True Horizon

In his book, “Relativism — Feet Firmly Planted In Midair,” Greg Koukl points out that one “way to assess the validity of a moral system is to see what kind of person it produces” …

Given a particular standard of morality, the person who is most moral is the one who practices the specific system’s key moral rule consistently … the one who most closely lives the ideal — indicates the quality of the moral system

… the quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience. This is what relativism produces.

This week, the sad story from Virginia Tech offered us sickening proof that Koukl’s assertion is true.

Consider the facts in this case:

• Seung-Hui Cho was deemed mentally ill by professionals who, reluctant to render a moral judgment against his warped state of mind and thereby stigmatize him, failed to inform his roommates that they were living with a madman.
  
• Cho’s English professor, after reading the disturbing rantings he passed off as plays, “said she notified authorities about Cho, but was told that there would be too many legal hurdles to intervene. She said she asked him to go to counseling, but he never did.”
• Cho was given one-on-one tutoring regarding his “creative writing” but no one dared suggest that his so-called “creativity” was anything more than the disgusting, profane, deluded, and morally reprehensible garbage that it was. Who were they to judge someone’s “creativity”?
• There has been some speculation, especially among online forums, that Cho may have been inspired by the South Korean movie “Oldboy.” One of the killer’s mailed photos shows him brandishing a hammer — the signature weapon of the protagonist — and in a pose similar to one from the film. The film won the Gran Prix prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 2004. (Read on …)

Cathy Ruse, a Senior Fellow of Legal studies at the Family Research Council, puts abortion-choice feminists on the defensive today in her Washington Times column, “Human Hens and Stem Cells.” While we rightly focus on the moral issue of destroying human life with ESCR, Ruse offers specifics about the effects the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 5) would have on women themselves. (Read on …)

This week’s episode of House has ignited quite a discussion among those with wildly differing views on the subject of abortion. As is usually the case, the conversation gets heated, tempers flare, and not much useful comes of it all. I have no desire to enter that debate today. But I would like to register my support for the willingness of the show to tread where most in Hollywood never dare. This episode of House gave a rare positive outlook to the view that abortion is not just about a woman’s right to choose. It is about the status of the unborn and whether or not we recognize it for what it is, not just for what it can do or how it affects the mother’s life. (Read on …)