Astute Cultural Analysis Here

Zachary Fine:

Those of us born after the mid-1980s whose upbringing included a liberal arts education and the fruits of a fledgling World Wide Web have grown up (and are still growing up) with an endlessly accessible stream of texts, images and sounds from far-reaching times and places, much of which were unavailable to humans for all of history. Our most formative years include not just the birth of the Internet and the ensuing accelerated global exchange of information, but a new orthodoxy of multiculturalist ethics and “political correctness.”

These ideas were reinforced in many humanities departments in Western universities during the 1980s, where facts and claims to objectivity were eagerly jettisoned. Even “the canon” was dislodged from its historically privileged perch, and since then, many liberal-minded professors have avoided opining about “good” literature or “high art” to avoid reinstating an old hegemony. In college today, we continue to learn about the byproducts of absolute truths and intractable forms of ideology, which historically seem inextricably linked to bigotry and prejudice.

For instance, a student in one of my English classes was chastened for his preference for Shakespeare over that of the Haitian-American writer Edwidge Danticat. The professor challenged the student to apply a more “disinterested” analysis to his reading so as to avoid entangling himself in a misinformed gesture of “postcolonial oppression.” That student stopped raising his hand in class.

I am not trying to tackle the challenge as a whole or indict contemporary pedagogies, but I have to ask: How does the ethos of pluralism inside universities impinge on each student’s ability to make qualitative judgments outside of the classroom, in spaces of work, play, politics or even love?

Read the rest.

An Infidelity Scandal Implodes a 'Biblical Patriarchy' Organization

Permit me to ramble for a second...

Why is this story newsworthy in The Atlantic?

I mean, in our culture of sexual "freedom", who cares?  Didn't Mr. Phillips just do what was natural?  Was he not just following his inclinations?  What could be wrong with that?  Shouldn't Dan Savage be trying to book him as a guest on his radio show and telling him "Atta boy!"  If you want to say that adultery is wrong, on what basis?

Maybe you say that the problem is not adultery but the hypocrisy.  But then again, I have the same question.  Who cares?  And based on what standard?

Does not this article presume a sexual morality?  Or at least some type of morality?

So we are not a relativistic as once thought are we?

Morality will be shoved down our throats.  New stories will appear that implicitly state that it is morally wrong for those who preach family, faith, and "down with feminism" to cheat on their wives.

Yeah, I agree, it is wrong, but why does a publication like the Atlantic bring it up?  Why are they shoving their morality down my throat?  Shouldn't we be "free" to be hypocrites?  If not, why not and based on what standard?

Again, we are not as "tolerant" as we'd like to think.  Everyone has a morality they are trying to impose on someone else.  The question then becomes, what worldview can sustain a culture of true tolerance, listening, civility, and charity?

My money is on the worldview that has as it's primary picture God becoming man and dying for his enemies and rising again.

Why "Keep Your Morality Out of It!" is a Nonsensical Statement When It Comes To Public Debate

J.D. Greear with some helpful thoughts here.


Books by J.D. Greear:

• Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart: How to Know for Sure You Are Saved
• Gospel: Recovering the Power that Made Christianity Revolutionary
• Breaking the Islam Code: Understanding the Soul Questions of Every Muslim

Even if You Are Not Religious, We Are All a Bunch of Moralists

Derek Rishmawy:

Pick a hot subject (gay marriage, the environment, misogyny, healthcare, etc.) and I’ll scroll through my facebook feed to find someone updating vociferously on the subject, trumpeting their position and damning the opposition in bold, apocalyptic terms. It’s not just that people are wrong, confused, and possibly in need of correction, they’re downright wicked. Of course, this phenomena spans generations, but as younger generations increasingly identify as ‘nones’ (no religious affiliation), it’s not that they have no moral or spiritual bearings, but that they find them elsewhere. 

Taking that sense from the reigning Causes linked to the demands of benevolence (“love”, “justice”, “equality”) of the day, is the increasingly popular option, more any explicit religious system. This is why our political arguments aren’t just about the issues, they’re about a much-deeper justification of the Self. If I am defined by my position on health-care and corresponding self-image as a moral, caring (or pragmatic and free) person, then when I argue with you about it, I’m defending my raison-d’etre. You don’t simply have a different opinion on a subject, you threaten my very being. 

What’s more, if supporting this Cause is what makes me righteous and pure, your opposition demonstrates your impurity and wickedness, possibly even your inhumanity. You must be opposed, hopefully only through argument, but if you persist in your perversity, other, stronger means of enforcement may need to be used. This is modern/postmodern ideological moralism. 

None of this is new, of course. Postmodern thinkers have been describing the way we construct oppositional identities like this for years, but what’s been interesting to see is this sort of logic at work in the lives of my peers and contemporaries in today’s debates. Of course, posting aggressive memes on Facebook isn’t exactly coercion, or fanatic violence yet, but the language used, and, at times, the political measures advocated by partisans verges on it. 

Christians reading this might be tempted to take this as a simple condemnation of secularists, saying, “See, look what happens when you don’t have God.” I mean, in a sense, that’s what’s going on. But that doesn’t let religious believers off the hook too quickly. As a friend of mine pointed it, this simply the logic of Holy War, sublimated and secularized. All it does is point out one more way that the whole dichotomy of ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ breaks down at the functional level. Get rid of God, and something else fills in the existential vacuum. In other words, at this point, they’re only doing what religious people have done with their gods for years, including Christians. 

Actually, this ought to put believers, especially Christians, on notice to examine whether we’re getting our sense of self, our purity, our wholeness. Is it from the righteousness of our own moral positions, or from the righteousness we have in Christ by grace, apart from our own moral achievements? If the former, we’re in the same boat. If the latter, that sets us in a position to be able to disagree, even forcefully with others, without feeling our entire sense of self threatened. Even if others oppose us, not only on moral issues, but set themselves in vocal opposition to Christianity itself, how can we look on them as totally other than ourselves? For is this not what we ourselves were apart from God’s condescending grace? Enemies of God in need of redemption (Rom. 5:6-11)? And are we not secure, no matter what accusation or charge brought against us (Rom. 8:30-39)? 

In other words, there’s a visible, practical difference we observe in the lives of those who trust in the Christian Gospel as opposed to merely subscribing to its morals. In fact, unless you believe the former, you won’t be able to practice the core of the latter, at the center of which stands the command to love our enemies the Christ has loved us. Moralism, secular or ‘religious’ can only inspire demonization of the enemy. Only the Gospel of grace can lead us to true goodwill towards all.

Well said.

A Great Example of How To Address the "Tolerance" Issue in Public Conversation

Greg Koukl models this well here.

At Least She is Honest and I Am Thankful For It

Finally someone willing to admit that they are not "tolerant"!

Writing for the Huff Post Marilyn Sewell writes passionately about why she is intolerant of the Christian worldview.  Take heed.  Fidelity to the Bible will become more and more incongruous with the broader culture in coming days.  

But we should be able to understand their point of view and interact with it.  I am actually more inclined to interact with someone like Marilyn than someone who embraces a wishy-washy relativism of "that's cool for you".  At least Marilyn makes the lines a bit more clear and she gives reasons for why she is against what she is against.  We can work with that.  

The Tolerance Parade

Here is a good Q and A with Doug Wilson on his recent visit to Bloomington, IN.

Dan Savage, Intolerance, and Bullying

Eric Metaxas:

...whatever the subject, we must always take care to make our case winsomely, and with great civility. No one should ever be able to truthfully accuse Christians of bullying, including the kind of verbal bullying Dan Savage demonstrated last week.

This insistence on graciousness and civility for those on the other side of these issues was the hallmark of what Chuck Colson believed, and let it be ours as well. As for intolerance towards homosexuals — Christians ought to be — and often have been — the first to volunteer at AIDS hospices, to demonstrate kindness to the children of same-sex couples, and otherwise display the love of Christ to those with whom we have such different views. In other words, we should demonstrate love and true tolerance.

Read the rest.


(HT: Denny Burk)

The First Outtake from "Collision" Featuring Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilson

(RSS, click through to view)



Doug Wilson:

When it comes to apologetics, the question, “By what standard?” really is a fundamental question. The same question arises in disputes on many playgrounds—it's the same thing as asking, “Who says?” If you claim that I have to do something, the question should come back, "Why do I have to do this?" It is at this point that a presuppositional approach to apologetics has its cleanest shot. A good place to go to study this approach further would be something like Greg Bahnsen’s Always Ready.

During our three days together making Collision, this was one of the few times where Christopher was brought up short. I think it was because the question here was a complete novelty for him, and he needed a moment to think about it.

When he tries to answer the “By what standard?” question, notice how he smuggles in the assumption that I am asking him to prove. He says that he knows certain (moral) realities because he is among the “higher primates.” But there is a word in there that is value-laden—higher. Higher by what standard? What are we talking about?

Christopher set up the next exchange nicely by acknowledging that as primates, we have a jumble of conflicting instincts. The response I offered was something I first learned from C.S. Lewis. If I have two competing and contradictory instincts, an evolutionary approach can account for each of those instincts (say, self-preservation and herd preservation). What it cannot account for is a third instinct that tells me which of the first two instincts I ought to obey in this instance. I do not have an “umpire” instinct that decides between them.

What I do have is a conscience, which cannot be accounted for apart from God. Christopher tries to take a “conscience vote” among the students there when he brings up the question of eternal torment. But we don’t need a conscience vote. We need to account for why we have consciences in the first place.

Driscoll, Piers Morgan, and Tolerance

Last night Mark Driscoll was on Piers Morgan.  As you can imagine, Piers was quite direct in his questioning.

You can read the full transcript here.

The issue of "tolerance" came up.  I am growing quite weary of that word.  It really means nothing anymore than, "Do you agree with me?"

Here is what Piers said last night amidst the discussion with Driscoll where he attempts to question Mark's views:

But I also think what is harming America right now, like many countries around the world, is just a fundamental lack of tolerance and respect for people who may not share your personal values.

Tolerance has to be a two way street if people really want to be serious about that word.  So I guess what I would seek to ask Piers is,  "If you are such a champion for "tolerance" why are you not tolerating my views right now?  Are you implying that tolerance has to be defined by agreeing with your definition of tolerance?"

I think in these types of discussions one can easily expose the hypocrisy and idiocy of our modern line of thinking about "tolerance" by putting the question back to the questioner.  "Why are YOU being so intolerant of my views?"  I think this needs to be spoken way more often by those who would seek to paint anyone who disagrees with them as "intolerant".  Who really is the intolerant one?

The question really has nothing to do with "tolerance".  People have always had and always will have different views about thousands of different topics.  The bigger question is how to be loving or just simply civil in the midst of those differences.  Which worldview can sustain that kind of love and civility?

But these days those two different concepts (tolerance and love) are being melting into one.  You can't disagree with someone and love them at the same time.  If you love someone that means you have to agree with everything they stand for.  That is the challenge in todays culture, but if people really think about it, it makes zero sense and we should help them see that.

Contemporary Tolerance is Nothing of the Sort

D.A. Carson:

The notion of tolerance is changing, and with the new definitions the shape of tolerance itself has changed. Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinsically intolerant. It is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground; it cannot be questioned because it has become part of the West's plausibility structure. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways.

Read the rest.

Get the book here.

Our Culture of Moral Relativism

Robin Phillips:

We hear a lot these days about the dangers of moral relativism, or about what happens in a society that has abandoned its commitment to objective morals.This emphasis on objective morals is important, but it is equally important to remind ourselves what moral relativism looks like on ground level.

Last week for his Breakpoint program, Chuck Colson told about the recent experience of Dr. Stephen Anderson, who teaches philosophy at A.B. Lucas Secondary School in Ontario, Canada. His students had just finished a unit on metaphysics and were about to start one on ethics. Colson writes about Dr. Anderson's plan for getting the conversation about ethics going.

To jump start the discussion and to “form a baseline from which they could begin to ask questions about the legitimacy of moral judgments of all kinds,” Anderson shared with them a gruesome photo of Bibi Aisha, a teenage wife of a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. When Bibi tried to get away from her abusive husband, her family caught her, cut off her nose and ears, and left her to die in the mountains. Only Bibi didn’t die. Somehow she crawled to her grandfather’s house, and was saved in an American hospital.

Writing in Education Journal magazine, Anderson relates how he was sure that his students, “seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, [they] would have a clear ethical reaction,” one they could talk about “more difficult cases.”

But their response shocked Anderson. “[He] expected strong aversion [to it], … but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused . . . afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize,” as he said, “any situation originating in a different culture. They said, ‘Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.’”

Anderson calls their confusion and refusal to judge such child mutilation a moment of startling clarity, and indeed it is. He wonders if it stems not from too little education, but from too much multiculturalism and so-called “values education,” which is really just an excuse for moral relativism.

Anderson writes, “While we may hope some [students] are capable of bridging the gap between principled morality and this ethically vacuous relativism, it is evident that a good many are not. For them, the overriding message is ‘never judge, never criticize, never take a position.’” Anderson wonders whether in our current educational system, we’re not producing ethical paralytics? Well, if the horrifying example of the students’ reaction in this case is any indication, Anderson already knows the answer.

God is Too Big For One Religion

Melinda Penner:

This is purportedly a pluralistic claim. On it's face, it has some appeal to God's vastness and greatness, along with a nice open-mindedness. But it's actually just as much an exclusive truth claim as any other claim by particular religions.

It's a way of telling most religions they're wrong for thinking their view of God is the right view. So most religions are wrong for thinking they're right, and this pluralistic claims is just as much dogma as any other doctrinal claim about God. You really can't avoid it as soon as you say something about God.

It's also not rational. All religions can't be right because of simple logic. The law of excluded middle means God is either personal or impersonal. There aren't any other options, and He can't be both. So the answer to that choice excludes a number of religions, whichever option you choose. Religions make claims that are mutually exclusive - they can't all be true.

What matters about religion isn't whether claims or descriptions of God are too meager or modest, but whether they're true or not. If God exists, then some things we say are true and others are false. We should discover which is the case rather than gloss over the differences.

Read the rest.

Isn't Morality Just a Social Construction?

Just had a great meeting with one of my buddies from my part-time job in retail.  We have been working through Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and talking about the chapters.  He says that he is an agnostic.

Today we talked about morality and one of his challenges for me was his claim that there is no universal morality. He believes this points to the fact that there can't be a God who is the ultimate standard for right and wrong.  He cited the fact that many different cultures throughout history have defined morality quite differently.  Doesn't that point to morality simply being a construction of different societies?

Greg Koukl has some great responses to this line of thinking.  He writes:

Even if relativists are right that cultures differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction. In logic this is called a non-sequitur; the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don't translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality per se. How does it follow that because each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn't lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth. This confuses the epistemological question (the accurate knowledge of objective values) with the ontological question (the existence of objective values).

Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality.

And in another article he writes:

Why can't somebody experience ethical guilt for something they're doing wrong in different cultures? Maybe morals are really relative. This is descriptive relativism. It entails that you can look at different cultures and find different ethical practices. How does one account for that if there is some absolute morality? It seems that morality is culturally determined.
Here is an observation that may help. It's a refinement, a distinction that will help make sense of some of that. For example, in India they used to practice "settee", which means that when a man died they would also kill the widow. They would bury the wife with the husband. They considered that moral, but we don't consider it moral in our country, so it seems to be a different value on human life.

The refinement that I'd like to offer you is the idea of the difference between facts and values. In India there was still the same value as in the United States that one should not murder. It is not open season on human beings in India. They believe that you should not murder and in our culture we believe you should not murder. That was the same value, but they had different notions of what murder entailed. For example, if you are attacked by somebody with a knife and you kill them, that would be a traumatic experience for you, but you would not have a sense of ethical guilt because you did not murder that person. You killed in self-defense. Therefore, in our culture we are taught that killing in self-defense is not inappropriate or ethically wrong. Having said that, we are not making it open season on everyone because there are certain conditions in which killing is not murder. Those are the facts of killing in our culture. In the same way, in India killing by settee was not considered murder. It was considered a gracious thing to do given certain circumstances.

The reason that I make this distinction is because a lot of times the apparent differences of moralities in different cultures is really not a difference in values but a difference in facts, a difference in how they view certain circumstances. I don't think any culture thinks that child abuse is good, but some cultures are rougher on their children than others. They don't consider that particular roughness an example of abuse. That may help in terms of the distinction of the cultures.

Even so there still is that moral machine and what I'm replying to is not making an argument based on a standard morality that everyone has. I'm responding not so much to the content of morality as to the machinery of morality. We have that moral machine in there. What compels us to think in moral categories? That's an example of the image of God in man. We may put different things in those categories, but the fact is that we have the machinery to begin with. It appears that no other creature has that machinery and that's what I appeal to, so I don't have to argue for a blanket morality that everyone has. I go one step deeper than that and say even with the difference, and there may be explanations like facts and values for those differences (it's also possible to singe our conscience, if you will), beyond that, let's take the fact of moral machinery. How does one explain that from an evolutionary, physicalist, naturalist perspective?

This is a fact about humankind that we are all well aware of that is very well explained by a Christian view of the world.

Tolerance and Moral Neutrality

Greg Koukl:

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance. An articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, in a piece called "Self-Definition: Morality":

"Like most parents, I think that a sense of moral responsibility is one of the greatest gifts I can give my child. But teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do—and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.

My parents' morals were deeply rooted in religious conviction but tempered by tolerance—the essence of which is respect for other people's views. They taught me that reasonable people may differ on moral issues, and that fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order.

I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy. I hope the tolerance and respect I show her as a parent is reinforced by the work she sees me doing every day: fighting for the right of all individuals to make their own moral decisions about childbearing.

Seventy-five years ago, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to liberate individuals from the "mighty engines of repression." As she wrote, "The men and women of America are demanding that . . . they be allowed to mold their lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state but as their conscience and judgment may dictate."

I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs. When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality: It's tyranny. It's unfair, and it's un-American."

That is impressively and persuasively written, one of the finest expressions of this view available in the space of five short paragraphs. It sounds so sensible, so reasonable, and so tolerant, but there's a fundamental flaw.

Read the rest.  

A Theological Conversation Worth Having: A Response to Brian McLaren

Al Mohler:

Some theological disputes amount to very little and serve mostly as exercises in missing the point, if indeed there is a point. Other doctrinal exchanges are quite different, and deal with matters of central and essential concern to the Christian faith. The first sort of dispute is a waste of precious time and energy, and should be avoided at all costs. The second sort of debate is a matter of both urgency and importance. The church cannot avoid and should not seek to evade this kind of theological conversation.

That is why a recent essay by Brian McLaren helps us all to understand what is at stake in the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. Beyond this, his argument reveals a great deal about the actual beliefs and trajectories of what has become known as the emerging church. As such, his essay is a welcome addition to this important conversation.

Read the rest.

"You Wouldn't Be a Christian if You Were Born in India."

Suppose we concede that if I had been born of Muslim parents in Morocco rather than Christian parents in Michigan, my beliefs would have been quite different.  (But) the same goes for the pluralist... If the pluralist had been born in (Morocco) he probably wouldn't be a pluralist.  Does it follow... his pluralist beliefs are produced in him by an unreliable belief-producing process?

Alvin Plantinga, A Defense of Religious Exclusivism, p. 205

Quoted in Tim Keller's, Reason For God.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

Wrap you brain around this one...

Jesus Meets the Relativists

Relativism is not a coherent philosophical system. It is riddled with contradictions—both logical and experiential. Sophomores in col- lege know that something is fishy when someone claims the state- ment to be true that all truths are relative. They may not be able to name the law of non-contradiction, but they are wired with it, and they can smell it in the wind. Claiming truth for a statement that nullifies truth is self-contradictory. But if you are not claiming your defense of relativism is true, why do you expect me to listen?

And every businessman knows that philosophical relativists park their relativism at the door when they go into the bank and read the language of the contract they are about to sign. People don’t embrace relativism because it is philosophically satisfying. They embrace it because it is physically and emotionally gratifying. It pro- vides the cover they need at key moments in their lives to do what they want without intrusion from absolutes.

That’s what we see in the chief priests and elders. They don’t care about truth. They care about their skin. Therefore, they take the God-given handmaidens of truth—thinking and speaking—and prostitute them as slaves of self-protection. They think their way to an escape, and then use language to avoid shame and harm. Self- aggrandizement is the deepest root of relativism.

It is an enemy of the noble use of the mind. It is something we should avoid and grieve over and labor to overcome. One of the ways that we might make some headway in protecting ourselves and fol- lowing generations from embracing relativism is by pointing out how evil and destructive its effects are.

- John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God, p. 98, 99

Effectively Responding to Moral Relativism

Josh Brahm:

While working last week with the Justice For All exhibit at Kennesaw State University, I got into a conversation with two students, Justin and Teesha, about moral relativism. There are few topics more difficult to discuss than moral relativism. This is partially because it’s a complicated topic already, but also because few people are open to changing their views on relativism. Even if a person is typically open-minded, the whole concept of relativism is that we can have differing views on a subject, yet we can both be right.

When I train students to respond to moral relativism, I tell them to start by asking a clarification question. Steve Wagner of JFA points out that there are two different types of relativism, so it’s best to ask, “do you believe morals are relative to individuals or cultures?”

If the person believes morals are relative to cultures, I’m going to ask, “then how can you judge the Nazi’s decision to slaughter the Jews?”

If the person believes morals are relative to individuals, I’m going to say, “then you can’t distinguish between a father who feeds his daughter and a father who molests his daughter, can you? They just have different preferences.”

I’m going to share with you an excerpt of my dialogue with Justin, in hopes that it will give you some “tools for your toolbox” to use the next time your friend says “morals are relative.”

Justin:   There is no such thing as objective truth.

Josh:    Is that a true statement?

Justin:   Well, it’s true for me.

Josh:    I understand that, but is it true for me too, or is it just true for you?

Justin:   I don’t know, but it’s definitely true for me. There are some things I believe are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for everybody.

Josh:    Okay, well do you think we could agree that there are some things that are objectively wrong? Like rape, for example. Wouldn’t it be wrong for someone to rape Teesha?

Justin:   Well, it would be wrong for me.

Josh:    I understand that, but when I say ‘rape is wrong,’ I mean that there is something inherently evil about the act of rape itself. It seems that when you say ‘rape is wrong,’ you’re simply stating a personal preference.

Justin:   Yes, it’s wrong for me, but who am I to judge someone else?
(I could tell by Teesha’s body language that she was slowly coming to grips with the natural consequences of Justin’s worldview, and it was making her a little uncomfortable, but she didn’t say anything yet.)

Josh:    What about child prostitution? It happens all around the world. Can’t we at least agree that that’s really messed up?

Justin:   Well, I personally don’t think that’s right…

Josh:    Yeah, but some people do. Some people think it’s okay to sell little girls' bodies for sex with adult men. Isn’t that just wrong?

Justin:   Well, some people grow up with different parents and in a different culture than me. So I definitely wouldn’t do it, but who am I to judge another culture?

Josh:    I definitely agree people’s worldviews are partially shaped by their parents and culture, and that we should strive to think freely and clearly, and not just adopt whatever our parents taught us. (Justin nods approvingly.) But couldn’t an entire society be wrong about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of paying to have sex with 7-year-old girls?

Justin:   I think it’s wrong, but it might be right for them.
(Teesha interrupts that she disagrees with Justin. “Well I think that would be wrong!” she replied.)

Justin:   Something can be wrong to me, but that doesn’t make it wrong for someone else. Maybe it’s right to them. There is no objective right and wrong.

Josh:    Look, everybody used to think the earth was a flat disc on the back of a giant sea turtle. Were they right?

Justin:   It was right for them.

Josh:    Yes, but were we ever actually on the back of a giant sea turtle?

Justin:   *pauses / stammers*

Josh:    Do you understand the Law of Non-Contradiction? It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.

Justin:   But there is no truth!

Josh:    See that?! You just made a truth statement, that there is no truth! I don’t even have to refute that. Your argument is refuting itself! It committed suicide. It was Dead On Arrival.

Teesha laughed, and we moved on to another topic, and went our separate ways a half hour later.

 Read the rest.