Zombie Heresies – Modalism Part 2

If we’re going to understand the modalism we see today, we first need to understand the heresy in its original context. Where did modalism come from? Why did Christians find it compelling? How did the Church respond? We’ll cover those questions and more in a brief look at the history of modalism.

Previous Installments
Introduction to Zombie Heresies: https://youtu.be/WhXcjI52eO8
Modalism Part 1: https://youtu.be/J4jlscjse_A

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

The Obsolescence of Racism

My high school days are far enough in the past that they still assigned Shakespeare to students back then. I read Romeo & Juliet freshman year, and remember laughing with my friends about the whole “do you bite your thumb at us” conversation. After all, insults and shaming tactics have a shelf-life of sorts, and the biting of thumbs is archaic to say the least.

I bring it up because America is rapidly approaching the point when cries of “racist” will become similarly archaic.

I was raised at a time when racism was the ultimate sin, and, of course, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia have all been added alongside racism to form the four pillars of thoughtcrime. Regardless of what one’s actions may entail, having discriminatory attitudes is taught as the original sin. Admittedly, this sense of proportion still dominates most American institutions today. Most public figures and institutions still scramble to defend themselves when anyone insults them by applying these labels.

Nevertheless, it’s clear that an enormous change is upon us with respect to these indictments. I was reminded of this in the aftermath of President Trump’s tweets about how certain Congresswomen should try pulling the plank out of their original countries’ eyes before worrying about the speck in America’s. Naturally, the usual cries of racism were raised in response, but this time… nothing happened. An impeachment attempt failed spectacularly , his support actually rose, and he even got a bunch of people chanting “send her back” regarding Congresswoman Omar. Our dying institutions may still get the vapors when the whatever-ist labels are bandied about, but the people simply care less and less.

This shouldn’t be surprising. I’ve written before about how the left has been rigorously destigmatizing racism. We are much likely to encounter the label in response to innocuous microaggressions rather than any real prejudice (the Betsy Ross flag being the most recent kerfuffle.) We all see the blatant hypocrisy where charges of racism only stick when applied to conservatives. What’s more, when academics redefined racism as a matter of structures of privilege in order to make sure only white people could be guilty, they also removed it from the moral realm altogether. After all, there’s nothing immoral about being born into a particular place in society. Likewise, teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish is the epitome of privilege, and far from being a sin, it’s actually a genuine responsibility of parents and society.

The same is quickly going to become the case for the others–sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Racism may have become ridiculous, but these others always have been. The amount of reality-denying that’s required for these charges to be taken seriously is entirely unsustainable–a prospect which no doubt terrifies the people who have built their power and cultural significance on these labels. I suspect the increasingly forced outrage we encounter today has more to do with that than it does with actually helping anyone.

In the long run, racism as the ultimate evil will be just another cultural fad–a term that was truly shaming for a time before becoming as obscure as biting your thumb at someone. And its ok to let it go. We have better words to describe the genuine evils that were originally covered by ‘racism’ umbrella, and we’re all better off without the political bludgeon that the term has become. As for the people and institutions that insist on tying themselves to these sinking ships? Well, they’re effictively deciding to become just as archaic.

Posted in Culture, Politics | Leave a comment

Ending the Equality Lie

It seems that the US women’s soccer team has been making a big stink about the wage gap because they make less the men’s team–as though men’s soccer doesn’t generate an order of magnitude more revenue than women’s. As I’ve written before, the wage gap is essentially a rhetorical sham employed by covetous women as they demand equal pay for unequal work. This instance is no different.

Nevertheless, something has been nagging me as I watch conservatives pointing out the obvious fact that women can’t physically compete with men in sports like soccer. The disparity is so wide that these very women–some of the best female players in the world–were beaten by a team of 15-year-old men down in Texas not that long ago. And as some have suggested, if they really want equality, the men and women should compete against each other for spots on the same teams in the same leagues. That would show ’em.

But would it really?

Everyone apart from a handful of Kool-Aid drinkers already knows that women aren’t the physical equals of men. Ignorance can be remedied by presenting the facts and stubborn ignorance by rubbing their noses in those facts, but we’re dealing with something far worse than mere ignorance. We’re dealing with a fanatical devotion to the broken notion of equality–a faith so blind and a pride so recalcitrant that it actively denies reality whenever it challenges the ideology.

Whenever fanatical equalitarians place men and women into the same physical challenge, they always re-engineer that challenge until there’s a tiny straw of that denial to grasp onto. The “advancement” of women into the military provides a pretty good illustration of this dynamic. Women coveted the honor of soldiers and so demanded that vocation as their own. Of course, that vocation came with some substantial physical requirements–requirements that almost no women could meet. But at every step they take, they simply lower the requirements while claiming they aren’t until more women can meet them. When the natural consequences ensue, they are obfuscated. Now, you have representatives of what was once the greatest military in the world saying that diversity is going to help them win wars. What is integrating soccer going to prove when we’re already adept at ignoring matters of life and death for the sake of blind faith in equality?

I’m not raising this question to tempt us to despair in the face of feminism, but rather to suggest a change, or at least broadening of tactics. To be clear, I’m not saying that we should stop placarding the truth, just that doing so is insufficient. These people are not ignorant–they are fundamentally broken by their own sinful pride. Sinful pride requires a different remedy than what is demanded by ignorance. Or more precisely, it requires two remedies–one for each of the Two Kingdoms.

The sin of pride cannot be healed apart from the repentance which the Holy Spirit works through the proclamation of God’s Word. So in the right-hand kingdom–the Church–the solution is simple: faithfully proclaim God’s Word and administer the Sacraments according to our vocations.

Now, lest anyone take that to mean “just keep doing what you’re doing,” let me put the same thing another way: We need to stop withholding God’s Word from our congregations. The Bible is by no means compatible with feminism. If most Christians think otherwise, then our preaching and teaching have probably been skipping the parts we hate or treating them with skepticism. Too many have also shied away from mentioning all the blood and especially the broken families left in its wake–or at least failing to note their obvious connection with the feminist ideology in which they spawned.

When such teaching is redacted, its likely that the institutional organization of the congregation has also been submitting itself more to worldly standards than to God’s Word. Odds are good that they’ve already been dissolving gender differences in its various roles for awhile. Our churches need to stop starving Christians of the parts of the Bible which impale our sacred cow of equality.

But that’s only one of the two remedies. The one that remains is not for healing, but merely for civilization in a fallen world–the overt restraint of sin so that the harm it does to others is limited. I’ve already mentioned some of that harm, though by no means all of it–much of the sexual deviancy in our society grows from the same foundations, as does the assault on religious freedom.  Make no mistake, eventually, God will take a providential hand, as He always does, and lay down the mighty. There is all manner of trial and tribulation which fall upon such peoples which break their pride.

But that is for God to decide–not us. Our task in the left-hand kingdom is to build and maintain civilization. But what can restrain the kind of wickedness that surrounds us? I’d be lying if I said I had a definitive answer to that question, but my thoughts are continually drawn back to the revival of shame.

If there is one thing the prideful cannot stand, it is shame and scorn. There’s a reason that equalitarians tend to place such a premium on sensitivity. There’s a reason they require safe spaces and trigger warnings. There’s a reason they try to exile everyone with a different view from civil society. There’s a reason they focus so hard on thought-crime (the various -ism’s and -phobia’s) above all else. They cannot psychologically cope with the knowledge that decent, respectable people hold them in contempt–even in their thoughts.

If part of the answer lies there, then that leaves us with at least two tasks. First, we should gather our courage and be open about our disdain for the lies and nonsense that surround us. I do not mean to become busybodies and interject our views at every opportunity. I do mean to unapologetically state our views and refuse to affirm others in their idolatry and wickedness when these errors confront us. Will they call us sexist? Sure, but why should that bother us? We need to learn to shrug off the epithets we’ve been raised to fear and submit ourselves to God’s judgement rather than man’s. Will our boldness cause conflict with the world? Sure, but Christ already promised us that. We have no business being conflict-avoidant in this respect.

Second, we need to support and respect one-another instead of throwing each other to the wolves when the world attacks. One of the ways the prideful try to escape the contempt of respectable people is to paint the respectable as outcasts. Oh, that’s just one of those retrograde fundamentalists; who cares what they say? Well, the reality is that the target of their contempt clearly cares, or they wouldn’t be trying so hard to escape it. Unfortunately, too many of us are afraid to love one another lest we also be seen as one of “those” Christians. We take every excuse to withhold support when we should instead be affirming our outspoken brothers and sisters–for their sake as well as to civilize by making it harder for the prideful to evade their shame.

We’re all sinners, therefore there will always be some basis for finding fault in one another. And we should by no means cease to approach one another privately about such things as Jesus taught us. Nevertheless, we ought not pillory one another in public over subjective peccadilloes like being insufficiently sensitive. Those who do this are looking more to their own worldly reputations than to justice.

Try as you might, you cannot convince people of what they already know. You can, however, tear down their idols, treat their lies as shameful, and treat their degeneracy as disgusting.  Their desperation to annihilate such scorn is indicative of its effectiveness.

Posted in Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Paganism, Politics, The Modern Church | Leave a comment

Zombie Heresies – Modalism Part 1

Have you heard some of the new language many mainline protestants have invented for the Trinity?

Rock, Redeemer Friend…
Lover, Beloved, Love…
Mother, Child, Womb…

We are told that these new metaphors are more inclusive than the old “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” language and will help all of the woke people of today understand God far better than the masculine metaphors of the benighted past.

But far from understanding God better, those who think that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just metaphors in the first place are already falling into an ancient heresy known as Modalism.

Introduction to Zombie Heresies: https://youtu.be/WhXcjI52eO8

Related:
The Father is Not a Metaphor: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=420

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Conclusion

When confronted by transgenderism, Christians stand at a crossroads. We must proclaim the Gospel. We must be creative in finding ways to love those neighbors of ours with unique troubles. But in doing so, we must not submit to the lie. As tempting as it may be to “help” people by following the Spirit of Age, the cost is first our humanity and ultimately our souls.

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830
Part 3: https://youtu.be/yjA92Pno9v8
Part 4: https://youtu.be/sTtG6U9pePM
Part 5: https://youtu.be/UmZh3WP2cfQ
Part 6: https://youtu.be/TtcEXmanmVY

Related:
War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Men Are Women: https://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-men-are-women/

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

Reparations Enslave the Insufficiently Intersectional

There are lots of problems with reparations for slavery. There’s little justice to be found in punishing the descendants of slave-holders and rewarding the descendants of slaves 150 years after the fact. The fact that race is always the proposed proxy for the highly impractical task of determining slave/owner status removes whatever minuscule justice there might have been. There’s no appropriate dollar value to specify as recompense for something like slavery. Neither is there an appropriate dollar value to specify for the lives of non-slaves that were lost ending slavery to offset the first cost. Since slavery has been ubiquitous in most civilizations, nearly everyone has had both enslaved and slave-holding ancestors at some point. And also because slavery has been ubiquitous, the most unique aspect of slavery in the West was ending the practice–making it a really odd thing to try and punish. I could go on, but my point is that from beginning to end, the entire enterprise is a futile attempt to put toothpaste back in the tube on a mammoth scale.

But even apart from that long list of problems, there is one key reason that I would never in a million years endorse reparations of any kind: As a father, I would never willingly and deliberately make slaves of my own children.

Take an honest look at the current civil rights moment and ask yourself: Do you or anyone else really imagine that the first round of reparations will be enough? Do you think that you can pay into the grievance industry sufficiently that they will never seek any more from you? For that matter, was there ever a human being other than Jesus Christ who didn’t feel entitled to at least a little bit more than what he already had?

The entire grievance industry now thinks in terms of nebulous concepts like privilege and microaggressions that are perceived absolutely everywhere. No amount of reparations will do anything to change that, and there will always be more “sins” to discover which will inevitably require more recompense. It’s not as though there is any correct amount for reparations in the first place–this isn’t a mortgage with an objective “paid in full” status. Once any amount is paid, it will be almost immediately followed by cries of “not good enough.” If reparations are ever granted, they will inevitably be granted in perpetuity.

One would also have to be a fool to think that reparations will be limited to the subject of slavery. The civil rights movement already has any number of other parasitical identity-groups trying to get a slice of its cultural power and significance–and many have been pretty successful as a result. They will, without doubt, continue their practice with reparations. One doesn’t even have to hypothesize about this anymore. Elizabeth Warren has already called for reparations for LGBT people due to lost tax benefits associated with marriage. Every last identity group with its own grievance studies departments will ultimately demand reparations of some kind or another.  And in every case, they will be demanded from the one group without its own grievance studies department: white Christian men.

I am a white Christian man. I have white Christian sons. What kind of monster would I have to be to deliberately subject my own flesh and blood to an unending cavalcade of the perpetually aggrieved constantly demanding their resources because they happen to have been born with a low intersectionality score? Would becoming such a monster somehow make the world more just? There’s neither honor nor justice in paying for slavery by subjecting your own children to it. It might be an historical irony that the descendants of slave-holders would eventually become slaves themselves, but how bad of a parent would you have to be to sacrifice your own children on the altar of historical irony?

Posted in Family, Politics | Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Part 6

There are a number of ways that adopting another gender can appear therapeutic–that it soothes some of the hurt of severe alienation. But is the best explanation for this experience the assertion that one really is another gender? Can our feelings really determine our identity? Or is there another option that makes a whole lot more sense?

After all, if a boy who thinks he’s a girl is really a girl… then what does “girl” actually mean?

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830
Part 3: https://youtu.be/yjA92Pno9v8
Part 4: https://youtu.be/sTtG6U9pePM
Part 5: https://youtu.be/UmZh3WP2cfQ

Referenced:
I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/10/i-was-americas-first-non-binary-person-it-was-all-a-sham/
Ex-transgender Man Now Wants to Live as Sexless Alien: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/ex-transgender-man-now-wants-14071689

Related:
Transgenderism Eats its own Tail: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=778

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

Disgusting Things Ought to Disgust Us

About a year ago, I came across a rather nasty news story about a house in Iowa. Neighbors were complaining about the smell and eventually the police were called to investigate. As it turns out, there were dozens of cats in the house, some living, some not, and their waste had accumulated to a depth of roughly 6 inches throughout the home.

Even apart from obvious issues of health and animal welfare, situations like this are fundamentally disgusting. And everyone knows that it’s disgusting—its so revolting that absolutely everyone would recoil from living in a home like that.

Except… it’s not absolutely everyone. After all, at least one person was quite willing to live in such a disgusting manner—the homeowner who allowed the situation in the first place.

That’s the thing about disgust. It’s an incredibly useful feature of our innate emotional life that helps prevent our circumstances from devolving into all manner of wretchedness. But at the same time, it’s a feature that we train. Like shame, our sense of disgust is something that needs to be cultivated as we mature.

A well-formed person ought to be disgusted by disgusting things.  It’s entirely possible to become disgusted by something benign or positive (for example, just look at how so many of us see motherhood, fatherhood, and children in the West.) And, as we can see from the cat scenario, we can also be trained to become used to something that should be utterly revolting. How can someone live with 6 inches of cat feces covering the entire floor? It’s actually pretty simple: one turd at a time that they just didn’t think was worth cleaning up.

Why am I bringing this up? Because of something that we should find even more revolting than living in a house full of cat shit:

That is so disgusting that I feel soiled just having it on my blog. Unfortunately, words alone don’t do it justice, and the subject must be done justice because there are forces at work in our society trying to retrain our sense of disgust so that this kind of thing is accepted. And it happens exactly the same way as the cat house: one small turd at a time that people don’t want to bother cleaning up.

There are any number of ways they try to normalize this grotesquery. One of the most recent examples is “Drag Queen Story Time” cropping up at libraries across the nation—including my own local library this weekend. These are “family friendly” performances in which an adult cross-dressing degenerate does an exotic dance in front of a roomful of kids while their abusive parents encourage them to give the dancer money. This is accompanied by mass media fawning over children who follow perverted examples because they were praised for doing so by the very people who were responsible for them. And, of course, there’s the constant cry of “BIGOT! HATER!” against anyone who dares point out what anyone with an un-seared conscience knows.

This retraining of disgust is the same purpose behind the massive over-representation of LGBT characters in film and television. It’s the reason every new character in the Arrowverse needs to be gay. It’s the reason the guy in Capt. America’s support group in Avenger’s Endgame needed to be gay. It’s the reason My Little Pony needed gay ponies. And, of course, this was all preceded by the normalization of all manner of fornication and the vilification of natural family through the same means.

None of this is accidental. It’s precisely how “grooming” works for pedophiles. They try to get their targets used to small actions they would ordinarily find disgusting so that when they finally act, the child’s revulsion doesn’t reflexively kick in and interfere until its too late. Right now, the Spirit of the Age is grooming both children and parents at the same time. It wants the kids growing up thinking disgusting things are normal. It also wants the parents to back off from our God-given responsibility to train and attune our children’s innate sense of disgust towards disgusting things. It makes sure our kids are exposed to a constant diet of perversion while making parents so scared of being seen as pearl-clutching bigots that we fail to do anything about it.

Parents, you cannot afford to step aside. This will not pass you or your family by.  Whether you stand alone or with others, you need to know what is going on and refuse to submit to it no matter how loudly people scream “bigot” at you.  Do not let it pile up so deeply in your children’s lives that you all become used to it.

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
-1 Peter 5:8-10

Posted in Christian Youth, Culture, Family, Politics | Leave a comment

Understanding Transgenderism – Part 5

We all want to be part of something greater than ourselves–to have a place where we truly fit as individuals, but which also transcends us as individuals. Unfortunately, for the past few generations, we have been deliberately destroying the most common ways that most of mankind has historically found that kind of identity. One cannot truly understand the attempt to find identity in opposite or invented genders without first understanding this broader crisis of identity in the West.

Previous Entries in the Series:
Part 1: https://youtu.be/6BUhdqYg-nk
Part 2: https://youtu.be/sU69EpFR830
Part 3: https://youtu.be/yjA92Pno9v8
Part 4: https://youtu.be/sTtG6U9pePM

Related:
Between Babel & Pentecost – A Christian Analysis of Multiculturalism:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcZRo9Rv_Y&list=PLX6FbF_kC8FA44_ewZRw8l7kdqk9Y5fZY
A Self-Imposed Poverty of Identity:  http://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=1259

You can find more of my material at…
The 96th Thesis: http://matthewcochran.net/blog/
The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/author/matthewcochran/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Though-Were-Actually-True-Apologetics-ebook/dp/B01G4KWQJW/

Leave a comment

The Violinist Lives

It takes a special kind of person to go all-in on supporting abortion even after recognizing it as deliberately killing an innocent human being. I’ve recently seen one such example passed around Twitter like a bad case of herpes. In it, feminist Sophie Lewis argues for abortion on the grounds that it releases women from enforced “gestational work.” Abortion is killing, she admits, but it’s a justified killing due to “the violence that, innocently, a foetus metes out vis-a-vis a gestator.” She proposes that the “gestator” who doesn’t want to keep doing that work should be able to quit her job or go on strike. The argument is part of a promotional snippet for her new book, Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family (as though there were ever any other kind of feminism.)

It’s certainly vile, but there’s nothing new about this argument–that an unborn child is a violent aggressor who can be treated as such. At the very least, it least goes back to the “violinist argument” made by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971 who suggested the following analogy:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. . . . To unplug you would be to kill him. But… it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

The point of this analogy is that, just like a person would be justified in unplugging the violinist from her body because his right to live does not require her to serve as an external kidney, a person would be justified in aborting an unborn child who has no right to live by parasitically using his mother as a host. As revolting as it may be, this kind of argument is particularly compelling to libertarians and others who place great value on personal autonomy—basically those who bury their heads so far up the non-aggression principle that they can no longer discern what counts as aggression.

As an argument, it fails because it’s not a particularly good analogy. Its most damning error is to conflate the relationship between a mother and her child with the relationship between two strangers–you and a random violinist. Lewis makes exactly the same mistake when she renders “a mother and her child” in Newspeak as “a foetus and its gestator.” Strangers have a certain kind of responsibility towards one another, but it does not require the kind of lengths necessitated by the violinist’s situation. That would just be slavery. Mothers, on the other hand, have a much more robust set of responsibilities toward their own children, such as caring for, nourishing, and protecting them. When a mother rejects such responsibilities, we rightly call it neglect or abandonment.  Just as a mother does not have the freedom to eject a toddler from her home as an intruder, neither does she have the freedom to eject an even younger child from her womb—the only means by which she can fulfill her responsibilities before birth.

Although the argument remains garbage, it’s nevertheless worth considering what could lead a person into such mental and spiritual poverty that she could mistake a mother and child for strangers in the first place.

The stereotypical Puritan was supposedly a prude scandalized by the gritty details of sexual activity. Sex was a necessary evil for the continuation of the human race, but otherwise it was dirty, unnatural, and ought to be done through a hole in the sheets. There was never much truth to that caricature, but ironically, many who mock those alleged prudes have become prudes themselves. They may not see illicit sex acts as anything to ashamed of, but when it comes to the natural consequences of those acts, they recoil. They have become so scandalized at the thought that sex is procreative that it brings to mind an seven-year-old boy saying, “Babies come from where? Ew, that’s gross!”

The disgust with which these people view human nature is palpable. How else could one envision the womb as a nightmarish medical contraption straight out of a horror movie? How else could one view her own unborn son or daughter as a violent slave-driver simply for needing to be with their mother? From extreme examples like this, to everyday high school health classes which treat pregnancy as just another STD to protect oneself against, it’s the same sad story. The thought of a human life growing inside a woman as a result of intercourse and being nourished directly by her body has become something from which people turn away in disgust. Like the stereotypical prude, if such people had been involved in human design, they no doubt would have come up with a more sterile and convenient means of reproduction—perhaps something akin to what we read in Brave New World, in which humans are manufactured rather than conceived, born, and raised.

In the end, that very notion of design becomes the crux of the matter. Once we deny the idea of God deliberately designing the family, we eventually lose the idea that there is anything special about familial relationships except whatever we project onto them. And as we  grow ever more terminally selfish as a culture, we’re less likely to recognize any such value at all. If humanity as we know it happened to emerge through wholly arbitrary processes, the relationship between a mother and a child is really just a chance occurrence. It would have no more moral force than a a relationship between strangers.

Nevertheless, such a nihilistic perspective is a double-edged sword. If one accepts that the relationship between a mother and her child is sufficiently arbitrary or meaningless to preclude responsibilities, then surely the relationship between strangers loses such significance as well. Strangers are oriented to each other even more arbitrarily than a mother and child. And yet, even the violinist argument is founded on the ideas that the violinist does not have a right to treat a stranger in a particular way and that the person to whom he is attached does have a right to respond in a certain way. But why? If even a child can be disposed of by its own mother for her sake, then why can’t the subject of the argument be disposed of by the violinist for his own sake? If human life is without any value except its utility and desirability, then we are all merely consumable resources for the strong, and the actions of the violinist and the Society of Music Lovers are just as appropriate as those of vampires like Lewis.

It all seems like a high price to pay simply for the convenience of murdering our own children.

Posted in Abortion, Apologetics, Ethics | Leave a comment