A command like that of Deuteronomy 22:22 or Leviticus 20:10 to execute people for adultery, on the testimony of two or three eyewitness, of course, only ever seems to be popular among two general groups of people: those who are emotionally or culturally offended by it and those who are frightened of how they would deserve to die if an obligation to execute such people exists. This kind of execution being just is a logically possible thing that is almost universally dismissed even as a legitimate possibility all because of emotionalism. A further layer of stupidity is the fact that people whose spouses have committed adultery might even want to kill for this, and I mean carrying out murder instead of a restrained execution as a reaction to genuine evidence of adultery.
As if many men and women do not or would not fly into a murderous, emotionalistic rage upon finding their significant other, not even necessarily their spouse, cheating on them (which is in and of itself nothing more than literal sex with someone else while in a committed, monogamous relationship)! As if none of them would ever wish or inflict worse than mere murder on either offending party out of subjective persuasion that their own petty preferences have any sort of moral weight at all! Their hypocrisy is not even subtle when they lash out at things that are not even adulterous or talk about how they would or will violently react to an adulterous spouse--or whoever he or she committed adultery with.
Yet the moment someone brings up the genuine logical possibility that killing people for adultery in non-torturous ways is just, the morally mandatory and deserved thing to do, they will almost certainly pretend like such a thing is impossible all because they do not like it. With or without Biblical theology attached to it, such people will reject a legitimate possibility (if something does not contradict logical axioms, then if it is not true, it could have been true, and there is no way to prove it is not true that adultery deserves death) about justice that they themselves would go beyond without even looking to reason or morality, only their own irrelevant consciences or bursts of emotionalistic desire. They are hypocrites who might not even be rational enough to realize on their own that they are hypocrites in such an obvious way.
Just as many people pay lip service to hating murder but still talk as if they would murder people if the circumstances were right or if they simply felt justified in doing so--I mean actual intent, not hypothetical intent if they had a different worldview or personality--they pay lip service to swift execution for adultery on emotionalistic grounds when they might separately murder anyone their partner committed adultery with. This is one of the grand ironies of a default rejection of certain moral ideas fixed to Christian theology: the people who fallaciously denounce them as cruel would go far beyond the very thing they condemn. All it would take it the opportunity to act on this irrationalism, egoism, and hypocrisy.
The potential dangers of conscience far outweigh the potential dangers of sociopathy in itself, though of course no one is fated to believe in a worldview or act in a certain way because they do or do not have a conscience. It is just that people who are already emotionalistic, which most people already are, and are too stupid and weak to not believe that something is morally good simply because they feel like it is, situationally or otherwise, will inevitably interact with other people in ways tainted by this idiotic moral epistemology. For those who are too irrationalistic to care about the truth of epistemological matters simply for the sake of the truth, when they see how destructive emotionalistic people are, how arbitrary their beliefs are, and how incoherent the ideas behind these beliefs might be, which of course makes their simultaneous veracity impossible, perhaps then they will care.
No comments:
Post a Comment