FEELIN' GOOD

Have you noticed the new, liberating mentality embraced by current culture? If it feels good, do it! Go for it! It must be good! It must be ok! It must be right.

This type of logical processing is a derivative of “emotivism,” the prominent 20th century meta-ethical viewpoint, developed 3 centuries earlier by George Berkeley. Emotivism states that (1) ethical principles do not need propositions, content, and/or meaning; and (2) ethical principles express emotional attitudes. In more simplistic terms, moral behavior is primarily determined as an expression of personal desire.

At this notion, perhaps some quietly mutter an “Amen, brother.” However, lest you respond too hastily in your concurrence, note existing establishments in this country, specifically designed to promote unique, personal desires. For example:

Meet NAMBLA... The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a New York City and San Francisco-based organization that advocates the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between boys and men. Their stated goal is to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships." They believe male children should be “free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences." (Intramuralist’s Creative Word of Wisdom: see definition of the word “pedophile.”) While NAMBLA’s numbers are both secretive and small, a rocket scientist is unnecessary to depict the healthiness of the desire forming the foundation for this organization.

Yes, but if it feels good, do it! Go for it! It must be good! It must be ok! It must be right.

So today’s question is this: what are our laws based upon? Should we substantiate governing based on something greater? On historical precedent? Something more? Or should we substantiate governing based upon how we feel? On feelings that have the potential to merely sway with the wind?

It must be right, right?

Opponents of governing based on something greater are not guilty of a “God-intoxicating bigotry,” as coined by Rod Dreher in this week’s Dallas Morning News editorials; they have simply chosen differently. They have determined that feelings will not substantiate their basis for contemporary cultural debate. They have intentionally chosen a more lasting moral compass. Research the fate of cultures who have based their belief system and their government on more emotive principles; they no longer exist. Hence, one may consider the tenet that just because it feels good, does not make it right.

What serves as your moral compass? Better yet... is it something that will last?

AR