While reading the book How We Die by Sherwin B. Nuland, it occurred to me that moral-relativists could be considered a societal cancer. Strong words? Well, before I get too far, let me quote the lines that led me to this conclusion.
"Knowing no rules, cancer is amoral. Knowing no purpose other than to destroy life, cancer is immoral. A cluster of malignant cells is a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents, raging against the society from which it sprang. It is a street gang intent on mayhem." -Sherwin B. Nuland
In the quote, Nuland is literally talking about cancer, but I see ways in which it could be applied sociologically as well as biologically (both are very interdependent). Is it possible that certain individuals are cancerous to a society? Well, for us to perceive it in such a way, we must look at society as being machine-like (which isn't very hard to do), and the individuals that make up the society as being similar to the cells of the body—either functional or nonfunctional. Also what must be looked at is how the world-view of a moral-relativist (including the influencing biological factors) replicates. To clarify, when I use the term 'moral-relativist', I am referring to the world-view individuals posses, not their actual being (chemically, certain parallels perhaps could be drawn as well). I just found this to be an interesting way of looking at the issue of moral-relativism in society. I believe what makes a human human is not the possessed biology, but the possessed moral-values. We don't value flesh and bone, we value meaning and purpose—the life of a moral-relativist is meaningless, and its meaninglessness spreads like a cancer.
Sorry if this post seems a bit rambley. It's just food for thought, and perhaps even a cure for cancer.
Here is a link to purchase How We Die, buy it!
"Knowing no rules, cancer is amoral. Knowing no purpose other than to destroy life, cancer is immoral. A cluster of malignant cells is a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents, raging against the society from which it sprang. It is a street gang intent on mayhem." -Sherwin B. Nuland
In the quote, Nuland is literally talking about cancer, but I see ways in which it could be applied sociologically as well as biologically (both are very interdependent). Is it possible that certain individuals are cancerous to a society? Well, for us to perceive it in such a way, we must look at society as being machine-like (which isn't very hard to do), and the individuals that make up the society as being similar to the cells of the body—either functional or nonfunctional. Also what must be looked at is how the world-view of a moral-relativist (including the influencing biological factors) replicates. To clarify, when I use the term 'moral-relativist', I am referring to the world-view individuals posses, not their actual being (chemically, certain parallels perhaps could be drawn as well). I just found this to be an interesting way of looking at the issue of moral-relativism in society. I believe what makes a human human is not the possessed biology, but the possessed moral-values. We don't value flesh and bone, we value meaning and purpose—the life of a moral-relativist is meaningless, and its meaninglessness spreads like a cancer.
Sorry if this post seems a bit rambley. It's just food for thought, and perhaps even a cure for cancer.
Here is a link to purchase How We Die, buy it!
No comments:
Post a Comment