You will notice, when observing heated debates about various issues in our society that those engaged in battle do not actually discuss whether the actions they are debating are right or wrong. The arguments are being conducted on a different battlefield than the real one. The deceivers hope by winning a battle on one battleground to have an assumed victory on the other. It is like defeating Jimmy on tennis court one and assuming you have beaten the world champion on center court at Wimbledon.
Let’s take the example of homosexual “marriage”–although one could take any number of current debates and apply the same critique.
The arguments for homosexual marriage are only three: sentimentalism, utilitarianism and political correctness. The sentimental argument goes like this: “Kevin and Fred are really nice guys. They love each other. I don’t know why you have to be so negative and judgmental!!!” The sentimental argument in this case, as in most issues in our society is usually the first and predominant one. The problem with it is that your emotional judgment is only as valid as the next person’s. Why should your affection and warm feelings towards Kevin and Fred trump my feelings of repugnance at what they do? Is there any reason why your kindly feelings are any more valid as a form of argument than my feelings of disgust? We think that kindly feelings are “nicer” in some way and therefore better, but that is in itself, a sentimental argument. Feelings of disgust are proper and fine when the thing considered is disgusting. When I step in dog poop and walk it all across the new carpet my feelings of disgust are correct.
The sentimental argument is specious. So is the utilitarian argument. The utilitarian argument goes like this: “Civil marriage provides stable and permanent legal and social standing to homosexual couples. This will help them to normalize and stabilize their relationships, provide peaceful co-existence between them and those with whom they disagree and provide a stable and secure psychological and social background for them and their families so they can contribute positively to society.” Nice. Sounds good. However, with all utilitarian arguments there is an underlying flaw. There is nothing wrong with a utilitarian argument. The problem is if the argument is only utilitarian.
If the usefulness of the proposition is the only criteria for it’s acceptance, why then anything which is useful is good. I have written much more on the tyranny of utilitarianism here. Suffice it to use an example: let us say that it is much more economical and easy and pain free to terminate the life of grandma as she lies drooling in her nursing home bed. Shall we give her a pill and put her to sleep? Let us argue that a particular group of people like homosexuals or Jews or gypsies are a curse on society and should be first locked away and then eliminated. Shall we do so because we have convinced ourselves that it is useful? Of course not. A utilitarian argument may therefore be a useful argument, but if it is the only argument, then it is not useful, but dangerous, for it lays the precedent for other “useful” argument that bring horror
The third argument is for political correctness or civil rights. It goes like this: “It’s Kevin and Fred’s right to marry if they want to! This is a free country! They have the right!” The problem with this argument is who determines what is a civil right and what is not? Is it majority rule? When has the majority ever been right about anything? Read More…