Apostoic

By D. S. Cook for Apostoic.com

For those who have stuck with me through the series so far, we’ve tangled with the insidious tactic of Nominal Conquest fallacy, and several of the ways that the enemies of truth employ it to unmake the meaning of “respect.” We’ve hinted that the social mantra “respect for all” does not actually encourage respect. Rather, it seeks to level the playing field in the worst of ways, reducing all possible human behavior to the lowest common denominator of merit, and giving out a sort of universal participation trophy regardless of virtue. If you haven’t read the prior pieces, I strongly recommend that you stop here and do so, rather than eating this particular ice cream cone from the middle.

Today, I address another Orwellian double-speak meaning of the word, twisted by linguistic fiat via Nominal Conquest fallacy. This meaning is growing ever stronger in our society, and has begun to permeate it to the depths. I would describe it something like this “Respect = Moral Ambiguity, but calling it moral ambiguity is not quite the right phrase. It is more like moral vacuum, the idea that there are no morals to be ambiguous about. There is nothing that is right, nothing that is wrong, nothing that is better, nothing that is worse. All ways and choices are essentially equal, and nothing is more or less admirable than any other thing. This is the “to each their own” and “you do you” mentality that is so very common among those who wave the flags of love and kindness in our societies. But, it’s not actually kind. It’s not actually loving, and this is self-evident to the point that needing to write about it today brings me some amount of pain. This truth is so fundamental to our human experience that we actually formulate this knowledge before we learn the art of speech, or the skill of walking.

The Crucial Existence of “Right and Wrong” in Parenting

A child born into the inherently faulty flesh of a human being displays a great deal of selfishness, rage, vindictiveness, and even sadism before it learns to walk and talk. If it does not get what it wants, and immediately at that, it will scream at the top of its lungs until others are brought into its service by sheer discomfort. A bit later, when motor skills develop, it will take toys or food from other children, with no other thought than that of a dumb beast. You have it. I want it. That’s it. A bit further on, it will learn that it has the power to do physical hurt to other children, or pets. It will absolutely choose to do so, left to its own devices. Sometimes, it will engage in hurting others for the purpose of controlling the actions of its fellows, but it is equally and universally observable that it will engage in hurting others for the sheer fun of it. This is sadism in every infant, an undeniable manifestation of original sin. Only the childless blindly state, with unwarranted hubris, that we are not born sinners.  

A mother and father acting in love and kindness toward this child primarily, and toward society generally, will do all that they can to correct and redirect this natural behavior. Parents who do not do this are universally regarded as horrible, and the children they produce are abominations that are destined for the prison system. Neglect of the child’s behavior is worse, I would argue, than neglect of its sustenance. Neglect feeding your child, and it will die. Neglect correcting your child, and many others will die. That is not an overstatement. It really is that dramatic. Consider the number of people in our prisons and in the pages of villainous history who earned their respective place because of the harm and death they brought upon other people.

In order to do their duty and truly love their children, a parent must regard one behavior as better than another. There can be no moral vacuum when raising a child. There must be good and bad behavior, taught through corrective measures, guidance, example, and at times physical discipline. Jordan Peterson’s principle of minimum necessary force is a good one to read up on, if you are ever in a quandary about when inflicting physical discomfort is advisable.

Right and Wrong is for Kids, Not Adults

What does this have to do with respect? That was a long but sadly necessary segway. When many people today demand your respect in newspeak, what they actually are demanding is that you erase your concept that one behavior is better than another. They are demanding that you submit to a moral vacuum, in which whatever they might choose to do is no better and no worse than the alternatives. A lazy man with a minor physical injury sometime in his distant past may be living on welfare and disability, and yet demand the respect of a hardworking one that earns his living, wins bread for his children, and pays his taxes, despite many physical discomforts and old injuries. The argument that is truly being presented is that neither of these things is any better than the other. We are told that we must agree with this and live as if it’s true, when we all know that it isn’t.

Another man is sexually promiscuous and sleeps with many women, producing offspring for whom he will never be a father. His life is centered around bringing pleasant sensation to his own genitals as often as possible. His existence is fundamentally masturbatory. He demands the respect of the man who marries, sleeps with one woman, and commits to fathering his children for life. The argument that is being presented is that one of these things is not better than the other. We all know this to be absolute nonsense, a tragic fiction brinking on psychopathy. Stop pretending, stop engaging in newspeak, and stand up for what is right; like men and women who bear the image of God.  

Respect = Moral Equity
Utter nonsense.

Christianity and Stoicism Diverge

It is here that Apostoic, which presents itself nestled in the venn-diagram of Stoic Philosophy and Christianity, takes one of many exceptions to the former. The Stoic principle is that virtue is natural, inherent to all human souls. Those who turn to evil desires and actions are doing so against their natural proclivities, rejecting what they know to be true and good in favor of what appears profitable in the moment.
As Christians, we know better. We know that virtue comes from without, and that our inherent, natural inclination is toward evil since the fall. Genesis 6:5 “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously.”

Those who embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not hopeful to achieve communion with a perfectly moral God on the basis of their own virtue, their own thoughts and deeds. There is only one righteous man, the only begotten son of God the father, Jesus Christ. He has ordained a way by which HIS righteousness can be imputed to you, and counted on your behalf. It is only by seeking Christ that man can hope to side-step his naturally evil nature, and be counted among the righteous by a just God. 

Conclusion

True respect cannot survive in a moral vacuum. It demands the clear-eyed recognition of better and worse, righteous and wicked, admirable and contemptible. By insisting that all choices and behaviors are equal, our culture does not succeed in elevating the unworthy. Worthiness is objective, and depends not at all upon cultural acceptance of a behavior. Calling evil “good” is not kindness, nor is it love. As Christians, we reject both the Stoic illusion of innate human virtue and the modern lie of moral equivalence. We know from Scripture (and from mere intellectual honesty in self-reflection) that every intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth, and that only the imputed righteousness of Christ can rescue us from our natural bent toward ruin.

Let us therefore extend genuine respect where it is due; to lives ordered by truth, self-control, responsibility, and fidelity. Let us refuse the Orwellian demand to pretend that darkness is light and chaos is order. In doing so, we do more than preserve the meaning of words. We stand as witnesses to the holy distinctions of a just and merciful God.

Coming up: Respect as Transference – The Error of Extending One Virtue into All Virtues

Key Words / Search Terms

Respect in Ruins | Respect as Moral Equity | Erasing Better and Worse | moral vacuum respect | moral relativism critique | original sin | total depravity | Genesis 6:5 | Christianity vs Stoicism | nominal conquest fallacy | D. S. Cook | Apostoic.com | biblical view of respect | respect for virtue | moral equity | you do you mentality | parenting discipline biblical | imputed righteousness | human nature evil | respect in ruins part 4 | D.S. Cook Apostoic | Christian moral distinctions | erasing moral distinctions | respect as moral ambiguity

More Articles for You:

Respect in Ruins, Part 1: The Respect Trap – Why “Respect for All” Feels Like a Lie – Apostoic

Stay In Your Three-Foot World – Apostoic

Socials:

Blog: https://atomic-temporary-233984289.wpcomstaging.com
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store!