Tuesday, March 20, 2007

I don't like it. So I'm taking my ball and going home!

Big week in morality. Sadly, reasoning never fits in to the discussion. The sequence is always pretty much the same. It starts with someone (Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) saying a behavior is immoral:

“My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral…I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

Next, someone (Senator John Warner [Rep. VA]) disagrees:

“I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's views that homosexuality is immoral.”

Finally, someone (the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network) demands an apology:

General Pace must offer an immediate and unqualified apology for his remarks

Just once, only once, I'm begging, please, ONE TIME, won't someone ask the simple question: Why is the behavior in question immoral? Why is it that when it comes to morality, people don't seem to think they need a "reason" for their beliefs? Is morality simply a matter of opinion? That's what the general now says:

In expressing my support for the current (don't ask, don't tell) policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct

I find the people who are most likely to call others "immoral" are the same to use the phrase "moral relativism" as an insult. But if people don't feel the need to provide a reason for their position on morality, and fall back on the "it's my opinion" stance, doesn't that simply mean morality is relative to whatever your opinion is? Hey, everyone has a right to an opinion. But some opinions suck.
Come on, general, what's your criteria for judging a behavior immoral? Hey, Senator Warner, you got some criteria for judging a behavior immoral, and have you found that homosexuality doesn't fit that criteria? And hey, SLDN, do you really need an apology from everyone who offends you?

No comments: