Home Politics Thoughts on the Women’s March

Thoughts on the Women’s March

by Gil Sanders
Thoughts on the Women’s March

No Christian should be caught dead walking with this movement (Ephesians 5:7-8). To walk with them is to walk with darkness. No doubt there is some light in this march (eg., its opposition against sexual abuse in Hollywood), but Lucifer’s ploy has always been to disguise himself as an angel of light. He will take some truth and taint it with the blood of deceit. According to their Mission statement, they believe that no one should cut or restrict them from their “ability to access quality reproductive healthcare services,” which includes of course a right to abortions. This is obviously unacceptable, but additionally, they strongly promote the LGBTQ movement that the Christian takes to be perversions of God’s creation (Romans 1). They argue that these people should be free from “structural impediments,” but we all know that this includes any Christian structure as is evident when they seek to remove tax exemption from “bigoted” churches or far worse, when they want to force Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes.

Let’s also not forget all sorts of vile people belong to this group. These are the same people who were wearing “pussy hats,” the same people who proudly dress like sluts, the same people who utter repulsive things, and the same people who commit all sorts of sexual immorality. They are as Scripture says, “lovers of self” and “lovers of pleasure” rather than lovers of God. These are people we should avoid (2 Tim 3:1-5). These are the same people who would in a heartbeat blaspheme and mock the Lord Jesus Christ. Not everyone is vile in this group, clearly, but it is enough to be a problem. Psalms 1 says, “Happy is the man who does not… sit in the seat of scoffers.” As commentaries note, to sit in their seat is to identify with their sinful plans and behavior. How unhappy is the man who associates with the Women’s March, for God will discipline or worse, deny him!

Self Defenders

The Christian might say, “But Jesus spent time with the adulteress and the tax collectors! I’m just doing the same. I take the good and leave out the bad.”  Do not deceive yourself. Jesus was the light who came to expose men of their evil deeds so that through recognition of their sin they could repent. The Bible explicitly says, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them” (Eph 5:11). I dare the Christian who professes to do this to participate in the Women’s March while exposing their wickedness. Speak against the sin of abortion! Speak against the sin of sexual promiscuity! Explain how their “good” deeds are nothing but bloody tampons in the eyes of God. I guarantee you that you would be stoned, crucified, or beaten down faster than you could say, “Just kidding!”

I fear that the Christians who I see associating with this movement are doing it because they want to be liked and feel good about fighting for justice in the eyes of the world. My brothers and sisters, do you not know that friendship with the world makes you enemies of God (James 4:4)? You cannot take the good and the bad because by participating in this movement, you are empowering them to accomplish all that they intend. I understand how difficult the temptation is. You want to be well liked and you want to do good. Being part of a worldly movement does that. I struggle with that too, but when the zeal for God’s truth comes, it tramples my fear like an elephant trampling on a mouse. I would rather temporarily die at the hands of men than eternally die for rejecting my Lord and Savior. It all comes down to that one choice: Who will you serve? Are you ready to forsake all? Are you willing to risk death for your faith?

Political Errors

From a more political angle, their mission is for the most part nothing more than bumper sticker slogans meshed with virtuous sounding words. For example, having a right to kill a precious baby is now phrased as having a right to women’s health. Well that sounds great! Who would be against women’s health? Or as the movement represents, it speaks for women’s rights in general and in support of better overall social treatment. Of course all of these are good things, but the substantive meaning or spirit that lingers behind these very terms represent nothing more than Satan’s agenda to make this world into a free for all. It may give a sense of solidarity, justice, and accomplishment to march as you scream, “Women’s rights!” but that is no different than marching for endless sex under the guise of “Freedom!” The movement identifies itself with a laundry list of liberal agendas that have nothing to do with women’s rights specifically, but they champion it all of the same because it sounds good to add as much “goodness” as possible so that they feel extra good about themselves.

What does any of that “women’s right” banter even mean these days? Let’s just take women’s rights. Name one right that women lack but males have. Legally speaking, there is no such thing. In fact, if anything women have one right that men do not have: the right to kill their own child. That’s significant. Now of course I know the feminist mantra. They will respond that socially speaking, they are still treated as second class citizens with the wage gap, lack of female representation in government or other fields, the existence of rape culture, and the like.   A specific example of this is given in March’s PDF: “the rate of imprisonment has grown faster for women than men, increasing by 700% since 1980”. They claim that it is our moral imperative to dismantle this inequity. But this is ridiculous. Men are TEN times more likely to get incarcerated than women. Should men be starting their own march about how this is the result of women socially mistreating them (e.g, cheating or saying hurtful things)?

There is so much misinformation and non-sequiturs associated with this movement that even if I were not a Christian, I wouldn’t want to be associated with their fortress of lies. It is often told that there is a 70 cents wage gap between males and females, but a feminist organization (AAUW) demonstrated this to be absolutely false. What happened is that these people who promote the wage gap myth got their data from sources that did not account for the relevant differences between men and women. Once that is accounted for, the difference in pay becomes next to nothing. And whatever difference in pay that is there, it is very difficult to attribute it to any sort of sexism. This is what often takes place in the feminist movement. They will use some statistic and extrapolate some claim that goes beyond what the data in fact shows. What happens is they project their narrative onto the data, rather than the other way around.

Stay Away

Look, I understand that there may be some well intending Christian out there who may have participated in this movement because they are misinformed but genuinely want to do the right thing. There are indeed some good causes that this movement stands for. I do not condemn you as much as I strongly rebuke you to stay away out of love for your souls and a desire for the goodness of God to truly prevail. You have to understand that whatever good that this movement seems to represent to you, it can be done far better under the March for Life movement that I bet you missed. Or if not that movement, start a movement that encompasses a return to Wollstonecraft’s version of feminism based on lost virtues like self-control and purity. But as much as I sympathize with movements, I think every movement is bound to fail if it is not moved by the Spirit.

Every movement will fail if it fails to understand the root problem: the condition of man is such that it is fallen and depraved. The feminist is right to point out that they are victims of violence and that it is unsafe sometimes for them to even walk down a street. But statistics show that men are even less safe than women when it comes to being subject to violence. Women are being raped just as men are being killed. Sexism is just blatant evil that comes out at the surface, but the real evil lurks beneath and it’s not hidden sexism but a corruption of our nature in general. You can hurt a woman without being sexist just because you desire to do evil and you love darkness. Men and women can both be victims of evil, but the gospel truth is that they are not just victims of evil, they are sons and daughters of evil. I dare you to live and preach that message in this world, because you’ll find that no movement that has not been moved by God will be able to bear such a message.

So prepare for hated, prepare for death.
Or be loved by the world, but burn in the flesh.

 

52 comments
0

You may also like

52 comments

Alex January 22, 2018 - 9:05 am

This says a whole lot more about you than it does about them, a whole lot more about those who want to control women and condemn women for autonomy than about the women standing up for themselves.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 22, 2018 - 10:01 am

No, it says a whole more about your denial of God than of me. You’re swapping the term “murder” or at least “manslaughter” with a nice-sounding term like autonomy and making it about someone wanting to control them. Morality restricts or guides our actions and in that sense it controls our actions. If you do not like control, reject morality. I’m not against women standing up for themselves. I love Wollstonecraft, but even she would condemn the “feminism” that passes for today. She was a brilliantly virtuous feminist.

Reply
Alex January 22, 2018 - 11:22 am

Nope. First off, I never said anything about denying God, nor denying any specific beliefs about a god. I also didn’t do any swapping of terms. I am talking about autonomy- but it seems you don’t want to talk about that, so instead you swap your terms into their debate. It literally makes no sense how this could be about my denial of God, and it seems you’re the one swapping terms and trying to twist what women are saying. Perhaps that’s what you want to hear, which goes further into why this says a whole lot more about you.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 22, 2018 - 11:29 am

Alex, no one denies that they should have autonomy. But that term is so vacuous that it can include abortions, immodest dress, sexual immorality, love of self, and the pursuit of pleasure. I can support any other use of that term but that. If you think that says more about me then again, you are simply mistaken.

Reply
Alex January 22, 2018 - 11:34 am

This whole article says a lot more about you than it does about the women. The fact that you chose to make the issue of autonomy instead all the things you don’t like – abortions, immodest dress, sexual immorality, love of self, and the pursuit of pleasure. That’s why this says more about you.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 22, 2018 - 11:41 am

Well, I am perfectly for Wollstonecraft type feminism. To equate this movement with “women” itself is a lie. Several feminists disagree with this movement. Read them (https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/opinions/prolife-and-feminist-under-trump-bachiochi-opinion/index.html). It’s not just about what I do not like, it is precisely what God does not approve of here. But I do not even have to invoke God. As a philosopher, I can give purely non-biblical reasons for why abortion and the like is objectively immoral. See the abortion post on this website. Your problem is with morality and God, not me.

Reply
Alex January 22, 2018 - 11:46 am

Oh, no – it is about what you do not like. That’s why you keep bringing up the things you do not like and saying this movement for autonomy is about that. God clearly isn’t saying the movement for autonomy is about those things. You are. And you may attempt to abdicate responsibility for you putting your words in their mouths by mentioning God. You may think you are the universal source for what is moral and what is not, and try to say it’s actually your specific beliefs about a deity and not your own beliefs, I understand that. Nonetheless, it’s still you attempting to speak for these women, when they have every autonomy to speak for themselves, and to be moral beings that disagree with your views they see as immoral.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 22, 2018 - 12:13 pm

What I’m getting from you is this: you do not like what I do not like, but unlike me, what you do not like is right because you like that but what I do not like is wrong. I do not oppose disagreement. Women should be free to speak and march as they are now, but that does not mean a Christian cannot disagree “with your views they see as immoral.” It goes both ways. I’m not the source of what is moral, it’s just that we discover what is moral through nature, reason, and Scripture. Feel free to disagree and provide objections, but realize that repeating “autonomy!” like a mantra is not an argument. Plenty of women disagree with this brand of feminism, by the way. I must say though, I appreciate you not cussing me out. It’s nice that you are strongly disagreeing without resorting to that.

Reply
Alex January 22, 2018 - 12:19 pm

I understand that must be what you’re getting, as you aren’t actually listening and are attempting to attribute words and motivations to me that aren’t in what I’ve written – just like you’re doing with the women’s march. For example, you claim “What I do not like is right.” This, of course, is not based on anything I’ve written, because like the other things you falsely attributed to me that I haven’t talked about, I also haven’t really been talking about what I don’t like. Because I’ve been focusing on your article and your words, while you’ve been focusing on making this personal against me it seems. I really can’t control what you get from me. I can only control what I write, and can’t stop you from injecting your own pre-judgements about it like you did for the women’s march.

These straw man tactics are not an argument, and I really don’t have to create a counterargument to prove that.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 22, 2018 - 12:25 pm

Oh please, you have not addressed a single thing I actually said. You reduce what I believe to merely what I do not like, but of course if you knew me you’d know this is false. You have yet to make an argument, so as it stands, your only objection so far is that you do not like what I have to say and of course, “autonomy!” This Women’s March explicitly stands against Christian or classical feminist values. Naturally then, I am free to think of this March as immoral. And I have plenty of good reasons for thinking this is the case that I was not able to fully articulate in this post. But for any Christian, what I said should already be evidently true.

Reply
Alex January 22, 2018 - 12:29 pm

I don’t feel the need to address things that aren’t about the women’s march, because clearly this post is on the women’s march. I understand you want to make it about these issues you care about, and therefore are upset that I am not addressing things besides women’s ability to make their own decisions and disagree with each other and be empowered to do so.

My argument is, and will remain, that this article says more about you than it does about the women.

The claim for instance that this march explicitly stands against Christianity – it seems you’re making it about Christianity and yourself rather than women being able to decide for themselves what their values are.

Of course you’re free to think this march is immoral – and the way you do it clearly indicates more about you than the women. For any Christian, it should be evidently true that no man gets to speak for all the women at this march about their values and morality.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 22, 2018 - 12:42 pm

The Women’s March officially stands for those values as expressed in their mission statement. These values are the anti-thesis of several Christian or classical feminist values. Those women who have spoken against these radical feminists are anything but empowered but are shunned for being pro life, pro modesty, and the like as I just linked to above. The fact that other women and I oppose this movement definitely says something about us: we stand up for what’s right. Now that’s true empowerment! True freedom (or autonomy) is in Christ alone 🙂

Reply
Alex January 22, 2018 - 12:47 pm

The women’s march officially stands for those values expressed in their mission statement, which all relate to women’s authority to make their own choices for their own lives. You may be right that many in Christian circles or in some feminist circles disagree with women’s ability to make these choices.

Those women who disagree with other women are entirely empowered – they can make their own decisions for their own lives. They are entirely capable of choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. They are entirely capable of wearing any clothing they deem as modest. And they are not at all chastised for choosing to be pregnant or for choosing to dress in their own clothes. What they aren’t empowered to do is to try to make choices for other women about those other women’s own bodies.

The fact that other women and you oppose this movement about a woman’s right to make her own choices for her own bodies definitely says something about you: you stand up for your beliefs about what’s right to the detriment of other’s beliefs about what’s right. That’s not empowerment at all.

True freedom and autonomy is in freedom and autonomy alone, not in someone dictating to you what freedoms and autonomy you need to abdicate.

Reply
Aidan January 24, 2018 - 3:58 am

Alex, women have the right to choose a plethora of things within their life: what school they go to, what career they want to have, what political views they desire to espouse, whom they marry, whether or not they have children, where they will live, what clothes they will wear, what food they will eat, etc., but to suggest that abortion (yes, abortion. The main issue that is in contention whenever one argues for the ‘right to choose’) – an action which takes the life of an innocent human being (see the scientific study of embryology – goo.gl/eFiYkd) – falls under the category of choice is to overstate one’s right to choose things.

People do not have an unlimited power of choice within their lives: they cannot choose who their parents will be, their nationality, their bone structure, their eye colour, to enter onto someone’s private property, take someone else’s belongings without prior consent, and they can’t choose to murder (not within a society which places limits on human freedom for the sake of peace and safety).

Reply
Isaac Farley January 22, 2018 - 8:11 pm

The devil isn’t named Lucifer, his name is Helel ben Shakar.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 24, 2018 - 4:23 pm

Alex,

You are deceived here. Is it empowerment to give a woman the choice to murder her controlling and verbally abusive father? You beg the question by assuming that it is a woman’s choice in the first place. The real question is whether abortion counts as murder. Labeling it as empowerment assumes it isn’t murder in the first place. Your talk of empowerment reminds me of Poppy, who repeats it almost as if she was brainwashed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm62BbVUgYM). You want to empower the woman outside of the womb, but you don’t want to empower the woman inside the womb. What does that say about your “women’s march”? Empowerment for those privileged with greater physical development? Very selective. If your view was right, I would develop a time machine and kill off every pro-choice female before they are born.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 7:35 am

I’m not deceived. It is empowerment to make a decision for your own life and your own body. Not to make decisions for someone else, as I have been clear. “What they aren’t empowered to do is try to make choices for other women about those other women’s own bodies.” That would also apply to other men’s own bodies, like a father.

I understand you disagree and don’t agree with autonomy and empowerment- Which means autonomy of your own body, no one else’s. It’s not selective, it’s quite consistent. And I understand you want to boil the women’s march down to only this issue, rather than let the women speak for themselves.

If my view was right, you wouldn’t have the power to control any pro-choice woman’s body or their parents body.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 25, 2018 - 7:50 am

Alex,

You are very deceived indeed. The fetus inside you is not your own body and it is not your own life, so of course it does not count as empowerment to murder it. You keep on begging the question and repeating “empowerment” like a brainwashed mantra. Where do you get your moral standard? Why should I care about your autonomy? Power makes right. So if I become more powerful, then I can control another person’s body just as the government does by enforcing laws – e.g, they prohibit your body from entering certain locations, from certain behaviors, and the like. That is true empowerment, at least according to Nietzsche and the natural operations of the world (survival of the fittest).

No, I would have the power to do whatever I please. Your “moral” code does not control me.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 7:59 am

I am not deceived. The womb is your own body. You have every right to control your womb. I keep using the word empowerment because you keeps using it and asking questions. If you prefer, I can make it simpler as women have equal rights and get to choose for their own body, including their womb, their clothes, their hat, their speech, etc.

You are free to argue that women should be slaves and should have no control over their bodies, and the people you shouldn’t care about women’s rights or autonomy. Previously you said no one disagreed, but now it appears you do disagree. This is why it speaks so much more about you than of these women.

Your moral code does not control these women. You do not have the power over other women’s bodies, and that you would argue such is so very telling about you.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 25, 2018 - 9:28 am

Alex,

Before you get on your pedestal, you should know that I’m playing devil’s advocate when I say “power makes right.” You seem to know very little about the nature of philosophical debate if you think this is “very telling about me.” The real question here, which you refuse to answer, is where do you get your moral standard? Equal rights? What is a right and where does it come from? You speak so much about empowerment and I”m turning that against you: true empowerment is doing whatever you want, not being controlled by ANY moral code. Why should a moral nihilist care about your moral values? The one in power controls whoever he / she pleases.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 9:40 am

I understand you want that to be the “real question,” as you have repeatedly tried to take over and redirect the conversation, away from the woman’s march and women’s ability to make their own choices, now to philosophical debate on whether women should even have the ability to make choices or have equal rights, despite your previous agreement. If you want to have a philosophical debate with someone who does want to debate philosophy, then feel free to find that person. You can find a moral nihilist and debate him if you like.

But back to this article, this says more about you than it does about the women.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 25, 2018 - 11:20 am

Alex,

I understand that you want to dodge the question because you realize that the question traps you, but you’re not going to get out of it by hiding behind the women’s march. When you claim, “it is immoral to violate someone’s autonomy,” you are FORCING an ethical code onto someone else that constrains (or in your words, controls) the extent to which they can exercise their autonomy. Of course you think this is a perfectly legitimate constraint, but on what BASIS is it legitimate? Christians have an all good, all knowing, and all powerful God as their basis. He imposes what is good upon us, which overrides any full-blown autonomy. He has all the power, right, and knowledge to do so. But where do you get your moral values?

What gives you the RIGHT to judge me by saying “this says more about you”? According to what OBJECTIVE standard are you judging me by? If you have no objective standard then who cares about your judgement about me? It is as subjective as your judgement that say vanilla is better than chocolate. Well that’s your opinion, it says everything about you, but says nothing about me. I like chocolate better. Who are you to judge me for liking it more? The same applies here, except I have an objective standard in God. But let’s pretend God is subjective too. I like my moral beliefs better than your moral beliefs just as I like chocolate better. You judging me for that only says something about you. So please stop pretending you’re on some morally high ground here. Unless you’re prepared to defend your moral judgements, stop making a moral judgement or else you just seem conceited and ignorant.

The Women’s March is all about VALUES, but why should anyone accept those values as TRUE? You have to give an argument. But if you want to be a mindless bot in this discussion and thereby prove your own deception, then by all means, worship the god of autonomy.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 11:45 am

It doesn’t trap me, it’s actually quite similar to yours. Subjective morality just isn’t something I care to go into. A lot of how you are attempting to steer the conversation to something else isn’t something I care to talk about, I would find it a waste of time to discuss theoretically whether human beings have a right to their own body, when you and I both agree they do (or you have previously stated such, you are free to change your mind).

If you no longer want to talk about the women’s march, and instead want to make this personal about me, I understand, and I won’t be joining in that.

I have no interest in discussing whether or not what basis women should have the right to their own bodies. You’re of course free to your own interests and your own opinions and can share them just as I do.

The women’s march is all about values, and people are free to disagree with those values and have their own values, as I have stated before.

I could defend my moral judgments, if I wanted to assert something about my personal morality and my personal moral judgments , but instead I’ll leave that to you and say that it says more about you then it does the women in the march, who are free to their own moral reasoning. But of course your moral arguments (which are just as subjective as anyone’s) do speak plenty about yourself.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 25, 2018 - 12:10 pm

Alex,

I’ve been suspicious that you’re someone I know on FB… But regardless, it seems then that you’re not interested in a discussion but in repeating autonomy over and over. That’s not an argument, that’s just a statement. And it begs the question by assuming the fetus has no right to life in the first place. If it has a right to life, then no woman has a right to murder that child. A real discussion would discuss whether a fetus has a right, but to determine that first requires a discussion on moral standards. Seeing that by your own admission you have no interest in such a discussion but in robotically chanting feminist slogans, I will stop this conversation, if it could even be called one. You sure do a lot of judging for someone who thinks all moral arguments are subjective!

Just a bit of warning: if you consider yourself a Christian but think all morality is subjective, you are probably not a Christian at all. God’s commands are objective. We have no right to masturbate, commit suicide, cut or dismember our body parts, or murder a child inside of us. This is the Bible’s declaration and all of man’s opinions are false, including yours. So if you don’t accept that, you’re not a Christian and you should be very worried about your eternal destiny.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 12:25 pm

I’ve been clear on what type of discussion I’d welcome, and what I’d not get into. I haven’t said the word autonomy in a while, as you seem to not like it, but somehow you think I’m still repeating it, along with other robotic chants that I have stopped saying, which is strange. But goes more along the lines of you trying to speak for other people and putting words in their mouths when they are capable of speaking for themselves.

If you’d like to have a real discussion, you are free to ask the question why I think this post says more about you than it does the women, and discuss that, or the many other things I was okay discussing. But if you’d rather only discuss something I have no interest in, that’s your choice. Because like women, you have choices.

I sure didn’t do a lot of judging – just one judgment in particular, that this article says more about you than it does about the women you judge repeatedly in it.

Just a bit of a warning – for people of all religions, as well as no religious belief, morality is subjective. Their interpretation of their god, be it Christian or Muslim or Judaic, is subjective which is why many in one faith disagree. Each of these god’s commands are not at all clear, but are subjected to human interpretation, which has changed over the years and is different within different denominations. Which is why you yourself base your morality on your subjective interpretation of nature, reason, and Scripture.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 25, 2018 - 5:00 pm

Alex,

Oh so you do claim “morality is subjective”! We’re getting somewhere at least. However, that just confirms to me that your moral judgements about me are subjective, not objective statements about what I *in fact* am. It also shows that if morality is subjective, then for one person it is wrong to violate another’s autonomy while for another it is not wrong at all. You’re right that we agree that females have equal rights, but that’s no different than us agreeing that chocolate is better than vanilla. You are trying to frame the discussion under that common ground, but it is doomed to fail because we hold to different moral principles that determine what is right and what is wrong. You have no objective principles, whereas at least I believe I do. Which means, unfortunately, that unless we talk about objective vs subjective morality, this discussion will have no fruit. May as well debate which flavor of ice cream tastes better.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 5:12 pm

Yes, I have stated previously that people are moral beings and can disagree with others views on morality.

I haven’t made moral judgments about you. Saying this article says more about you than the women is not a judgment about you morally.

A belief that one has objective principles doesn’t make them actually objective.

As I have said repeatedly, everyone is free to their own moral principles, as you are, as every woman is. People have subjective morality, they don’t use objective morality. They, like you, base it on subjective reason, nature, and possibly religious texts and teachings.

People are free to their flavor of ice cream, and you yelling about people for choosing chocolate says more about you than about them. You can debate what flavor is better, but that would be pointless and a waste of my time.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 25, 2018 - 5:33 pm

Alex,

Good good, we are getting into the heart of this debate 🙂 Oh, if by “that says more about you than about them” you mean that then sure, lol… That’s a trivial truism under subjectivism: my subjective beliefs can only reflect my beliefs, not the beliefs of others. That’s just what it means to be subjective. Since I’m free to choose my moral principles, I am also free to judge the people at the march as immoral according to my moral principles. They are free, of course, to do the same to me based upon their subjective principles. But in the end no one is objectively right. My view is *just as* right as their view if subjective morality is true.

So what’s your point then? Am I supposed to retract anything I said? What are you trying to convince me of here? I cannot be wrong about my beliefs because morality is subjective, so if my beliefs say that abortion should be illegal, there is nothing objectively wrong about enforcing that belief. It is wrong in the eyes of the feminists at this march, but that doesn’t matter because once I have power to enforce my subjective beliefs, they can’t stop me, I will be the one to stop them. And there is as subjectivism proves, nothing objectively wrong with enforcing my subjective beliefs upon another as long as I have enough power to do so.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 26, 2018 - 1:12 pm

>>That all people determine their own sense of morality subjectively< < That's exactly what moral subjectivism says... >>However, in none of this do you disprove that people’s morality is subjective< < Well actually, I have shown how counter-intuitive it is most people's moral intuitions: most people would not accept that rape is just a matter of taste. These properly basic beliefs, or moral intuitions, are literally held by almost every person in the world. Most get the strong impression that it is objective, not subjective. This is prime facie evidence that it is objective. Of course this intuition is defeasible, but it is just as plausible as our intuitive belief that other minds exist or that external objects exist. Unless a strong argument is offered to show why that moral intuition is unreliable, a person is epistemically justified in believing that objective moral values exist just as they're justified in believing an external world. But you seem to lack this moral intuition. That demonstrates some moral obtuseness, unfortunately. >>Subjective morality can morally just< < Sure! Rape is just for the rapist. >>Instead it seems you try to speak for me just as you have for these women.< < What? Nonsense. I only spoke AGAINST them, I never claimed to speak FOR them. >>Quite honestly, you’re free to not believe your morality is subjective, but it is.<< Fortunately, it is not. Have you studied any moral philosophy to be able to confidently make this claim? Do you know what natural law is? There are objective principles, analogous to scientific ones, that allow us to ground our moral values in nature. I encourage you to study ethics before being so certain of your claims.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 1:24 pm

Does moral subjectivism say anything more than people determine morality through subjective means? You seem to be saying subjectivism also says that all morality is equal, equally just and equally bankrupt, however I don’t subscribe to that. So is there a difference, is that part of subjectivism and different than what I believe, or is that not part of subjectivism and it’s what you believe?

You’re right that we have moral intuitions. And those intuitions we each, by no fault of our own, interpret subjectively. We just can’t interpret them objectively. Most people would not accept that rape is a matter of taste, most people would subjectively determine that rape is morally wrong, through their own moral reasonings.

However, intuition is entierly subjective. The fact that humans can have intuition is objective, but what our intuition says or means and how to interpret that is subjective – which is clear from your speaking of the “impression” of it. Objective things, like the existence of a tree, is not about impression.

The evidence of intuition is not prima facie evidence that human being’s own sense of morality is objective.

For example, in your claim, what if a person does not get the strong impression that rape is not just a matter of taste? How would that prove that his moral intuition, which seems different, is not subjective but is in fact objective?

Unless a strong argument is offered to show why moral intuition is reliable and universal, it’s begging the question to claim that a human’s sense of morality is objective.

“But you seem to lack this moral intuition.” I’m assuming you based this on nothing. What did you base this claim on? Perhaps more putting words in my mouth or attempting to speak for me?

“What? Nonsense. I only spoke AGAINST them, I never claimed to speak FOR them.”

Yes, you have spoken for them by putting words in their mouth. That’s what I mean. They are perfectly free to speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, your morality is subjective – and you have not been able to prove it is objective. You have not been able to prove you alone are the sole arbiter of a moral objectivity. There can be objective principles, but our own morality is subjective and based on many principles. Choosing to attempt to ground moral values in nature is, of course, subjective. Just as anyone could choose to subjectively attempt to ground moral values in other objective principles.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 26, 2018 - 4:09 pm

Subjectivism just is the belief that the good is subjectively determined by people’s preferences or beliefs. From this is *necessarily* follows that all moral beliefs are equally right for the person who holds it. The intuition that objective moral beliefs exist is on par with the intuition that 1 + 1 = 2, the intuition that other minds exist, or the intuition that the external world exists. This intuition is not that people *subjectively* DETERMINE it to be wrong, but rather that it is DISCOVERED to be objectively wrong via intuition. There’s a huge difference. Most people are not moral relativists.

The fact that this is nearly universal, as well as the fact that the moral content is rather uniform across cultures (e.g, murder has nearly always been wrong) is a fact that fits better with objectivism than subjectivism. A person then is epistemically justified in believing it is objective on intuition just as they are justified for believing the external world exists even if they cannot explicitly prove it. You may have an abnormal case of some bad intuition, of course, but this is abnormal. Intuitions *in general* are reliable but remember, I always said they are defeasible.

>>Yes, you have spoken for them by putting words in their mouth. < < Stop asserting things and prove it. >>Unfortunately, your morality is subjective<< Says the one who has studied very little to no philosophy. Come back to me when you've actually studied the arguments and have looked into natural law. Until then, your claims are about as uninformed as a man who denies evolution without having studied it.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 6:03 pm

“Subjectivism just is the belief that the good is subjectively determined by people’s preferences or beliefs.”

Oh, good, then I don’t agree with that. I just agree our interpretation of good is subjective. So I don’t believe in subjectivism.

So, therefore it seems we agree, with different language: Where I say our own sense of morality is subjective, you say it’s defeasable, so not much difference in that sense.

“Stop asserting things and prove it. ”

“They argue that these people should be free from “structural impediments,” but we all know that this includes any Christian structure as is evident when they seek to remove tax exemption from “bigoted” churches or far worse, when they want to force Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes.”

They haven’t argued this in the women’s march or on their mission statement. This would be you speaking for them.

You’re free to make an appeal to authority fallacy and state people should only listen to you because you’ve studied philosophy more than you think I have, however, studying it won’t automatically make you right. Your morality is subjective / defeasible, and isn’t based 100% in objectivity. It’s based in your subjective interpretation of, as you stated, nature, reason and Scripture.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 27, 2018 - 10:43 am

>>I just agree our interpretation of good is subjective.< < So you think that there is an objective standard of good, but that we interpret this subjectively? >>They haven’t argued this in the women’s march or on their mission statement. This would be you speaking for them.< < Try again. If someone has a "right" to healthcare goods like abortion, which their mission states, then it NECESSARILY follows (using logic) that it would be illegal for any Christian business to deny them their right. Incase logic does not convince you, just read from prestigious LGBTQ spokespersons: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-wedding-cake-that-could-torpedo-lgbt-equality >>You’re free to make an appeal to authority fallacy and state people should only listen to you because you’ve studied philosophy more<< Lol, that's not an appeal to authority... Any student of logic 101 should know this. You're like a man who denies evolution and then after getting caught for being ignorant of the literature, uses the "appeal to authority" fallacy to rationalize his vexing conceit. I never said I am right because I studied it more, I just said that you have no right to be as confident as you are about me being wrong without having studied the issue much more.

Reply
Alex January 25, 2018 - 6:28 pm

I don’t think you can say all views are just as right and just as wrong.

My point has been consistent, thank you for asking me to repeat it. This article speaks more about you than it does the women. That’s what I am trying to convince you of.

You are free to speak whatever you like, and free to reveal more about yourself in doing so. I’m not sure what you mean about “supposed to do.”

You, of course, can be wrong about your beliefs, though you are free to them.

However, in society, there’s is something objectively wrong about forcing your beliefs onto another. You know this and have admitted this. Power doesn’t make you somehow automatically right, it just makes you powerful.

And you arguing that once you have power, you will enforce your will upon others definitely speaks more about you.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 26, 2018 - 11:22 am

If subjectivism is true, they are all just as right. Just as it is right that chocolate is your favorite flavor, it is also right that vanilla is my favorite flavor. So if I think it is right to make abortion illegal, that is right for me to enforce upon the world, whereas for a radical feminist, it is right for them to make abortion legal and force companies to pay for it. We are both opposing forces, and it is “power” that will determine the victor. That does not mean power determines what is “objectively” right, but because a view has absolute power, it’s the only subjective view that really matters.

How can I be wrong about subjective beliefs? I cannot possibly be wrong about them. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. If I subjectively belief that violating people’s autonomy is perfectly permissible (e.g, rape), then this is right FOR ME. You cannot morally object to it. You can only say, “Well our view has greater power through the police to prevent or punish that.” That’s ALL you can say. You can’t say I objectively did wrong for raping that woman. Which makes your view a very morally bankrupt view.

Why is it objectively wrong to force your beliefs onto another? Now you’re sneaking in objective morality it seems.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 12:28 pm

There’s no reason to state that they are all just as right under subjectivism, only that it’s subjective.

If you think vanilla is your favorite flavor, which is of course subjective, that’s not the same as saying it is right for you to enforce vanilla upon the world and eliminate chocolate as a flavor. Your subjectivity for example is based on nature, reason and Scripture, and none of your subjectivity would support eliminating chocolate.

You’re free to think that only power really matters,when what you seem to argue is that in the end only power has ultimate influence – which is exactly why throughout history churches have struggled to gain power and exert influence.

You can have a subjective belief that just doesn’t make sense, and is therefore wrong. When your subjectivity is based upon nature, reason and Scripture, you can have a subjective belief that isn’t any of these and doesn’t make sense. Of course, since we all have our own morality, we can object to others morality, and more importantly, to other’s actions. We have that freedom. We can say you subjectively did wrong for raping that woman. Which makes my view a very morally just view.

Why is it objectively wrong to force your beliefs onto another, from a societal standpoint? Not from a moral standpoint, as that would be subjective, but from a societal standpoint is doesn’t progress society
as completely to use force.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 12:37 pm

I think I should clarify – you brought up the term subjectivism, so while I originally thought you were just using it to describe what I was saying, I think it’s meaning may be different than what I was writing.

To be clear, I am saying that all humanity derives their morality through subjective means, even as much as they may try to be objective.

I’m not actually sure on the full meaning of subjectivism as you mean to be using it, so we may be talking without agreeing on terminology. Perhaps it’s best that I stay away from using subjectivism as a term then, and I’ll from now on focus on sticking to terms that more accurately reflect my meaning.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 26, 2018 - 12:48 pm

Alex,

Dude, I have studied philosophy for over a decade. Every moral subjectivist says this. It makes perfect sense to say that it is true (or right) that “X prefers vanilla over chocolate.” In a moral sense, “X believes that Y is morally right, so it is morally right for X to do Y.” But what may be right FOR person X may not be right for person Z. Rightness is determined by one’s subjective beliefs. If Z has the belief that Y is morally right, then and only then is it morally right for Z to do Y. Otherwise, it is immoral for Z to do Y if Z subjectively believes that. So person Z is right by their subjective standard, and person X is right by their subjective standard.

It follows logically from above that if person Z’s subjective standard states, “It is a moral imperative to make abortions illegal” then this is RIGHT for Z by reference to Z’s subjective standard. So more concretely, if a person believed chocolate was best and believed he should ban vanilla, this is right for him to do BY reference to his standard. By reference to YOUR subjective standard, he’d be wrong, but that does not mean he was objectively wrong. Your standard is meaningless to him, just as his standard is meaningless to yours. But the standard that wins is the one with the most power behind it. Read Nietszche on this.

That you say “my view a very morally just view” is laughable. The rapist could say the EXACT same thing about his actions and it would be morally right FOR him by reference to his subjective standard. He has no reason to give a damn about your standard except that your standard happens to have much more power in society through the government. That’s it. It is all a power play of subjective standards. Subjectivism *objectively* reduces rape to a difference in taste of flavors. Your view is morally depraved and bankrupt in the fullest sense of those words.

The difference is that your subjective standard about rape happens to be held by society in general. So you basically support “enforce vanilla upon the world and eliminate chocolate as a flavor” except in this case you enforce laws that eliminate rape. If you are right to enforce or impose your standards, a rapist could overthrow that societal standard through sheer force and objectively you could not complain, except that it happens to leave a bad flavor in your mouth. This is a very sad and despicable view, quite honestly, and I am very happy not to be a moral relativist 🙂

It is as the Bible says, “Every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 12:59 pm

It seems you’re going all in on the problems you find with subjectivism, which may or may not be the same as what I’m trying to say, that all people determine their own sense of morality subjectively. It seems a bit like it’s not what I’m trying to say.

However, in none of this do you disprove that people’s morality is subjective, or that any one person has been able to have constructed a morality system that is entirely objective, and objectively the right moral system.

It’s absolutely true that since we all have morality that we try to interpret subjectively, that we try to also determine what is right and wrong with that same subjectivity. We don’t always get it right.

And yes, clearly in disputes of morality, people try to gain power over others, as history and organized religion has shown all along.

Subjective morality can morally just. Just because we factually don’t have objective morality, it does not mean that morally just actions cannot exist. Similarly, morally bankrupt actions can also exist.

” Your view is morally depraved and bankrupt in the fullest sense of those words. ”

But by your logic, that’s your subjective belief. That’s just your taste of flavor, and is absolutely meaningless.

I disagree that the only difference in morality is popularity. Nor do I ever support foricng one flavor and eliminating another, as I have clearly stated all along that to each his own flavor, and let no one stand in the way of that flavor. You’re free to find that sad and despicable, but instead it seems you try to speak for me just as you have for these women.

Quite honestly, you’re free to not believe your morality is subjective, but it is. Based subjectively on your understanding of nature, reason, and Scripture as you said it.

It is as the Bible says, and always will be. Morality is subjective. We don’t have the ability to understand an objective morality.

Reply
Brian Forbes January 26, 2018 - 8:13 am

I read the discussion to this point, and I have something objectively true to say:
The article says a lot about the march, the women of the march, their perspectives, and Gil’s perspective. It says all of these things.

Alex takes away things he (apparently) didn’t already know about Gil, and Gil wants Alex to know that there are objective things to know about the march. You are both right to a degree, but why should it matter if you’re right? If right and wrong are subjective, any effort (or lack thereof) to be right or wrong will result in something that can be categorized as right or wrong. Right and wrong only matter at all if there will be a judgement. Alex probably believes that judgement is through the masses. Gil believes that the power is in the hands of God. I don’t think you’ll find common ground in the discussion as it has taken place so far. You’re better off discussing why God exists or doesn’t exist. And to that, I say that miracles are better evidence. Let’s show Alex a miracle:
1 Cor. 2:4-5 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 10:02 am

Most of my responses are after listening to his subjective opinions on the march, not objective things to know about the march.

People are free to not care about what is right, if that is their choice. And I think our own self-judgment is important- that we judge ourselves, and that is why we should seek to be good people. If you only seek to be a good person because someone will punish you if you are not, then so be it.

Reply
Brian Forbes January 26, 2018 - 10:25 am

Be a good person, but I don’t know where your sense of good comes from. A mother mouse will eat her babies. Objective standards > subjective ones.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 10:29 am

Unfortunately, no one can know where anyone’s sense of good comes from, even those who try to use an objective object to partially inform their sense of good. That’s reality. There’s no evidence that objective standards are better than subjective ones, they are simply easier to understand. “Do whatever you want” is an objective standard, for instance, and there’s no evidence that’s better than all subjective standards.

Reply
Brian Forbes January 26, 2018 - 10:44 am

How do you know that there is no evidence? Have you examined all possibilities and found them all lacking? Could you be mistaken on at least one of the systems you have evaluated? I think you’re jumping to conclusions.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 10:47 am

That is a good response – I should correct myself – there is no evidence presented in your blanket assertion that objective standards > subjective ones. I think however that your statement objective standards > subjective ones is not based in all evidence, that you haven’t examined all other possibilities and found them all lacking, or that you could you be mistaken on at least one of the systems you have evaluated, and that you jump to conclusions.

Reply
Brian Forbes January 26, 2018 - 11:20 am

Now that we’ve established that we both chose our view, we can move on to why we chose what we did. I chose my view of God because:
1. It’s popular (the most popular).
2. It was central to the rest of the world. If you were God and wanted to spread a message through the world, putting your messengers in Israel seems a good plan.
3. Nations have histories, and when you take all the histories back far enough, and yes, most of the histories do go back that far, they all started in little spores at around the same time shortly before the time of Abraham. I trust these histories.
4. Design in nature shows intelligence. There are few if any transitions between creatures when there should be far more transitions than there are final (i.e. current) forms.
5. If purpose is random, it won’t matter what I believed in a thousand years. If there is an objective purpose, and death is the final stage in our first life segment, it’s better (to me, in a practical sense) to find the purpose before I live my life.

I play Gods of Olympus on my phone. Until a couple days ago, I was the leader of my clan. I see every month or so someone coming on there and asking how they can reset their account. When you play that game, you just dive in. And when you’re at about level 20, you wish that you had made different decisions. There is no reset button. You have to take the game where it is and sell some things to buy other things. It’s much like life. But you can’t contact support to reset it. Better to plan your game at the lower levels and stick to the strategy until you’re done.
6. I want to. I actually like Jesus.
7. I have seen miracles. If miracles happen (i.e. the origin and/or animation of matter, birth, replication, etc.) you might as well stick with a miracle that goes with a testimony.

Reply
Lerrrr January 26, 2018 - 5:42 pm

1) I understand “objective” to mean “……..not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

2) Therefore the only “objective” view of an action, is one which represents the action as it is, without any form of judgment/distinction made by the observer (in fact, to even call this a “view” is misleading, since that already implies distinction).

3) By definition, the moment you call an action “right”, you have made a judgment about it.

4) Ergo from 2 and 3, the moment you call an action “right”, you have foregone objectivity.

It doesn’t even matter if you claim that the source of your judgment is an objective source (such as God); as soon as you say “X action is wrong” your mind has taken the event (which could semi-objectively be reported: “X action is”) and made a judgment about it.
This is perfectly ok, and it also doesn’t necessarily mean that therefore all claims of rightness or wrongness are equally valid (that is entirely dependent on what is meant by “right” and “wrong”). But it is delusion to think that we can make a judgment about something, rationalize our own judgment, and then pass this off as objectivity. That is the mind/ego telling you that the concepts it invents in order to make sense of the world are the exact same thing as the world itself. My mind can conceptualize a tree and hold it in isolation……..but you will never, ever find a tree in reality that is isolated from all of the “non tree” stuff in the universe.

Reply
Alex January 26, 2018 - 6:10 pm

This is a pretty good statement on how morality and right and wrong is subjective…

I disagree a bit in that it may be possible to have a non-personal barometer to measure right / wrong, in which you could have an objective view relating to that standard on an action. Similarly, you could have an objective barometer of “which object is tallest,” and could potentially judge which object is tallest objectively. Would you agree, or is there something else I’m not considering / another way to view it?

Of course, now while that “which object is tallest” test may be an objective test, interpreting the results to mean the “tallest” is the “best” would be subjective.

Reply
Gil Sanders January 27, 2018 - 10:19 am

Wow, is that really you Lerrrr?! What a blast from the past. It has been some years since you’ve commented on this blog. Welcome back! Very nice to have you again. I hope life has been treating you well 🙂 Well, returning to what we do best:

There’s a HUGE problem with that view: it applies not only to moral judgements, but to factual judgements as well. By definition, the moment you call a proposition “true,” you have made a judgement about it. It doesn’t even matter if you claim that the source of your judgment is an objective source (such as nature); as soon as you say “Proposition X is true” your mind has taken the event and made some judgement about it. So all scientific views are subjective, under this view.

Maybe that’s exactly what you want to say. I smell some Kant in your response, after all. But if that’s the case then at least *epistemically* speaking, all views are indeed just as valid because we cannot access the world as it actually is, as it is always filtered through the “subjective” concepts and faculties of our minds. Woohoo for voodooism as an equally valid alternative of science!

Reply
Lerrrr January 28, 2018 - 1:20 pm

It is indeed me, and thankyou kindly. I’m not very active online these days, but thought I would have a look and see what was going on. Life has indeed been good, as I hope it has been for you also!

To me, what you’ve just highlighted is not so much a huge problem as it is a moment of clarity 🙂 Although I would perhaps go a step further back; you have indeed made a judgment when you call a statement “true”. But you have already made a judgment even by the time you have uttered the proposition. Likewise with the comment on scientific views; do you think the best scientists view the theory of evolution as being identical with what “is”, or do they view it as a model of what “is”? It seems to me that scientists are acutely aware of their subjective nature (their “small mind”, as opposed to “big mind”, as the Buddhists term them), which is precisely why they place such emphasis on trying to minimize its impacts in their methodology, as well as emphasizing the importance of falsification.

Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with conceptualizing and building models. It is one of the most important evolutionary developments of our species. It only becomes problematic when we start to mistake the contents of our thoughts and views for “what is”, and inevitably form attachments and aversions to those contents. This even applies to the words I am typing now.

The moon is right there, in the here and now, directly accessible to you. Why, then, do you want to obsess over the finger pointing at it? Seeing “what is” is not impossible, but it requires you to REDUCE ideas, views, arguments etc. etc……..not increase them. The more you argue and believe that you have conclusively proven this or that claim about “what is”, the deeper you have moved into your own head, the more you are obsessing over the pointing finger, and the further you are from just seeing the moon.

Reply
Gil Sanders February 2, 2018 - 1:00 pm

Wow! Why you being a virtual hermit? XD How often do you go online these days? Still studying philosophy regularly? Where do you work? Sorry I’m much more interested in how you’re doing more than debating right now!

I agree that scientists model reality and are acutely aware of their biases, but they still insist that they are capable of capturing significant portions of reality. Ideas or arguments are *about* something external so in that sense they’re like fingers that point to reality. But if all we ever know directly is the finger, then we can never see the moon that the finger purports to point to and this is problematic for all knowledge, not just moral knowledge.

I do not think that being confident that I know something about moral truths constitutes that I am obsessed over my *mere* idea of it unless it is already assumed that I either (a) cannot have access to moral truths or (b) I am mistaken in my belief. At least in principle, I believe my idea corresponds with reality and do not take my idea itself to be what is real.

Reply
Biblical Feminism: Women in Ministry (Part 1) – Walking Christian November 11, 2019 - 4:59 pm

[…] Moore: “Go home.” Outside of the church, we see the rise of radical feminism (see our writing on this) advocating for pro-death and anti-male ideologies. Any other notion of womanhood is […]

Reply

Leave a Comment