Choose Logic

Is there a difference in the basis of debate, whether pro or con, concerning immigration, tax credits or school vouchers, universal health care, social security reform or school prayer? If we review for example, the school prayer discussion we can apply the same logic to the other national concerns.

What is the difference between those who declare that prayer should be banned from school and those who propose its inclusion? How does one make these declarations? From whence comes the knowledge to aver what other individuals must do? Have declarers examined their philosophy to the depth required to goad, urge or prod academia, government or the individual to kowtow to fear of reprisal from one group or another with any moral authority?
Subjectivism holds that there are no absolutes or principles and judgment is relative. Hence, “truth is in the eye of the beholder.” However, “what is right for you might not be right for me”. Ergo, no one can have objective knowledge or objective grounds for evaluating another person’s beliefs or actions. An analogy might be, “On the premise that moral values are merely subjective preferences, there is no factual basis for moral judgment.” Those who believe that “anything goes” also avoid making any judgments.

Those who argue for school prayer dismiss the “truth is relative” or “anything goes” statements of the subjectivists. They espouse “unquestionable truth” and advocate absolute standards of right and wrong.

Are the positions and attitudes of the two opinions diametrically opposed?

It is only on the surface that the subjectivist is opposed to the religious proponent. The two share a fundamental similarity. In denying that there are any objective standards by which to choose how to think or act, the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by blind feelings. This is precisely the basic policy of the religious proponent as well.

Consider that there is an infinite number of opposing religious sects, how does the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the right faith for him. While the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths in his argument for school prayer, his beliefs are as arbitrary as those of the subjectivist. The difference between the two is that there is no difference, merely emotionalism.

What neither the subjectivist nor the dogmatist can fathom is the need for an alternate approach, a method of seeking truth, acquiring knowledge, and defining moral standards, not by indulging in emotions, but by the process of reasoning based on factual evidence. In every issue and area of life, our decisions must be based on logical arguments that are grounded in directly perceivable facts and not emotions, feelings or arbitrary whims.

Examine the rhetoric our public representatives espouse on national issues such as immigration and border security, tax credits or vouchers for school choice, social security reform, universal healthcare or any other of the myriad discussions and debates. We must ask what is fact and what is emotion, dismiss emotion and base decisions on facts alone. To avoid their rhetoric, our culture has to reject emotionalism whether in the form of anything-goes subjectivism or emotionally driven feelings, in favor of logic and reason.