Entries Tagged as ''

Larsen loses to logic again

In his article of May 27, A Matter of Law and Rights, Richard Larsen states, “the fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. It has never been and never will be an absolute.” Larsen’s problem is he makes moral judgments throughout his article. He attacks religious people and conservatives for being, “misguided,” “part of groupthink,” tyrannical, and extremely prejudiced. If there are no moral absolutes, then from what basis does Larsen make these claims? Why are they wrong while he is right? His diatribe simply equates to writing, “go Dodgers, boo Angels,” since he is making a moral statement and there are no moral absolutes.

Larsen proclaims slavery, suffrage, and interracial marriage are examples of change in American morality. This is odd, since if he simply touts change, then we could return to racism and bondage without being wrong because there are no moral absolutes. On the other hand, if he wants to cite these as examples of moral progress, it is equally strange. If there are no moral absolutes, there can be no evolution, there can only be change. In order for progress to be made, there must be a goal. Without moral virtues, there is no goal to attain to and there is only change, not progress. Larsen also writes, “if people cannot see errors in their thinking,” but if there is no absolute morality, then what counts for errors? In fact, what would Larsen say if the 13th Amendment (outlawing slavery) was repealed? He would be unable to say it was right or wrong to do so since there are no moral absolutes.

Lastly, Larsen claims, “the will of the people stops the moment it infringes on the rights of others.” This sounds very noble, but even he admits, “just as one man’s freedom of speech stops at the door of another.” What is he trying to point out? Each person has the rights as long as they stay out of other people’s business is great, but we arrest people for animal abuse even if it takes place in the privacy of their own home. The will of the people can raise my taxes and that not only kicks down my front door, but busts open my bank.

It is difficult to understand Mr. Larsen’s (lack of) logic. He claims some people are horrible, while claiming there are no moral absolutes. He desires morals to improve, but since there are no moral absolutes, they cannot. He wants the voters to stay out of each others’ homes, yet there are evils for which he would (I assume) demand people be arrested. I do not know if Mr. Larsen is right or wrong, but neither can he if there are no overarching morals.

Homosexual marriage and the law of identity

The California state supreme court invalidated a law (approved by the voters) which limited marriage to a, ‘union between a man and a woman.’ I understand the purpose of the court is to ensure laws which are passed, even by the voters themselves, comply with the Constitution and legal precedent, but I also thought their decisions should comply with the laws of logic.

One of the basic laws of logic is the law of identity, A=A. this is meant to show that each thing has is own essence or its own identity. Therefore, if what we define as a union between a man and a woman
is marriage, then anything else we call marriage should share the same essence. Homosexual unions do not. If marriage is defined, as it has been for thousands of years, then to call a new type of union a new name is more than reasonable. Should we have started calling telephones “telegraphs” because a lot of people like that name and we wanted people to accept telephones? No, because they are not telegraphs. The main reason to call homosexual unions marriages is to make them feel better. It is philosophical, not practical.

I know courts are being accused of redefining laws, but redefining logic? Probably not a good policy for them to pursue.