"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." Alexandre Dumas
This is one of those statements that are self-refuting. (Hat tip to Greg Koukl on the following:) These are more examples of obviously self-refuting statements: "I cannot speak a word of English." (written in English), "I cannot say a sentence more than six words long".
The difference with the ones above is that the person making the statement realizes how ridiculous it is or should. However, nowadays, some people who believe in postmodernism or moral relativism sometimes speak in self-refuting statements, but they do not always recognize it. Here are some examples.
1) Who are you to judge? (the person stating this, like it or not, is judging)
2) You shouldn't push your morality on other people. (Is that your morality-then why are you pushing it on me?)
3) You shouldn't tell people they are wrong, you should be tolerant. (Are you telling me I'm wrong? Why are you not tolerant of me?)
Folks, anytime someone tries to say that morals are relative; they cannot live that way. They will not be tolerant or nonjudgemental of someone who tries to steal their computer or car, or even cut in line. Their moral intuition will come to the forefront because they know morals do exist.
Derrick
BTW, STR recently had a post that when someone is feeling "judged", it is not often because the person is judging them, but that they are feeling the weight of the moral principle and their violation of it. It is just easier to say to the "messenger", why are you judging me than it is to face the realization that I may have done something wrong . Some food for thought.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your #1 is so cool! That says a lot. Asking or telling someone in a "Who Are You To Judge" manner is an absolute oxymoron back on the one asking the question. Derrick, very thought provoking! Good One, my friend!
The problem with all of those generalizations is that it is really easy to fall into their trap. Comments like, "Who are you to judge" can be conversation stoppers if we are not careful to think about them critically. It is good to be thinking about these things though.
The real kicker seems to be that these generalizations are mostly problematic for the relativist. As a Christian, I do not think it is always wrong to judge; I think it is ok to "push" one's morality on others (that is what making, signing, voting on different laws is all about BTW).
And I think that ideas have consequences, some ideas are good, some are bad, some choices are wrong, some choices are right and being tolerant can only apply in a situation where I disagree with someone.
But do not let someone pull these "conversation stoppers" on you. They self destruct.
And as Solomon once said, "there is nothing new under the sun", these are not my original thoughts. I must give the shout out once again to Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason www.str.org If you want to become a better thinking Christian, learning how to think, not simply what to think-go there.
Derrick
Post a Comment