Pro-Life and Pro-Capital Punishment

There is an alleged inconsistency that is sometimes raised between being pro-life and also pro-capital punishment. Here’s the question: “Is it inconsistent to be pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion and yet also support capital punishment in certain situations?”

Answer: No.

Here are some important points to remember (see Francis Beckwith and his book Defending Life, pages 126-127, on this topic):

First, the alleged inconsistency of pro-life apologists who support capital punishment is often introduced as a red herring to distract from the main issue that must be addressed. Even IF pro-lifers were inconsistent on this point, that’s all it would prove: an inconsistency. And what follows from that? Not much. It has nothing to do with the one question that must be answered in the abortion debate: “What is the unborn?” As Beckwith notes, “inconsistent people can draw good conclusions” (Defending Life, 126). 

Same-Sex Marriage: Anne Hathaway, Reason, and Rhetoric

Popular actress Anne Hathaway, who recently starred as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, received an award in 2008 from the Human Rights Campaign, an organization dedicated to the rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In her acceptance speech, Hathaway explained why she supports homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Read carefully the reasons she offers:

“In my household, being gay was, and is, no big deal. When my brother came out, we hugged him, said we loved him, and that was that…Just for the record, we don’t feel that there is actually anything alternative about our family values…I don’t consider myself just an ally to the LGBT community, I consider myself your family…if anyone, ever, tries to hurt you, I’m going to give them hell…There are people who have said that I’m being brave for being openly supportive of gay marriage, gay adoption, basically of gay rights. But with all due respect I humbly dissent. I’m not being brave. I’m being a decent human being. And I don’t think I should receive an award for that, or for merely stating what I believe to be true, that love is a human experience, not a political statement. However, I acknowledge that sadly we live in a world where not everybody feels the same. My family and I will help the good fight continue until that long awaited moment arrives, when our rights are equal and when the political limits on love have been smashed.”

Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Objections

What follows are some of the most common objections to the pro-life view one is likely to hear from defenders of abortion, both in the media and in everyday conversation. It is my hope the pro-life responses underneath will be beneficial to those who are defending the unborn, whether it be via e-mail, Facebook, or face to face. Rather than reinvent the wheel each new conversation, I have found the following points to be especially helpful in simplifying the debate and defending the right to life of unborn human persons, over and against the common objections of the pro-abortion choice position.

It should be noted that the following objections are not the more philosophically sophisticated defenses of abortion one is likely to encounter from those such as Judith Jarvis Thomson or David Boonin. Rather, these are common rhetorical talking points often made by those less informed on the topic but which nevertheless need to be addressed due to their prevalence and sometimes unfortunate effect of leaving pro-lifers speechless. 

An Evolutionary Explanation for Morality

It seems as though college students want to be lectured more about morality these days. At least that's the impression we get at one community college in south Orange County. In addition to the February 26th McDowell-Corbett debate (organized by Apologetic Junkie) on the question “Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?” there was another moral-themed academic event on the Saddleback College campus on the same night, on the same topic, and in the same room that we used for the overflow crowd just a few hours later. World renowned evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala was a guest lecturer in a lecture series sponsored by the biology and chemistry departments in a talk entitled “Biological Foundations of Morality”.

Ayala’s argument is that morality comes from both biological and cultural evolution which he develops through two main contentions: 1) The human propensity for a “capacity for ethics” (ability to perceive moral actions as good or evil) is a result of biological evolution, and 2) the development of “moral norms” (socially acceptable conduct) comes about through cultural evolution.

Is God a Genocidal Bully?

(Conversantlife.com) by Sean McDowell

Richard Dawkins sure thinks so. In The God Delusion he wrote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

This is certainly a well-worded objection, but is it convincing? I remember the first time I heard this objection. It unsettled me quite a bit. How could a loving God be so malevolent as to command the extermination of an entire people-group (the Canaanites) including men, women, and children (Josh 9:11-15)? Undoubtedly, this is one of the most difficult questions confronting Christians. While not all answers will entirely soothe the emotions, there are three points that can help us makes sense of this challenge. (For a more in-depth analysis, I suggest reading an excellent article by William Lane Craig.)

What is Just War Theory?

(Reasons to Believe) by Kenneth Samples

Through the centuries Christian thinkers have taken different positions on the controversial subject of war. Three broad theories concerning the morality of war for the Christian can be identified: activism, pacifism, and selectivism. Activism asserts that it is virtually always right to participate in war. Strict pacifism insists that it is never morally right to partake in war. Selectivism argues that it is sometimes right to take part in war.

Just war theory is a type of selectivism contending that while war is always tragic and often evil, it is sometimes morally right, just, and practically necessary. Some leading Christian advocates of just war theory have included Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and Francisco Suarez (1548-1617). Just war theory involves two main moral categories of evaluation.

1. Jus ad bellum (Justness of War)
Concerning the moral justness of waging war, a just war must conform to the following moral considerations:

A Just War will

• Be waged by a legitimate authority (government or state, not private individuals)
• Reflect moral deliberation (last resort after sincere diplomacy)
• Have probability of success (reasonable belief that victory can be achieved)
• Have a just cause (e.g., defense of innocents and freedom against direct aggression)
• Be just in intent (establish peace, freedom, justice; not unlimited destruction of the enemy)

2. Jus in bello (Justice in war)
Concerning the conduct of war, strategy and tactics must be just:

A Just War will be conducted

• With proper proportionality (sufficient, but not excessive force will be used; good should outweigh evil)
• With proper discrimination (noncombatants [civilians or innocents] should not be targeted

Just war theory has been criticized for various reasons through the years (e.g., by failing to appreciate the benefits of a preemptive strike, being unrealistic in its moral expectations, being practically unworkable), yet it nevertheless remains the most commonly accepted position among Christian thinkers when it comes to evaluating the moral considerations of waging war.

For further study on the ethics of war, see John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 3rd ed. (P and R Publishing, 2004) and J. P. Moreland and Norman L. Geisler, The Life and Death Debate (Praeger, 1990).

Reflections on My Recent Debate

(Conversantlife.com) by Sean McDowell

My recent debate with James Corbett on the topic, "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?", has generated quite a stir. A number of people from various backgrounds and beliefs have chimed in with their thoughts, including a popular atheist blogger, a Christian science-fiction writer, a Christian postmodernist, the "Apologetics Junkie," and the Saddleback College paper (the debate was held at Saddleback College).

Here are a few of my thoughts:

Last November I sat down with my friend Greg Koukl while we were both at a conference in New Orleans to talk about his (then) pending debate with Michael Shermer. Greg gave me lots of helpful advice, but one quote stuck out to me in particular: “The more you sweat in preparation, the less you bleed in battle.” Given that my first debate was going to be on my home turf—in front of my family, friends, students, and colleagues—I most definitely did not want to bleed in battle.

So I prepared hard for about four months by watching debates, reading books, talking with my former professors, and even having multiple practice debates with friends of mine. I’ve probably never prepared for something harder in my life. While I have been a public speaker for over a decade, this was my first official debate. I learned very quickly that speaking skills help in debate, but they are only one component.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (2 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 2 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

McDowell-Corbett Debate Video (1 of 2)

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 1 from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

Monkey Morality

This last Friday Sean McDowell debated Jim Corbett on the topic "Is God the best explanation for moral values?" If you have not listened to the debate you can download the audio here:

Full MP3 Audio here (HT: Brian Auten)

Dan Grossenbach also wrote a post debate review here.

Sean's contention during the debate was that God is in fact the best explanation for moral values. If there is no God there is no moral law-giver and hence no transcendent moral law which we can appeal to. In other words, without God we have no grounding or foundation for objective morality. We are left with mere subjective opinion.

It was not until late in the debate that Corbett actually offered an alternative explanation for the existence of objective moral values. Like many skeptics, Corbett  finally appealed to evolution as an explanation for morality. But does this work?

An Objectively Good Night

Success!!! Despite a few hiccups in pre-event planning, last night's McDowell-Corbett debate went incredibly well. Saddleback College was buzzing with students, families, scholars, and local citizens lucky enough to get a seat in an event that sold out weeks in advance over a period of about 10 days. Sadly, we had to turn away over three times the number as our room could hold but the webcast was viewed by over a 1,000 people from around the globe. In fact, Conversant Life told me that so many people logged in at one time that the server crashed three times (sorry about that livestream viewers). I would be remiss not to thank Karla Westphal (Saddleback College Freethinkers Club faculty advisor) for hosting the event and handling lots of logistics. I wouldn't have wanted anyone else in her role.

Both speakers were articulate and dynamic which kept the audience captivated the entire 95 minutes without a break. Craig Hazen set the tone with his trademark wit and cordial demeanor. I witnessed first hand his unbroken contact with the timekeeper and even-handed treatment of speaker time limits. The only exception was when he granted Corbett an additional response in the Q&A portion. He even kept the course on track to about three minutes of our planned end time. Amazing work, Dr. Hazen! My only fear is the backlash I'm going to get from all those unable to attend now that Craig and Sean gave away free books and DVDs to everyone there (again, sorry webcasters).

Sean spoke first, as is customary of the positive debate position, and set the bar high for his opponent. Sean layed out his case in outline form stating two key contentions to frame the debate. 1) If God does not exist, we have no solid foundation for moral values, and 2) If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for moral values. Sean carefully made the distinction between subjective and objective with Greg Koukl's famous ice cream illustration. He told the story of a terrible teen gang rape to show what it means for something to be objectively wrong. Sean argued that any ethical system must account for three things: 1) Transcendence, 2) Free will, and 3) Human value. Concluding that God makes the most sense of moral values, Sean then challenged Dr. Corbett to offer a better explanation.

Sean McDowell's First Debate

Apologetic Junkie is proudly coordinating the first debate in the young, though flourishing, career of Christian apologist Sean McDowell. While Sean travels widely as a popular Christian speaker on apologetics, he also heads the Bible department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools and is working on his PhD in apologetics.

His opponent, Dr. James Corbett, made his fame two years ago in a highly publicized federal case where he was sued for making discriminating comments about Christianity in class. To see a short clip from the Bill O'Reilly show click here.

During the lawsuit (which is still active), I heard that Dr. Corbett said disparaging remarks of Biola University and how he bragged about wanting to debate someone from there. So I asked Sean if he would be interested in debating Corbett, History teacher at Capistrano Valley High School. The McDowell-Corbett debate will match two men with heavy influence in the lives of Orange County youth. Last year, each of them mentored students who debated their worldviews of Freethought (Corbett's students) and Christianity (McDowell's students). Now, the mentors will meet each other on the public stage. They will debate a topic that tries to determine if the ultimate grounding of moral values can only be found in God. The debate: "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" will be held Friday night, Feb 26th at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California and will be moderated by Biola's director of apologetics, Craig Hazen.

Saddleback College student clubs Campus Crusade for Christ and the Freethinkers Club are hosting the event which is sponsored by Rock Ministries (Mount of Olives Church - Mission Viejo) and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Non-Saddleback students are $5 and early registration is encouraged. If you don't live nearby, it will be webcast live at http://www.conversantlife.com/ and should be posted online sometime after the event. View the flyer by clicking here.

Same-Sex Marriage

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Either there’s a natural teleology to marriage or there’s not

Who are you to say?”  That challenge works both ways.  First, if my disapproval isn’t legitimate, then why is my approval legitimate?  If I don’t have the right to judge something wrong (“Who are you to say?”), I certainly don’t have the right to judge it right (“Who am I to say?”).  Second, why is it that I can’t make a moral judgment here, but apparently you can?

The appeal for a change in marriage laws is an attempt to change the moral consensus about homosexuality.

You invite me to make a moral judgment, then you challenge my right to make a judgment when I don’t give the answer you want.  Who am I to judge? You asked for the peoples’ moral opinion by asking for the people to vote on an initiative giving homosexual unions equal status with heterosexual unions.

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry?  Because it’s “fair.”  In what sense is the present situation unfair?  Because homosexual relationships don’t get legal/social recognition equal with heterosexual relationships.  You’re right, they don’t, but why is that unfair?  Because those relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships?  But that’s the very thing under dispute.

If there is no natural teleology to marriage and families, then the definition of marriage is simply a matter of convention.  We can define it how we want.  Now, I don’t accept that view, but even if I did, this doesn’t help homosexual marriage.  Society has voted, and they’ve voted it out.  On what grounds do you appeal for a change?  Moral grounds?  You’ve surrendered that opportunity when you claim that there is no right or wrong definition of marriage.  If so, I have no moral obligation to opt for one view over another.   If marriage is merely defined by society, well then, we voted and defined it as one man and one woman.  You asked for a social consensus, you got it. 

Second, if marriage is merely what we define it then what keeps us from expanding the definition of marriage beyond the inclusion of homosexuality to other kinds of relationships?  Can I marry my daughter, or another man and his wife?  Can two men marry the same woman simultaneously?  Believe me, these aren’t outlandish examples.  There are already groups moving for further redefinition if that’s all marriage is.  There is no limit to how marriage might be defined in this view.

The only way a claim of injustice or unfairness can stick is if we have a moral obligation to view all sexual or emotional combinations as equal.  But that depends on an objective standard, and that is a concept already jettisoned when society is asked to define marriage as they wish.  If there’s a moral standard of fairness to appeal to, then there’s a moral standard for marriage to appeal to, as well.

Apologetics: Why Your Church Needs It

(Rzim.org) by J.M. Njoroge

The ambiguity of the word apologetics provides the apologist with a natural icebreaker in public or private conversations on the topic: the apologist does not exist to “apologize” for being a Christian, or indeed for anything else. The assumption behind the pun is that the listeners would have a fair understanding of what apologetics is even if they cannot attach a formal definition to the concept. Unfortunately, this assumption is not always accurate.

During a conversation at a major apologetics event recently held in a large church, an attendee asked me what “apologetics” meant. I explained to her that apologetics is the branch of Christian theology that seeks to address the intellectual obstacles that keep people from taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ seriously. I gave her some examples of questions that are important in the context of apologetics. For example, why does evil exist if the world was created by an all-good, all-powerful God? How do we know Christianity is true in light of the numerous religions that exist in the world? 

I finished my answer to her by quoting 1 Peter 3:15, which instructs us to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks for the reason for the hope that is within us. Her reaction was surprising. 

READ MORE...

If You Believe People Are Basically Good

(Townhall.com) by Dennis Prager

No issue has a greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as basically good or not. In 20 years as a radio talk show host, I have dialogued with thousands of people, of both sexes and from virtually every religious, ethnic and national background. Very early on, I realized that perhaps the major reason for political and other disagreements I had with callers was that they believed people are basically good, and I did not. I believe that we are born with tendencies toward both good and evil. Yes, babies are born innocent, but not good. Why is this issue so important?

First, if you believe people are born good, you will attribute evil to forces outside the individual. That is why, for example, our secular humanistic culture so often attributes evil to poverty. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, former President Jimmy Carter and millions of other Westerners believe that the cause of Islamic terror is poverty. They really believe that people who strap bombs to their bodies to blow up families in pizzerias in Israel, plant bombs at a nightclub in Bali, slit stewardesses' throats and ram airplanes filled with innocent Americans into office buildings do so because they lack sufficient incomes. Something in these people cannot accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation. The Carters and Murrays of the West -- representatives of that huge group of naive Westerners identified by the once proud title "liberal" -- do not understand that no amount of money will dissuade those who believe that God wants them to rule the world and murder all those they deem infidels.

Second, if you believe people are born good, you will not stress character development when you raise children. You will have schools teach young people how to use condoms, how to avoid first and secondhand tobacco smoke, how to recycle and how to prevent rainforests from disappearing. You will teach them how to struggle against the evils of society -- its sexism, its racism, its classism and its homophobia. But you will not teach them that the primary struggle they have to wage to make a better world is against their own nature. I attended Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) until the age of 18, and aside from being taught that moral rules come from God rather than from personal or world opinion, this was the greatest difference between my education and those who attended public and private secular schools. They learned that their greatest struggles were with society, and I learned that the greatest struggle was with me, and my natural inclinations to laziness, insatiable appetites and self-centeredness.

Third, if you believe that people are basically good, God and religion are morally unnecessary, even harmful. Why would basically good people need a God or religion to provide moral standards? Therefore, the crowd that believes in innate human goodness tends to either be secular or to reduce God and religion to social workers, providers of compassion rather than of moral standards and moral judgments.

Fourth, if you believe people are basically good, you, of course, believe that you are good -- and therefore those who disagree with you must be bad, not merely wrong. You also believe that the more power that you and those you agree with have, the better the society will be. That is why such people are so committed to powerful government and to powerful judges. On the other hand, those of us who believe that people are not basically good do not want power concentrated in any one group, and are therefore profoundly suspicious of big government, big labor, big corporations, and even big religious institutions. As Lord Acton said long ago, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton did not believe people are basically good. No great body of wisdom, East or West, ever posited that people were basically good. This naive and dangerous notion originated in modern secular Western thought, probably with Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Frenchman who gave us the notion of pre-modern man as a noble savage. He was half right. Savage, yes, noble, no. If the West does not soon reject Rousseau and humanism and begin to recognize evil, judge it and confront it, it will find itself incapable of fighting savages who are not noble.

How Can Yahweh Be Perfectly Good and Just and Yet Command Extermination?

(Reasons.org) by Kenneth Samples

Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, asserts that the God of the Old Testament is “a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.”¹

Yahweh, the Hebrew name of the personal God of Israel in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, reveals himself to be the Creator of heaven and earth. As the one true Lord, he is an infinite, eternal, and morally perfect personal deity. Historic Christianity identifies Yahweh as none other than the Triune God who is more specifically unveiled in the New Testament as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Tension arises when examining the Scriptures. The Bible reveals God to be perfectly good (Psalm 145:8-9) and perfectly just (Deuteronomy 32:4) in the very nature of his being. However, the Old Testament states that God personally commanded the army of the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanite nations.

During the conquest of Canaan, God commanded the following to the Hebrews:

“When the LORD [Yahweh] your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (Deuteronomy 7:2).

“However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16).

In response to this frightening divine command, the Hebrew army carried out the following:

“They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys” (Joshua 6:21).

How can this seemingly brutal genocidal command be reconciled with God’s perfect goodness and justice?


Moral Justification for God’s Command

The following seven points help provide the moral context and justification for Yahweh’s command to destroy the Canaanites:

1. While God doesn’t always reveal all the details concerning his sovereign decisions, Scripture indicates that God’s moral will flows from his perfectly good and just nature. Therefore God has morally sufficient grounds for his commands even if those reasons are not fully revealed to humankind. However, in this specific case some of those reasons are evident.

2. God’s command to destroy the Canaanites was motivated by his intention to preserve Israel from the deep moral corruption that would have inevitably resulted through cultural assimilation with the pagan nations. God’s wrathful justice upon the Canaanites resulted in an act of mercy (protection) upon the Israelites. Therefore God’s command to destroy an entire people group nevertheless constituted a moral good.

3. The Canaanites were a morally decadent and reprobate people. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that they practiced such moral abominations as temple prostitution, child sacrifice, and bestiality.² And for hundreds of years they consistently ignored God’s call to repent of their wicked ways (Genesis 15:16). In God’s eyes they were beyond moral rehabilitation.

4. Life in the ancient Near-Eastern world was extremely brutal. And the Canaanite nations viewed the Israelites as their enemies. In this context of warfare among nations God’s command to destroy the pagan peoples was a necessary act of war.

5. God, as the sovereign creator and sustainer of life, has the prerogative to take life at his just discretion (Deuteronomy 32:39; Job 1:21). Because the cosmos belongs to the Lord, he has the ontological right to do as he wishes with his creatures. His only constraint is his moral nature. God is therefore in a different moral category of being than his creatures. He is the ultimate judge of all things. As Christian philosopher Paul Copan notes: “Like Narnia’s Aslan, Yahweh, though gracious and compassionate … is not to be trifled with.”³

6. God’s order to exterminate the Canaanites was not a command to murder (to take human life without just cause). Rather, it constituted a command of capital punishment on a grand scale and therefore reflected a retributive form of justice (the punishment matched the crime).

7. The divine command for the Hebrew army to destroy the Canaanites took place in a unique historical and biblical context. This was not a common or normative event in the life of God’s people. Yahweh is compassionate and patient and remains, in spite of this act, a God of mercy (Exodus 34:6).

Why Such Utter Devastation?

Yet while God had just cause to destroy the Canaanites for their wicked ways, was it necessary to kill all life? Couldn’t the innocent children have been preserved?

Unfortunately, the abominable evil of the Canaanite society had polluted the children as well.⁴

God, who knows the thoughts and intentions of people (Hebrews 4:12), knew that if these children had been allowed to live they would have inevitably infected God’s people with terrible iniquity. The Hebrews had to be “preserved” because they were the very people from which the Messiah would emerge. Additionally, it may be that God took mercy upon these children and granted them divine acceptance in the next life. God’s compassion is deep and wide even in the midst of temporal judgment.

An important lesson to be learned from this great and terrible event is that God loves his people and he will take extreme measures to protect them from moral and spiritual ruin (Romans 8:28).
___________________________________________________

References:

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.

2. Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 261.

3. Paul Copan, “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 1 (Summer 2008), 31.

4. Ronald A. Iwasko, “God of War,” in Christianity for the Tough-Minded, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1973), 99-107.
______________________________________________

Please Note: If you have the chance, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones' article, also on this topic, entitled "We Don't Hate Sin So We Don't Understand What Happened To The Canaanites" (Philosophia Christi 11, no. 1).

Morality, Hollywood Style

(AlbertMohler.com) written by Albert Mohler

Moral hypocrisy is an ugly thing, regardless of its source. Hypocrisy is a moral trap of constant threat -- the price of holding any moral standards at all. To hold to the truth of moral judgment and then to allow for the transgression of that moral judgment is hypocrisy in its essence. The only total escape from the threat of hypocrisy is to forfeit any claim to moral standards at all.

Hypocrisy is found in ample supply among both conservatives and liberals. The conservative variant seems most evident when political or religious leaders are found guilty of transgressing the very principles they preach. The hypocrisy spreads in both extent and significance when those who claim to be conservatives attempting to conserve moral wisdom, excuse those who flaunt their personal disregard for that wisdom.

The liberal variant seems most evident when, for example, moral relativists all of a sudden discover moral scruples. It turns out that even postmodern relativists and the children of the 1960s do believe in moral principles after all. Yet, the cultural left has always found sexual morality most difficult to define or defend.

The other liberal variant that so often appears is the argument that artists or celebrities or academics are above the morality to which the rest of society is accountable. In the end, the children of the sexual revolution have gravitated toward a sexual morality that boils down to consent. In its essence, this sexual morality holds that anything consenting individuals do with each other sexually is beyond moral censure. And anything means anything. An ethic of consent is all that remains after the ethic of moral rules is discarded in the name of liberation.

That leaves the definition of consent as the issue of central concern. Who can and cannot give adequate consent to sex? Feminists have been quick to point out, quite rightly, that women are often forced into situations in which consent is an illusion. Thus, they have been steadfast defenders of laws and moral codes that protect women from situations in which consent is not genuine. They have insisted, rightly again, that the very young, the vulnerable, and those under threat of harm (such as an employee approached by an employer) cannot grant meaningful consent.

Of course, the most vulnerable are the youngest, and the most vulnerable of all are the youngest when exploited by adults. This moral wisdom -- the wisdom of any sane society -- has been affirmed by virtually all but the most scandalously outrageous figures driven into the moral wilderness.

Until now?

The response of so many Hollywood leading lights to the arrest of filmmaker Roman Polanski now suggests that, at least when it comes to one of their own, sex with children is within the pale. This deserves and demands a closer look.

The cultural left has responded to the arrest a week ago of Polanksi with outrage -- directed not at Polanski but at the arrest.

The facts are not in dispute. Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. The girl had been invited to a "photo session" with the famous director but Polanski gave her alcohol and drugs and then twice had sex with her. Polanski entered a guilty plea based on an agreement that he would not be prosecuted for rape or sodomy (crimes for which he had been indicted). He fled the United States before his sentencing and has generally avoided any nation that has an extradition treaty with the United States. His arrest in Switzerland set off international protests.

The French cultural minister expressed outrage that the United States would demand Polanski's return. Within days, over 100 Hollywood luminaries had signed a petition demanding Polaski's release. Names on the petition included Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Tilda Swinton, and Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein defended Hollywood's defense of Polanski, referring to his sex with a 13-yer-old girl as a "so-called crime" and telling The Los Angeles Times: "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion . . . We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." In other words, our morality is superior to you unartistic types with your moral scruples about sex with children.

As Terry Teachout commented in The Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Weinstein is, of course, a moral idiot." Clearly. The larger question is why so many Hollywood types have jumped so eagerly to defend Polanski. Whoopi Goldberg said on "The View" that what Polanski did "was not rape, rape." Then what is rape, rape?

The Los Angeles Times reported:

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA's Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the "there, but for the grace of God, go I." "I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late '60s and '70s who may have done a lot of things they weren't really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things," Kuntz said. "And it touches on a question that's been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law.

Is the celebrity above the law? The case of Roman Polanski is tragic to the core. He went on to have an affair with a 15-year-old actress even after fleeing justice in the United States. He was always warmly embraced by Hollywood, receiving a standing ovation when he was announced as the winner of an Oscar for "The Pianist." He gave his acceptance speech by satellite broadcast. Hollywood was glad to oblige.

Give Katha Pollitt credit, the feminist left-winger supreme was quick to denounce both Polanski and his Hollywood enablers:

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

The moral gap between Hollywood and "Middle America" is vast, though for some reason many Americans blind themselves to this fact. The Hollywood embrace of Roman Polanski and their outrage at his arrest in Switzerland shines a floodlight on this gap.

Are art and artists above moral accountability? The Hollywood elite seem to believe so -- and even to be willing to lend their names to the defense of the morally indefensible. Is the celebrity above the law? Watch this case closely.

Moral Grounding

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

A common objection to God’s existence is the existence of evil. How could there be a God if there is so much evil in the world? My observation is that in order for that objection to gain any traction, there has got to be real evil or a violation of a real good. You can’t be a relativist and ask this question without being disingenuous. It’s intellectually dishonest if you don’t believe in objective morality to ask about the objective evil in the world. So if there’s a real problem of evil, there has to be real evil. In order for evil to be real, there’s got to be real good. That is foundational.

The objection makes use of a moral standard. If evil is real, then there’s a standard that allows us to identify what is good and what is evil. I think we have the standard built into us and that is why we can look at acts of injustice and immediately know that they are wrong. Our conscience has this ability. I refer to it in the Relativism book as “moral intuitions.” Moral intuition is a way of knowing that’s built into us that we can grasp something that’s true. The thing we grasp is not physical. We’re not looking at it with our eyes. We’re looking at it with a different faculty, but it’s still just as real. This is why people spontaneously react when they see examples of injustice and react, “That’s wrong.”

What makes it so? How is it that things like injustice or cruelty to people or animals are wrong?

We see an act of goodness and it moves us deeply. I think goodness is one of the things that touches us deeply when we watch films that are effective. There is something deep and morally good about an event, a look on the face, a gesture, something noble that happens and it moves us. Consequently, we are deeply touched and maybe even tempted to weep at that moment in the film because something real and truthful that is morally good has been awakened in our heart. So our awareness of objective morality expresses itself both in our awareness of evil and of good.

The grounding question is: Given that there is real evil and good, as well, why is the world the way it is? What properly accounts for this moral feature of the world?

If you are a materialist you cannot answer that question, you cannot explain how morality emerges from material things. There’s no adequate explanation for morality in a purely physical world.

When you reflect on the nature of morality, it has a certain incumbency to it, an oughtness to it. There is an obligation. It isn’t just descriptive, what people did do. It’s what we ought to do. So what best explains this? And obligations seem to be the kinds of things that are held between persons. Therefore, if we have moral laws it seems to suggest there must be a moral law maker, who is the adequate sovereign to make that kind of law obligatory on us.

The existence of objective morality that entails obligation on human beings seems to be best grounded, or accounted for, by the existence of another personal being who himself is the moral law maker and the appropriate sovereign to make such laws that make such demands upon us. That sounds to me a lot like what Christians mean when they say God.

I got some push-back on this particular point from a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy from Purdue when I spoke there recently. He said that just because you have standards it doesn’t mean you have a standard-maker. I said that that wasn’t my argument, that all standards require standard-makers. My argument is more precise than that. My argument is that moral standards, which are a peculiar kind of standard, require a moral maker or one that stands behind it and grounds it in some sense.

Let me give you an illustration that I think makes sense of how this grounding problem works. You can read a newspaper because the skills needed to read newspapers are things that we are capable of developing. So we have the ability to read the information. But what if you said that there are no authors to newspaper articles; there are no delivery boys; there are no editors; there are no headline writers. Those don’t exist. You acknowledge there are newspaper articles, but you deny that there needs to be an explanation for them.

Now that sounds very odd because when you consider the kinds of things that newspaper articles are. They seem to be the kinds of things that require authors. There are thoughts communicated, there are propositional statements that are functions of minds, not matter. No propositions are made of matter. They can be tokened with matter, like ink on a page, but the propositions themselves are not material. Newspaper articles represent the information and propositions, but you say that there is no mind needed for this. That strikes me as really odd.

Newspaper articles, if there are such things, require an explanation. They need grounding, a source. They suggest the existence of authors because that is an adequate explanation for newspapers. I think it’s a perfect parallel with morality. Morality is the kind of thing we also have discovered exists, and it seems to be the kind of thing that requires an author adequate to explain its existence.

So I’m within my epistemic rights to say someone like God is the grounding for morality.

By the way, a common response from atheists to the grounding question is to object that he could be just as moral without God as the theist. Atheists say this all the time. That’s like saying there doesn’t need to be any authors. How do you know? Because I can read really well. Well, the ability to read really well doesn’t have anything to do with the question of whether what you’re reading needs an author. And the ability to behave really well, be moral, and be aware of what moral guidelines doesn’t obviate the need for a moral lawmaker. Those are two separate issues.

Evolution Cannot Explain Morality

(Awakengeneration.com) Frank Turek

Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. Common moral sensibilities (Don't murder, rape, steal, etc.) help ensure our evolutionary survival. There are a number of problems with this view:

1. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?

2. Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler's plan). Does that mean the holocaust was a good thing?

3. Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then what's to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft, and murder are considered moral?

4. Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists). So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong. How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law? And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process? You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you. You don't have a moral obligation to chemistry.

As I mentioned in an earlier post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC Wilmington struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral. One atheist said "not harming people" is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others?

Another said "happiness" is the basis for morality. After I asked him, "Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?," he said, "I need to think about this more," and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people--there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It's just Mother Teresa's opinion against Hitler's.

See also Neil's post: Does our Morality come from our DNA?

crossexamined.org

You Cannot NOT Legislate Morality!

It is often heard in the public square that you cannot "legislate morality." By this, people usually mean that we should not attempt to use the law to enforce a moral point of view. So, for example, you might think abortion is morally wrong. But you have no right to attempt to legislate this moral point of view and, in the process, force your morality on others. Though it may sound appealing and tolerant, this thinking is flawed in several ways.

First, every law legislates a moral point of view. Can you think of one that doesn't? Laws against stealing legislate the moral point of view that it is wrong to steal. Laws against littering legislate the moral point of view that you ought not to litter. Even seat belts laws legislate the moral point of view that individuals ought to protect themselves. So the question is not "Can we legislate morality?" We can legislate morality and we do everyday. The question becomes "Whose morality are we going to legislate?" This brings us to our second point.

Second, everyone is trying to legislate a moral point of view. Let us again look at the abortion issue. Those who are pro-life believe the unborn are valuable human beings who deserve to be protected under the law. Pro-lifers are attempting to legislate their moral point of view that abortion is wrong since it takes the life of an innocent human being. Pro-abortion choice advocates are attempting to legislate their moral point of view that women ought to have the right to choose whether or not they want an abortion. Both sides have a point of view and both sides want their view legislated. Once again, the question is "Whose morality are we going to legislate?"

Third, not only do we legislate morality, but we should. Imagine what would happen to our criminal justice system if morality was not legislated. The murderer and rapist would simply have to be let free. After all, we wouldn't want to force our moral point of view on them that murder and rape are wrong. The truth is, the law is in place to restrain evil and compel good. Good laws are good because they are based on good morals. We should legislate morality because, to put it bluntly, some people are simply morally handicapped and unable to make sensible ethical decisions.

Finally, the often repeated mantra "You shouldn't force your morality on others," commonly appealed to in discussions regarding the legislation of morality, ends up being a self-refuting statement. The person who says "Don't force your morality" is forcing their morality. They are forcing their moral point of view that it is wrong to force moral points of view. It is as if they were to say "Don't force your morality on me like I'm doing to you right now!"

So whose morality should we legislate? Simple: Ours. We should legislate according to the common moral law made aware to all of us through intuition and reason. This does not mean that every apparent ethical dilemma has an immediate and obvious solution. What it means is that recognizing the existence of an objective moral law is the first step if meaningful dialogue is going to take place. Questions regarding moral issues require thoughtful and intelligent answers, not empty slogans intended to stop discussion before it starts. So let's do away with the nonsense and stick with rational discourse.

Recommended Reading:
Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek