The Decline of God and the Rise of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the underlying source of the cultural problems in the Western World today. People have wrong ideas, feminism being the most serious wrong idea common in the rich world today, but there is a problem that goes even deeper than feminism; that problem being moral relativism.

Moral relativism is a disorder in perceiving the foundational nature of life, feminism is then an application of the moral relativist error. First comes moral relativism, then moral relativism produces feminism as an output or by product. Since moral relativism is wrong what moral relativism leads to; feminism; is also wrong.

If you look at what is damaging society and making relations between men and women not work feminism is the obvious culprit. Feminism teaches many harmful things such as that only the masculine sphere matters, that women being selfishly oriented leads to the good of society overall, that it is the woman’s right to succeed in the male sphere just as much as men do, that men being more powerful than women automatically indicates that men are abusing women, that gender equality in the sense of women being equal to men in the male sphere is desirable. These teachings of feminism are clearly harmful to the family and to society overall in a number of ways.

It should be understood however that feminism needs an underlying foundation of moral relativism to already exist in the society before these kinds of claims made by feminism will be persuasive to anybody. Without moral relativism nobody is going to be fooled by feminists’ nonsensical and irrational claims. With moral relativism however the claims of feminism can seem to make perfectly good sense.

There are many atheist feminists who claim that atheism leads to feminism; that belief in feminism is a natural outcome of disbelief in God first, that if one doesn’t believe in God they will then naturally tend towards becoming a feminist. In a way this claim is correct because atheism leads to moral relativism and then moral relativism leads to feminism. The removal of God from ones understanding of the world is a fundamental error in understanding the basic nature of life; this foundational error in understanding how the world is put together then leading directly to moral relativism. In effect moral relativism is what happens when God is removed from one’s world view. Without God everything descends into chaos and arbitrariness as God is what provides the order and unity of life.

Once moral relativism is in place then feminism “makes sense” or is at least plausible. The foundational idea of moral relativism is the idea that human will determines what the nature of society and social relations is like; that in effect man collectively through government and culture can arbitrarily choose for itself any kind of relationship patterns and social rules it likes or thinks would be good. Under such a hypothetical feminism or gender equality sounds like it would be good and desirable. After all, isn’t gender equality fair? Doesn’t it make sense that if men and women were equally powerful there would be a minimal amount of abuse between the sexes while if men were greatly more powerful than women then men would likely be abusing women all the time because they could get away with it? Isn’t it a universal among human beings that everybody wants high social prestige and the opportunity to be famous and to make a lot of money? Why should only men have the opportunity to make lots of money, become successful politicians, run large corporations, or discover the cure for cancer? Don’t women have just as much right as men to try to contribute to society and seek happiness in these ways?

If moral relativism is the starting point of ones understanding of the world one will be blind to the trouble feminism will inevitably cause and even more so one is likely to predict all kinds of bad and unfair outcomes if the gender equality vision of feminism is denied or thwarted.

So atheism leads to moral relativism which then leads to feminism. In other words atheism is the initial fundamental error in the perception of reality which then leads to the disordered belief in moral relativism which then leads to the false conclusion that feminism is a good idea.

Moral relativism also leads to libertarianism (social libertarianism). Libertarianism and feminism are closely linked to each other; one might say feminism is a subset or version of libertarianism.

There is an atheism / libertarian / feminist nexus with moral relativism the common theme throughout. Atheism leads to moral relativism which then leads to libertarianism in general and the specific form of libertarianism called feminism in particular. MRAs or Men’s Rights Activists are a branch of libertarianism just like feminism is. MRAs are moral relativists and atheistic just like feminists are.

In this essay I am using the terms “atheistic” and “atheism” in a particular way not meant to be equivalent to “being an atheist.” The term “atheistic” is meant to convey “like an atheist” or “typical of an atheist.” The term “atheism” is meant to convey “the typical atheist way of thinking” or “how atheists usually think.”

The rise of feminism and social breakdown in general can be understood as being rooted in the collapse of religion or the declining ability of religion to perform the social function religion has traditionally performed. Family breakdown can be seen as a failure of the church, the result of the weakening of Christianity (in the Western World where Christianity has been the dominant religion). First comes loss of faith in God and adherence to religion based tradition, then comes moral relativism, then comes people “doing whatever they want” (libertarianism), which finally leads to the collapse of the family and of an ordered functional society overall. In other words when the people reject God society inevitably collapses.

Moral relativism itself is the starting point of the decline in people’s ability to work cooperatively with each other in service of the greater good. Obedience to God and moral relativism are polar opposites of each other. God is fixed, external, and superior to. Man individually and collectively is undeniably and unalterably inferior to God. God commands and man obeys. It’s as simple as that. In moral relativism God is out of the picture and the only actor remaining is man. Morality then is whatever society says it is, morality is whatever the individual perceives it to be, morality is simply what makes one feel good, morality is whatever seems fair. Morality is “relative to” these various different factors and interpretations; hence the term “moral relativism.”

In moral relativism morality is a creature of man or an expression of man. Man is in charge and he (individually and collectively) creates morality and defines morality. Man then in the form of cultural attitudes and laws creates for himself the ideal society for himself and his fellows to live in. This is the theory at least.

The alternative to moral relativism is morality derived from God. Here morality is handed down from On High where God is the master and mere men are His subjects and morality is simply obedience to the command of God; mere men having no say in the matter.

So from where does morality come from? Is morality created by man or is morality imposed by God? Morality is imposed by God. From the atheist point of view here; where did human beings come from? Human beings are the product of evolution. Human beings are an evolved animal whose characteristics are the outcome of millions of years of evolution. So if we say that morality is whatever leads to greatest happiness or whatever leads to harmonious relationships with our fellows and positive outcomes in our relationships with others how is morality going to be best achieved? The answer is by following our genetic program and by acting according to our inherited strengths in relation to others’ inherited strengths. Following or “obeying” our inherited characteristics in relation to others’ inherited characteristics is equivalent to obeying God as a God equivalent (evolution) is the source of the inherited characteristics in ourselves and others that forms the foundation of the kind of life we are supposed to lead in order to produce good outcomes for ourselves and our community overall.

Morality is imposed by God, it is not created by man. This then means that moral relativism is false and that therefore that which is derived from moral relativism (libertarianism and feminism) is also false. Now it makes sense why feminism has caused such a disaster in relations between men and women; because feminism is based on the false premise of moral relativism and because feminism directly contradicts the inherited program and inherited characteristics of men and women.

The way to escape moral relativism and all the problems moral relativism causes is by accepting the fact that you were created not to serve yourself but to serve God; that God is your creator and your rightful master. Rejoice in this fact as there is no greater joy than to serve and to please and to surrender to God.

 
References:

What the Superior Power means to me as an Atheist

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Decline of God and the Rise of Moral Relativism

  1. Pingback: A Note to All Women – Smart Stunning Searching

  2. bodycrimes says:

    What’s the disaster between men and women again?

  3. mongopanda says:

    You say atheism leads to moral relativism which leads to libertarianism. I see the connection between atheism and moral relativism but I do not see the connection between moral relativism and libertarianism. I consider myself a conservative libertarian.

    MRAs tend to vote libertarian, and feminists tend to vote liberal. The two opposites.

    John Adams, one of the US founding fathers, said about the US constitution, which is libertarian, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.

    Vladimir Lenin the marxist communist said, “Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.”

    It looks to me that putting a political ideology stamp on feminism is kind of hard.

    I am convinced though that if you want patriarchy; if you want men to be the leaders and supporters of their families, then you need a minimal state, a small government libertarian. Housewives where more prevalent in Sweden in the past than they are now. One man’s salary could support a wife and kids. The size of government and the size of taxes were smaller in the good old days. Now, with a big socialist welfare state and its corollary, high taxes, supporting a whole family with one man’s salary is all the more difficult. It usually ends up with both the man and the woman working, sending the kids to a day-care center and not giving a fuck about the old people, their parents, who sit and rut somewhere and die alone in an old people’s home where some random person takes care of them just because there is not enough money for their families to bear the burden, due to high taxation. To me it seems like socialism is killing the patriarchal family. Making the government take the role of the father; providing for and taking care of our children and old people because we cannot afford it ourselves.

  4. Mongopanda said:

    I see the connection between atheism and moral relativism but I do not see the connection between moral relativism and libertarianism.

    Moral relativism and libertarianism are almost exactly the same thing. I think there is confusion here about what I mean by libertarianism and what you mean by libertarianism. I am not equating libertarianism here with small government and low taxes; in how I am using the term “libertarian” here I mean cultural libertarian, not economic or small government libertarian. I am talking about “freedom” in the cultural realm regarding moral issues, not freedom regarding economics or politics. A libertarian for instance is someone who would advocate for legalizing prostitution and who would think pre-marital sex is just fine and would be strongly opposed to any kind of gender roles and who would say that relations between men and women should be governed by any kind of contract the man and woman come up with and agree upon among themselves. I am not at all talking about small government or low taxes or being opposed to the welfare state here when I refer to “libertarianism.” I am referring to the cultural realm here, not the economic or political realm.

    Culturally speaking feminism and libertarianism are very close together; in fact I would say that feminism is a variant or a form of libertarianism applied to gender relations in particular. MRAs are very libertarian culturally, more culturally libertarian than the feminists. Culturally speaking I am the opposite of libertarian; I am authoritarian instead with God as the ruler and master all are obliged to obey.

    Duty to God is authoritarian in nature as God is “telling you what to do” rather than you as an individual doing whatever you want. In this way atheism leads directly to libertarianism since atheism denies the existence of the ruler, that being God, one is obligated to obey. So atheism leads to moral relativism which then leads to libertarianism; feminism being a particular expression or manifestation of libertarianism.

    Maybe you understand better what I am talking about now?

    As far as high taxes impairing a man’s ability to be the breadwinner for his family? Maybe so and maybe not. High taxes to pay for a welfare state might just be a way of evening out income inequality and might make it easier for the average man to support a family in that the costs of his family are partly borne by society and partly borne by himself. Regardless it is certainly easier for a man to support a family by himself today compared to how things were 100 years ago because society overall is much richer today than it was 100 years ago. Historically women entered the workforce precisely when economic growth accelerated so there was never an economic need for women to enter the workforce; women entering the workforce was purely cultural in its motivations and origins.

    What killed the patriarchal family was very rapid economic growth and urbanization. In my theory of things this caused a great disorientation in people where the old rules no longer seemed to apply. To fill in the void people simply did what “seemed right” in a short-term benefit kind of way. This led to a selfish short-term orientation that kicked off the downward spiral. Only now is a real backlash against the family disorder caused by feminism and cultural libertarianism taking shape.

  5. mongopanda says:

    I see now what you mean with with libertarianism when you say that atheism leads to moral relativism which leads to libertarianism. Although I do not like your use of the term libertarianism in this sense since it may make people associate economic libertarianism (which I believe in) with the evil that is feminism. But I cannot come up with another term right now so nevermind. Do your thing. But I would suggest you to be more specific in future blog posts about what kind of libertarianism you are talking about. Granted you did write “social libertarianism” in this post. But I did not really understand that term even after looking it up on Google.

    I think you are both right and wrong in your estimation of the family today. The number of housewives and marriages increased in Sweden from 1930 to 1960. Housewives from 930.000 in the 30s to 1.148.000 in the 60s. And this was at a period when men went from working in agriculture to working in the industry. So with increased urbanization came an increasing amount of housewives. Then came the feminist ideas and people started questioning whether Sweden could afford having women staying at home and not doing their fair share in the industry and in the production of goods and services. Government started tampering with taxes and regulations, trying to enforce these feminist ideas and get women to enter the workforce. The housewife became looked down upon and now we have a Sweden with very few housewives.

    But as you wrote, and I think I am wrong in this aspect, we are wealthier now than in the past.

    Real wages in Sweden has increased more than taxes since the 70s.

    “65 percent of married women who stay home with children under 18 years old live in households that earn less than $75,000 a year, according to the most recent data from the United States Census Bureau” /NY Times.

    So a man should be able to support a wife and kid today too. But the culture says no. Screw the culture!

  6. mongopanda says:

    I think social anarchy is a better term than social libertarianism when you are talking about moral relativism. Anarchy has the association of chaos; no rules, no order etc. whereas libertarianism means order through few but strict rules.

  7. In the United States here there are very few social conservatives who are also economic libertarians. There are some people who are socially conservative with the idea that government shouldn’t try to tell them what to do in their family affairs; who advocate a kind of live and let live attitude; but this will not work at a society wide level even if it proves useful at the individual level for certain people today.

    Libertarianism in the moral realm or in the cultural realm is running rampant. When I hear someone refer to themselves as being “a libertarian” I automatically assume they mean culturally libertarian or economically libertarian and culturally libertarian both as that is how things are in the United States.

    I suspect in Sweden what “libertarian” means is quite different from the connotations in the United States. Maybe in Sweden “libertarian” means advocating for lower taxes, lower welfare benefits, and less government regulation and intrusion in general. In the United States “libertarianism” means anything goes and there should be no moral rules to follow whatsoever except those based on contract and mutual consent.

    In what I write on this website I am assuming a United States audience based on the cultural context of the United States.

    As far as cultural history, I would be quite surprised to learn that Sweden had an era of family improvement from 1930 to 1960. In the United States from 1940 to 1960 there was a period of lower age at marriage and higher proportions of the female population being married and higher fertility (the fabled “baby boom”) but overall social deterioration continued in spite of these positive counter-trends. Then starting in 1960 things went downhill fast. I suspect Sweden saw a similar pattern; that in Sweden from 1930 to 1960 some indicators may have improved but that things overall probably were getting worse all the same. For the United States at least there was definitely an increase in married women working from 1930 to 1960; among married white women the proportion that worked went from 9.8% in 1930 to 29.8% in 1960. For the United States social deterioration was continuous from 1870 to 1995, social deterioration slowing after 1995. I am assuming that all Western countries including Sweden have a similar history in terms of their family indicators. If Sweden truly saw family improvement from 1930 to 1960 I would be quite surprised by that.

  8. mongopanda says:

    Thank you for your long reply.

    Libertarians in Sweden are not very different from libertarians in the US. Some are moral relativists and some are not. The whole idea of libertarianism is freedom from coercion and violence. That is, I am free to do as I please unless I hurt somebody, steal somebody’s property etc. Sure, I agree that moral relativism is a problem but a libertarian society will lead to a more moral people than what we see today.

    Without a big government you will reap what you sow. More so than under a welfare state where the government is trying to protect everybody from taking losses or being hurt. You will be forced to seek a job if you do not have one, you will not get unemplpyment benefits. If you do bad business you will have to take the consequences of it and go bankrupt, not be bailed out like in the modern day. If you fail at your work and behave badly, that is, not doing your work, you will get fired and no union in the world can prevent that from happening. Not like today when lazy people who do not want to work can stay at a work because they are backed-up by powerful labour unions that prevent the employer from firing them.

    What would happen if we had a more libertarian world? More money after taxes for each individual. You Americans would not have to finance costly endless wars. Single moms would not be able to get support from the government. Women do not fare well without the support from men or government. They are the weaker gender. Men need women and women need men. We would see women relying more on men and a return to patriarchy since it is the natural way.

    In a libertarian world, people will be held more accountable for their behaviour. And an accountable people will have to obey the supreme power if they want to live and flourish. They will have to be a more moral people. I see an increase in government size, in both the US and Sweden, and an increase in moral relativism. Correlation or not? I believe so. People worship the government like it was a god. The government which claims that it is able to do anything and solve any problem in the world. People have forgotten the one and only God.

    And about Sweden from the 30s to 60s, so yes, some statistics seem to show a strengthening of the family. But this is an interesting question. How was the Swedish family between 1930 and 1960? It is something I want to investigate further and not comment further on. You may be right that despite some positive statistics, there, nevertheless, may have been a steady deterioration in the family going on. I do not know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s