Nietzsche's Abyss

Dinesh D'Souza writes in a recent Christianity Today on another well-known atheist, ethicist Peter Singer.  D'Souza writes:

Nietzsche's argument is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity. It is because we are created equal and in the image of God that our lives have moral worth and that we share the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nietzsche's warning was that none of these values make sense without the background moral framework against which they were formulated. A post-Christian West, he argued, must go back to the ethical drawing board and reconsider its most cherished values, which include its traditional belief in the equal dignity of every human life.

Singer resolutely takes up a Nietzschean call for a "transvaluation of values," with a full awareness of the radical implications.

Read the rest to see what those implications are.

Facts of Life

Evidently a British children's show has come under fire for having a disabled host.

Cerrie Burnett was born with only one hand, which has caused trouble among some viewers:

In one chat room, a father lamented that Burnell being on the show forced him to have conversations with his child about disabilities.

To put this bluntly: it is your responsibility as a father to have that conversation!  Perhaps it is an annoyance to be "forced" to have the conversation at a certain point, but you need to have it.  And keep in mind, some people suffer from more troublesome annoyances, such as having only one hand.

Another commenter, DoYouHaveKids?, said:

Do any of you who think this is so "unbelievable" actually have kids? It's very hard, as a parent, to have every social issue jammed down the throat of your kids before they even hit first grade.

I am aware that kids these days do get every social issue thrown at them early on, especially when those issues often have a moral element that parents may disagree with, and have a right to do so.  And those supporting throwing moral issues at them may justify it terms of my title for this post; that is, such behaviors are parts of the facts of life, and any disagreement is willful ignorance.  Perhaps viewing moral discussions with such blithe resignation is easier if one waters down his ideals (see my previous post)¹.  But: is this some sticky social issue? I don't think so.

Alternatively, commenter Rich said:

As a person with a disability, I am absolutely disgusted reading about the parent who complains about having to talk to his child about disabilities. As a child, I was subjected to humiliation and cruelty by my peers who obviously had learned such behaviors from their parents. A little enlightenment and sensitivity training would not have been amiss for those little brats.  

While the "sensitivity training" always raises this blogger's hackles, Rich is on the right track here.  We live in a fallen, broken world, and facing it with both courage and love requires having difficult conversations and not shirking or blaming.  There's no reason to avoid the reality of disability with our children, especially if we are to teach them to treat those with disabilities with love rather than disgust or fear.  

Loe and courage are even more in order when issues with an explicit moral element do arise; chances are, they will arise before you are ready, and you must be willing to face them.  Perhaps not on your terms, but face them you must.

1.  Question: for some, is it really resignation? Or active pursuit?

Incest and its Discontents

Here's something to wrap your mind around.

At Dreher's Crunch Con, read Incest is best for me.

A British academic writes about her relationship with her brother:

"Of course abuse happens, but it can happen in any sexual relationship and there's an expectation that a family member would never hurt you in the way that someone else could. There's no comparison between siblings close in age having sexual feelings and contact and an adult forcing a younger member of the family to do something they neither understand nor want to be involved in...I know this is meant to be wrong, but I've never felt anything so right."

The author then explains the tension occuring now that she and her brother have found other partners, but still keep a special place in their heart for each other.

Rod makes this killer point:

Here's my question, though: If God doesn't exist (that is, if there is no such thing as absolute moral truth), why shouldn't the woman have sex with her brother? They're careful not to risk reproduction, its always been consensual, they enjoy it, and they don't feel guilty. So what's the problem?

Ross Douthat responds:

I think this British essay making the case for incest being no big deal (the title, "I had sex with my brother but I don't feel guilty," more or less tells it) inadvertently makes a pretty good case for why incest is, in fact, a really bad idea - because it corrupts not only the siblings involved, but the lives of the people around them...

But this begs the question--what is corruption? Is it merely the manifestation of these feelings? It can't be that there has been some subtle weakening of a moral code or cultural order if those things are presumed to be social constructions. One might make an argument on purely pragmatic ground--namely, that childless incest creates a cultural precedent that would draw people from child-producing relationships, and, in the long run, contribute to population implosion and social decline. But if it's purely pragmatic, why the revulsion?

I remember in a philosophy class discussing what morality actually is. Some have argued that it's simply a gut-level, emotional response: I don't like that. And while I disagree, I think that when one forsakes both revelation and reason to define morality only in terms of personal preference, a visceral response is all that's left. Deny the soul, remove the head, and all that's left is guts.