Recently, a mindless wonder I managed to encounter online argued that morality is subjective. His statement came in light of the case brought before the Supreme Court a couple of days ago, where it is deciding whether or not homosexuals should be recognized as allowed to marry.
I had to wonder whether this individual either knew what it meant to be subjective or the implications of his assertion. For to be subjective merely means that an idea is a matter of personal opinion.
According to dictionary.com, it defines subjective as,
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.
When applied to morality, what one person thinks is right may be countered by another person’s opinion who believes it is wrong. There is no absolute arbitrator on whatever the issue is, and if things become heated enough, the issue is settled by force.
That reality led me to explain that if the homosexual crowd really wants to push the issue of subjective morality, then what is to stop the person who wants to murder the homosexual? If morality is purely subjective, then that would apply to murder as well. Following the homosexual’s outlook on morality, and those who sympathize with them, then said murderer would be justified in his actions.
Of course the person arguing with me attempted to fall back on current law which outlaws murder.
Sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If morals are subjective, then that would apply to the law.
In fact, the law is rendered moot, since it would have been subjectively put into place. And just who left whom the objective right to impose laws on society, much less the authority to enforce those laws, if all matters of right and wrong, moral and immoral, are matters of personal opinion?
The answer is, no one has, in a subjectively driven world.
Of course, those confronted with that reality clamor, whine, and complain about it, but it does not change a thing, nor should it. Those in the homosexual community, and those who support it, are not intelligent enough, wise enough, or perfect enough to substitute their subjective opinion for objectively reality.
Therefore, the murderer would be as equally just in murdering the homosexual, as the homosexual would be in trying to impose his/her will upon the murderer and the rest of society. It is just that the murderer’s right would be vindicated by force, since his subjective will was more assertive than the homosexual’s.
The point is, morality cannot be subjective, nor subjectively based. Otherwise, before long, one is faced with an endless menagerie of irrational and self-defeating instances whereby, except for tyrannical force, the whole of society would totally collapse upon itself.
Morality is objective, and only when that is affirmed, can sense overcome nonsense, the murder is prevented from murdering anyone (lest he/she pay the ultimate penalty), and the homosexual is seen for what he/she truly is: an immoral, sexual pervert.
The problem, though, is that those in the homosexual crowd do not want to recognize God as the object of morality. And that being the case, then no one should listen to their pleas for equality, much less their cries for mercy when the murderer decides to take them out. In fact, the latter should be applauded by none other than those supporting the homosexual cause.
Let them wallow in their subjective world of morality, and all the tyranny that naturally flows from their rejection of a objectively driven moral standard that would otherwise save their lives.
After all, tyranny is ultimately what the homosexuals wants for everyone, if they are correct and morals are nothing but matters of opinion. So, why not at least let them be the first to enjoy the rotten fruit of their subjective labor? Let the murdering begin!
