Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

eidos

The Worst Argument about Morality on the Internet?

Last updated on: March 20, 2017 at 2:38 am   by John Mark N. Reynolds

The Worst Argument about Morality on the Internet? 2017-03-20T02:38:50-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

photo-1459789587767-1a947412a440_optTake an issue, any issue.

If you make an argument or state an opinion about that issue, let’s call it X, somebody somewhere who agrees with you on the immorality of X, but wants to do X, will say: “How can you care about X when Y is so much worse?”

A common variation is “don’t talk to me about X when Y is happening.”

This might be sensible if the person meant something like this: “X is bad. We aren’t doing X ourselves, but our focus in on Y, because Y is so bad.”  It seems obviously true that when facing Nazis in 1939, Germans should have focussed on arguing against Nazism and spent (far) fewer resources on an issue like littering. However, if one went to an Anti-Nazi Rally and saw a good friend littering, surely one might say: “Hey, let’s use the public trash cans and set a good example.”

At this point, one would surely hear: “How can you care about littering, when Naziism is so much worse?”

I have picked very extreme moral examples on purpose to make a point and because if any of my readers think there is a good case for littering or Naziism, nothing I say on morality will ever help them. Nazism is far worse morally than littering in the park, but note something: the person using the argument is not a Nazi, but is littering. They are committing this (small) moral evil, while not committing the big moral evil.

This is bad. God did not call us to not do great evil that our little evil may flourish.

In fact, because times are so bad and we are on the side of the angels, we may feel we get a moral pass on anything we do. If I am opposed to U (insert your least favorite political leader here), my rudeness is acceptable. We might be mean to all the people we know, but we are fighting U, so our boorish behavior is fine.

No.

We can oppose U and stop littering, tip better, be kind to animals . . . any number of things. The great thing about being human, created in God’s imagine, is that we can do several moral things at once. I have managed to chew gum and not spit it on the sidewalk while walking in a rally opposing X. A person can spend most their time, treasure, and talent on Y and still agree that X is not good and stop doing X.

This is not hard. Someone might ask: aren’t you inconsistent, because you praise great women and men for getting the big thing right even though they made important mistakes?

It does seem true that after they are dead, we should evaluate women and men as important heroes by whether they got the big issue right. Churchill and Martin Luther King both did wrong things or had bad views (Churchill was a colonialist, and King was an adulterer). We can celebrate Washington’s life for the great good he did, even if he owned slaves, but God help us, if we had known Washington, we should have pointed out to the great man that he should not own slaves.

Washington was wrong to own slaves, Churchill was wrong to support colonialism in India, and King was wrong to cheat on his wife. These great men do not get a pass for their evil deeds, just because they got the big issue right. Washington is a role model, because he turned away from political power, when most would have taken it. Churchill was a hero, because he was dogged in opposition to the Nazis when many conservatives were not. King helped lead a peaceful fight against apartheid in America.

We honor them for their virtues, not their vices.

So let’s note that X and Y are bad. We can oppose both with the effort they deserve. If X and Y are both bad, we should not imply that either one is good, because one or the other is worse.

We can get this right. If we don’t, we are wrong!

Culture

Previous Post



March 18, 2017

What will she do? You must read to lead.

Next Post



March 20, 2017 The Consolation of Philosophy is Hard, but Good (I/III)


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to 2 John, anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have what?

Select your answer to see how you score.

God Truth The Holy Spirit Salvation

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »

Related posts from Eidos

Evangelical

Yet I Love Her: History and the Church

Eidos

Evangelical

Vain Repetition

Eidos

Evangelical

The Iceberg is There: Verbosity Cannot Defeat Reality

Eidos

Evangelical

Silence and Jollification

Eidos

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

Creation as Secondary to Judgment

Creating is a most human act. A good canonical (classical) education will...

The REST of Your Life: A Creative Wrestles...

This week I had a conversation with a good friend from church....

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

Psalm 130 | Lectio Divina

Long before this Lectio Divina, Psalm 130 - the song - started...

What About the Trees? Another Living Parable

After I finished writing the last article about falling leaves as a...

Why Classical Education Is a Conversation, Not a...

Come and Read: Joy in Classical Education When I was a little...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube