Any moral obligation that requires another person to sin for one person to do the right thing is logically impossible because moral obligations are what one should do: if obligations exist, they do not involve making someone else do that which is morally wrong. This is an obviously incoherent concept, but Christians and non-Christians who hold to invalid complementarian ideas ignorantly persist in things like pressuring all men to be leaders when there are not even enough leadership roles for all men in the first place (this is just one of many examples of sexism against men that are not challenged enough). Complementarian men and women are just too stupid to even begin noticing the very overt, inescapable logical errors in complementarianism such as this one.
Of course, since it is impossible for all men to be obligated to lead, whether formally or informally, then the very notion that men should all try to lead at the expense of other men or women getting the chance to lead is untrue. Again, no moral obligation that is even logically possible will involve making one person do something evil in order for another person to do good; this would be like saying that every person must kill someone wicked in order to be righteous, when such an obligation would require that some people sin first, making this obligation an utter impossibility. No one has to commit a morally wrong act outwardly or inwardly in order for someone else to do that which they should do.
It should not be difficult at all for anyone who is not a slave to philosophical assumptions, upbringing, or personal preferences to see that nothing about having a male or female body means one will have any particular personality traits or talents. The fact that the contrary idea is an inherent non sequitur fallacy totally disproves the whole of complementarianism from its foundation upward. This is a logical proof that the supposed biological basis for complementarianism is objectively false, which remains true in spite of whatever emotional attachment someone might have for complementarianism, whatever sense of security or familiarity it holds for them, or whatever nonsense their family members or friends will think about them if they were to embrace the truth.
Most people do not stop at even believing the idiotic idea that men and women have nonphysical differences pertaining to their personalities and psychological states--even though this is not just possible but unproven, but literally false and demonstrably false at that. They say that men and women have different obligations so that if a man were to do certain things as opposed to a woman or a woman as opposed to a man, he or she would be in moral error while the opposite gender would not be. However, if something is morally obligatory, it is good and obligatory in itself, not because of the gender of someone who does it. If murder is evil, it is not more or less evil for men or women. If rape is evil, it is not less evil or not evil when women do it.
Then there is the further stupidity of thinking something like the idea that men should all lead women and other men when not only does not every man have the personality and talent for this, but the very act of leading other men means not everyone is able to be a leader and thus some men must be put in an "immoral" position (though this is absolutely not immoral on the Biblical worldview) for others to lead, which is so often mistaken for a morally necessary thing for men in particular. Immorality on one person's part cannot be necessary for someone else to be morally good. At every level whatsoever, these complementarian ideas are both contradicted by the Bible and, more importantly, the necessary truths of logic itself, which means they are false by default inside or outside the context of Christianity.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment