Moral Absolutes? (+ critical thought.)

So C-Span must save all the crazies for 1am in the morning. Nathan Tabor believes in moral absolutes. And he believes that the United Nations is threatening that truth. He believes that the original purpose of the United Nations is to usurp national sovereignty.

He believes that "there is really no room to teach a moral and value based educational program." Because as he says they are teaching "correct" thinking instead of "critical" thinking. Meaning that if thinking that if 2+2=5 "makes Johnny feel good" then that is what he will be allowed to learn if the current way of thinking and teaching continues.

I'm sitting here watching him on C-Span's Book TV and dude is a trip! On his website he asks, "who does your allegiance lie with? The Constitution of the United States? Or the unaccountable, ever-expanding, bureaucracy at Turtle Bay?"

Essentially he sees the U.N.'s major threat being that it is leading the attack against the idea of there being certain moral truths that are unchangeable. He teaches us that one day the U.N. will take over the world and implement a New World Order, taxing everyone on earth and reserving the right to maintain a standing army for itself.

But it seems so odd that he supports critical thinking yet is against the critique of certain man-declared "moral absolutes"? And what's with this mild obsession with nationalism and this desire to want to remain separate from the rest of humanity? He's spitting on the idea of "we are all one" as if it were a sentence to death or hell on earth. I can't help but feel like this dude is the one looking to make himself [i.e. the metaphorical little Johnny] feel better through adopting a world view that supports his position of power, perceived or otherwise.

Supposedly, he's making me fear the U.N. because it has already encroached on my national sovereignty through the creation of "world heritage sites" like the Statue of Liberty. So now, since the evil Bill Clinton has helped make it a heritage site, the U.S. must get permission from the U.N. if it wants to make major changes to the look of the statue. And of course, this is only the first step!

Seriously though, I guess really I might not be against the idea of moral absolutes. The problem is that so many humans seem to think they've actually acquired enough godliness that they are now able to articulate and dictate exactly what these moral absolutes are.

I don't think anyone knows these moral absolutes, these laws of nature. I think we may observe them and interpret them as best we can over time. And I think we can pass down those interpretations and observations down through generations [tradition, culture, etc] and I think it is very much possible that these interpretations and observations can be improved upon through disciplined and consistent living and learning.

Which brings me to my point. Rambling rhetorical BS like this dude's book serve no useful purpose to humanity because they add nothing of value to the conversation or to the discovery of these so-called moral absolutes. All he seems to be doing is grabbing someone else's interpretation that may or may not be outdated and making a sign and going into the streets. So in fact he is neither pursuing a fresh interpretation and observation, or continuing an established traditional interpretation and observation by living it and learning it.

In other words, he is not intimate with any actual pursuit of these treasured "moral absolutes" [what others see as laws of nature or as a natural order of things] -- not the one he claims to be representing or any other. He dismisses the possibility of finding these moral absolutes through a process of dialogue with the rest of humanity and he fails to even connect with the very tradition that he has chosen to emulate. In short, dude is a failure thus far in his life's mission.

But hey it's just Book TV at 1am. Now I'll watch Paul Fussell, author of "The Great War and Modern Memory", talk about how those who didn't engage in physical combat during WWII are phonys when they are referred to as "soldiers" when in fact they are simply "truck drivers" and other miscellaneous things that supposedly any normal wimpy civilian could do. Matter of fact, nah, I think I'll just go to bed.

We're a human development centered cooperative, producing in part through the generous and faithful contributions of our North Star members. Choose your membership: Annual ($36), Monthly ($3), ($5), ($10), ($15), ($30), ($70), ($200), ($500), ($1000).