. As far back as the twenties, actors, producers with their “casting couches,” the shady money men who put up the financing for making motion pictures, none were bastions of the bourgeoisie. Libertarianism, with its appeal to adolescent lusts, (free to be, free to fuck, you and me!) also draws in the young guys, who pick the movies their dates will see, priming them for the after-party. Thus spreads the evil leaven. Sarah Palin is right, and Rick Santorum, too. Politics is downstream from the culture.There is a divergence between Libertarians and “Conservatives” (tr:liberal) “Leave us alone” is a unifying slogan, but the values represented are quite different.

    Demographically, however, we could make this work. Our aging population is not driven, for the most part, by lust. The “immigrants” being forced on us vote Socialist in their home countries, but are mostly pretty traditional in their vlaues, especially the women. The men may be “verde” in their declining years, but that only pisses the women off more. Notice how Hollywood throws out low-budget television and occasional theater movies about people old enough to know better, acting like they learned nothing in their first sixty years? It does happen often enough that we have the saying “No fool like an old fool.” However, it’s not as frequent as you’d believe, if your only knowledge of the world came from a screen. Muting our discussion of social issues, just a bit, in political campaigns, playing on the unifying interest that old and young can have in economic matters, will win elections. Still, we can point out the unity between economics and other bourgeois values. Recovery is still possible, especially if we think strategically. We may be standing over the sewer, but that does not mean we have to jump in it.

  12. Wombat_socho
    August 16th, 2014 @ 11:35 am

    Local government, yes; the feds, no.

  13. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 11:39 am

    Obviously my tea isn’t working today. Either that or I went to bed too late and my brain cells are still waiting for a jump start.

    Do you mean that it’s a good thing to legislate morality on a local level?

  14. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:01 pm

    Morality is not about rules per se. God does not impose rules for rules sake, God imposes rules like a parent sets boundaries (because those parents want the best for their children). What is so pernicious about the left is how they want to eliminate the good over their short term goals of “freedom” (which is not real freedom, but just a narrow sexual licentious).

  15. maniakmedic
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

    Which was my whole point. I don’t see anybody here trying to make anything law. Simply pointing out that bad choices have bad consequences.

  16. Joe Dokes
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:11 pm

    Satan’s lies are neither new nor sustainable. . .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.

    * * *

    Not a consistent chain of thought there.

  17. Christopher_Renner
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:14 pm

    In this specific case, no one’s suggested that. But yes, morality is a fine basis for law, and not just at the local level.

  18. Regular Right Guy
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

    You nailed it, Smitty!

  19. Coulter76
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

    But are politicians the right people to be “moral crusaders” for these types of causes?

    I see this as a challenge for the church to change the culture.

    When I see a Rick Santorum say he plans to use his Presidential campaign to talk about the immorality of married Protestants that use birth control, I suddenly find myself disgusted.

  20. Quartermaster
    August 16th, 2014 @ 12:48 pm

    How so?

  21. Quartermaster
    August 16th, 2014 @ 1:14 pm

    It’s not just the basis of law, it *IS* the basis of law. The old saw “you can’t legislate morality” is false. Someone’s morality will be legislated. Of late, that morality is entirely immorality as we see what lawless courts are doing.

  22. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 1:47 pm

    Linker (and others) are misreading the trends if they think that libertarianism is driving these changes in American culture. It is actually the decline of organized religion that is bringing about these changes. And, libertarianism makes no claims about what people should believe when it comes to religion. Just because libertarians believe that the role of government in our lives should be reduced, it does not follow that they believe that the role of God should be reduced. If you want to understand these trends, look to the beliefs of the American people when it comes to religion, not politics. You do not have to be an atheist to be a libertarian.

  23. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 16th, 2014 @ 2:11 pm

    Too bad Pat Dollard thinks he is a coward. Because Pat Dollard served in Hollywood…or something.

  24. maniakmedic
    August 16th, 2014 @ 2:31 pm

    But it is certainly “highly encouraged” if my brief flirtation with libertarianism is any indication.

  25. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 2:36 pm

    What is, atheism? How so? Do you have any links?

  26. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 2:39 pm

    I would certainly agree that libertarians are against any government institutionalization of religion. They don’t want government compelling or even favoring religious beliefs, but it does not follow that they are hostile to people having those beliefs on their own.

  27. smitty
    August 16th, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

    While law cannot succeed if unharmonious with existential truth, it also breeds the pushback in the sinful human heart, as seen in the Roman Epistle.

  28. smitty
    August 16th, 2014 @ 2:53 pm

    Indeed.

  29. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

    Pardon, but morality is a lousy basis for law unless everyone shares the same morality. It’s why we don’t all follow kosher law for food, and why Bloomberg’s NYC big soda ban failed.

    I’d agree that things like theft and murder should be against the law. I don’t agree that porn films and sex work should be criminal.

  30. daleyrocks
    August 16th, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

    Imagine the family holidays with a porn star daughter!

    Nephews and drunk brother-in-law Bill lobbying to put on a DVD of Miriam’s greatest hits, including that clip where she gets it from both ends.

    It just doesn’t get any better than that!

  31. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 3:25 pm

    If you leave it at that, I’ve no problem.

  32. Mahon1
    August 16th, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

    When the Permian measures were forming
    They promised a better life.
    That started by loving your neighbor
    and ended by loving his wife.

    Now our women no longer have children,
    and our men have lost reason and faith,
    and the Gods of the Copybook Headings say:
    “The wages of sin is death.”

  33. maniakmedic
    August 16th, 2014 @ 3:50 pm

    As it was my experience in talking with libertarians, no, I don’t have links. But it was very much implied once it was known that I am religious that I didn’t belong as a libertarian unless I was willing to let that belief go.

    Funnily enough, it wasn’t even that that eventually drove me away from libertarianism, it was holier-than-thou-my-shit-don’t-stink refusal to see that some people join the military/stay in the military because of a sense of duty and honor and trying to prevent the whole damn boat from going down as opposed to being just another cog in the machine. My choices apparently – according to libertarian thought – are to end up dead or in prison because I have the unmitigated gall to love something enough that, instead of ceding it to people hell bent on destroying it, I’m sticking around to help hold it up for as long as I can. Or at the very least take up a spot that could be filled by a bleating little leftist sheep were I to leave.

  34. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

    Which god?

  35. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 16th, 2014 @ 4:30 pm

    There are families with no shame. They tend to call themselves progressives. We tend to call them degenerates.

  36. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

    Which god what? I don’t understand what you are asking.

  37. The Moral Case is the Simple One | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    August 16th, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

    […] The Moral Case is the Simple One. […]

  38. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 4:41 pm

    There is a subset of libertarians who do not believe in the virtues of citizenship. The open borders type. I disagree 100% with them. Patriotism, I think, is a virtue.

    There are holier-than-though types in every political movement. Particularly among the most engaged in the movement. They have no patience for anyone who isn’t what they consider a true believer. But, just because there are assholes in a movement doesn’t mean the philosophy of the movement is wrong.

  39. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 4:49 pm

    I agree with this 100%, as far as it goes. On the other hand, Sharia is a set of laws based on morality. I don’t think most readers here are much interested in that form of morality.

    If laws are limited to prohibiting the immorality of doing harm to others, that is legitimate. Where it loses legitimacy is when it endeavors to try to force people to live their lives by some form of scriptural morality. Telling me what to do for my own good. I’ll decide what is in my best interest; you decide what is yours. The law should not be interested until we start doing harm to others.

  40. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 5:25 pm

    Pardon, I was not clear.

    Just because libertarians believe that the role of government in our lives should be reduced, it does not follow that they believe that the role of God should be reduced.

    Which god?

    I ask because some (not libertarian) folks I know would very much like to reduce the role of the Christian god.

    Me, I just object to mixing religion and law. And if the law raises one religion over all others, then I say it’s time to rip out the law.

  41. Anon Y. Mous
    August 16th, 2014 @ 5:36 pm

    I guess the answer would be “whichever.” That is, the point of libertarianism is to reduce the role of government. Some in the movement are focused on the federal government, but the philosophy not end there. If government, at any level, seeks to impose some form of religion on its citizens, libertarians oppose it.

    That said, if people decide to believe in God, whichever god they believe in, why would libertarians be concerned. Unless the believer is trying to force others to accept his god, then its not a problem.

    Of course, there are Christians who are libertarians, as well as Jews, and so on. No doubt, a Christian libertarian would think that his god is the true god, and might proselytize to try to convince others of his beliefs. But if he is a true believer (in the libertarian philosophy), he will not try to force others to accept his belief, he will be satisfied with using persuasion.

  42. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 6:06 pm

    *nods*

    This pagan libertarian is just happy to meet someone else who understands that asking for less religion in government is not a direct attack on Christianity.

    Faith is between the individual and the Divine, and it’s wrong to involve government. The only way we’ll have freedom of religion is to demand that government stays out of it.

    But just because I tolerate religion doesn’t mean I have to tolerate actions. Attack someone in the name of your God and I want you taken down fast and hard.

  43. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

    Thanks, BTW. That was a great explanation and I couldn’t have done better myself.

  44. frugalscott
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

    On a limited basis, I can agree with you, but your main point is way off. All rules/laws are based on some reading of morality. Laws, by definition, set proper behavior for a society. That is nothing if not morality.
    You say that you’d agree with some laws and not with others. Fine. The laws generally are adopted based on the moral compass of the majority of its citizens. We don’t follow kosher food laws partly because a majority of citizens are not Jewish and there is that pesky first amendment thing working as well.
    The laws that cause the most trouble are those that are adopted in spite of the fact that the majority disagrees with them. This is why same sex marriage, abortion and others are so divisive. These are cases where somehow the minority has been able to set the tone.

  45. maniakmedic
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

    I’d be more inclined to believe it was a subset if there wasn’t another one mouthing off every time I turned a damn corner.

  46. NeoWayland
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:49 pm

    The will of the majority should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Otherwise minorities will only exist at the sufferance of the majority, and that will consume both sides.

    No, the rule of law should be about defending freedom. I believe that laws should protect us against fraud, theft, and force.

    I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how Daylight Savings Time is moral. Or how zoning laws are moral. Or how on the blessed planet the whole idea of “too big to fail” is anything other than theft.

    Law is not morality. The two should not be confused.

  47. Quartermaster
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

    Setting aside that which governs the relationship between God and Man, scriptural law was set forth to prohibit that which harms another. Adultery, for example, is not a victimless crime. We can go through the entire list of the Mosaic law and you will see this concept time and again. There are very few things that are regarded as crimes that have no victim.

    The big push back comes as a result of the rebellion in the human heart in having life circumscribed by law they don’t like. That’s where people start whining about not being able to legislate morality, and that is simply false.

  48. Quartermaster
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

    I’ll go you one better – throughout human history. The fallen man hates to be told how to live.

  49. frugalscott
    August 16th, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

    Fine…if you can’t see that stating your preference for what laws should do (I believe that laws should protect us against fraud, theft and force) is based on your moral view, it is not really possible to have a rational conversation.
    You are correct that law is not morality, but the converse is not true as laws regulating behavior are always based on some reading of a shared moral vision.

  50. Anon Y. Mous
    August 17th, 2014 @ 3:54 am

    Dishonesty is common when it comes to affairs of the heart. But, it is not the place of the Legislature to make it right.

    The so-called Blue Laws were based on the idea of honoring the Sabbath. And, I suppose, the faithful felt victimized by those who did not wish to keep it. But, they have no legitimate right to impose their beliefs on others.

    I agree that all of our laws are based on morality, as they must. If it is not morality based to forbid one from stealing from another, then what is the basis for the law? Where that morality comes from and what it consists of can certainly be debated, but there is no question that it exists.