About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

We need to stop qualifying our moral statements

By Scott Tibbs, April 25, 2016

We need to stop the practice of qualifying our moral statements with every caveat we can imagine. Instead, we need to state a general principle (or a general truth) and stand by it. Let the critics raise objections which can be dealt with later. Our initial statement needs to be much stronger.

First, the reason we should not qualify our moral statement is it destroys the authority of that statement. Instead of simply stating X, we water it down by saying, "Well, there is this exception, and there is this condition that modifies the truth, and there is this other exception, and there is this other case where X does not apply perfectly." But when our main purpose is to defend Principle X, then adding a bunch of caveats not only undermines the authority of Principle X, it wastes valuable time and energy that should be used defending Principle X as something we should follow.

The other problem is that when we qualify what we say in a preemptive manner, everyone assumes he is the exception to the rule. That person might be the exception, or he might not be. But in our rebellious and godless culture that opposes any objective truth or objective moral statement, we need to first establish that objective moral truths are real and should be lauded and defended.

Obviously caveats exist to even what we consider universal moral truths. Let's take homicide as an example. Killing people is a terrible thing, but doing so in legitimate defense of one's own life or another person's life, killing is justifiable. But if we spend all of our time dealing with the exceptions, then we will not be hammering home the moral truth that killing is something that Almighty God does not allow. We need to stop sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal, and defend truth and morality.