So, whenever I discuss politics, there is inevitably one person in the group who takes a moral stance, e.g. "I think X is wrong, therefore X should be illegal." It's annoying, and stupid, and also annoying. It's a bad argument in general. While it may have a deep seated place in your heart, just know that whenever you use this point in a debate, it holds the same water as "I like X, therefore X should be the norm," or "Steak tastes good, vegetarianism should be illegal." If you really think something is true morally, and your conviction is that strong, take your time to do your research and be able to explain why it's true or, more importantly, why everyone else should think the same way you do.
I, being Mormon, spend a lot of time with Mormons, and so this is who I tend to see making this mistake the most. For example, I get that as a Mormon you are against drugs and see smoking Maui Wowie as almost murder. I, as a Mormon, am against using drugs. But you can't say "drugs are bad" when a person discusses the positives of legalizing marijuana in the United States and act like that's a rebuttal to points about tax benefits, safety through regulation, and the collapse of drug cartels (if you want we can talk about this later, for now ignore the message and focus on the idea). And now I have the ultimate proof that Mormons can't use the "X is bad" argument in an un-ironic fashion.
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
The eleventh Article of Faith discusses that we worship according to our own conscience (according to what we believe) and that we allow all men the same privilege (to worship or believe according to their conscience). Therefore, if we say "X is morally wrong," we must admit that our opponent's argument, "X is morally right/X has no intrinsic moral value," is to be treated as as valid as our own.
This is not to support the idea of moral relativism, something I myself don't believe in. I believe that for every situation there is a category of "right" responses and a category of "wrong" responses (I say categories because I am in love with the "good, better, best" approach to morality-not all wrong things are equally wrong, and not all right things are equally right). But I am saying that in a situation where you are attempting to expand the influence of your beliefs beyond yourself (politics) you need to justify your opinion.
I am also not against people trying to influence others based on their beliefs. That's what politics is. We get this great uproar of "Don't shove your beliefs down my throat!" when we discuss issues such as sexuality and drug use, but no one seems to think the state is doing a bad job of shoving our beliefs about violence down the throats of murderers or our (markedly arbitrary) beliefs about the age that it's okay to start having sex down the throats of pedophiles. Society is a group of people coming together to create a compromise of beliefs among a group of people and then applying that compromise to everyone: it infringes upon the individual to create a better situation for the whole. But that's the kicker: compromise.
Don't come to me and expect me to compromise my beliefs unless you can prove why it's better for me or society as a whole. Let's see some evidence. Stop talking about the morality of policy decisions and let's start talking about the effects of policy decisions. Morally I've already decided what I'm doing ("As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"), so if you want me to change you've got to approach from a new angle. Otherwise, you're casting your pearls before swine.
No comments:
Post a Comment