Today I was watching the movie “Dark Knight” and I realized the Joker was the great hero of moral relativism. Why is he the greatest example of moral relativism? It is because his only rule is there are no objective rules; he does what his heart desires. The moral relativist does what he or she wants to do; there are no universal rules. The Joker loves to blow up buildings, destroy cars, kill people slowly, and cause as much pain as possible because those things give him great pleasure. During the movie he demonstrated he didn’t have a conscience. For a person to have a guilty conscience you need rules to be broken and the Joker has no rules. This is why the Joker smiles and laughs all the time, not just because his face was cut, but because he never feels bad about murdering people.  If a moral relativist does what they thought was wrong all he has to do is change the rule.  If the Joker at one time thought murder was wrong, after his first murder, he could change his rule to murder is right and good.  Does anyone want to follow a moral system that has the Joker as their moral hero?  This is why most moral relativists love to live next to people who believe in objective moral right and wrong.

Incoming search terms for the article:

• The Joker ammoral\ (2)

Living as I do in Escondido California, I feel a need to comment on the two young ladies who were murdered in North San Diego County. Just recently John Gardner confessed to the brutal murders of Amber Dubois and Chelsea King. Due to a plea bargain agreement, John Gardner is going to escape the death penalty. He will be spending the rest of his life behind bars. This agreement was reached because Gardner, trying to avoid the death penalty, agreed to reveal where the body of Amber Dubois was located. The King family graciously granted this plea bargain, even though they knew justice would not be served. They felt it was more important for the Dubois family to close the books on how their daughter died and where her body was located, then to seek the death penalty.  It has been reported the King family is still hurting knowing that John Gardner will live out the rest of his life in prison rather than facing the death penalty. 

If I was in the King family’s position I would have done the same thing.  However, I believe justice was not served. John Gardner deserves the death penalty for his brutal slayings of these two young ladies. This is why the Bible puts forth the concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth when it comes to punishments by the government.  The Bible supports the concept the penalty should be equal to the crime.  This is why the Bible supports capital punishment.  Life for life upholds the dignity of all humans.  Genesis 9:6 states, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”  Humans, made in the image of God, are so valuable when you murder someone your life will be taken by the government.  John Gardner deserves to be punished with his life taken, just like he took the lives of two valuable human beings.  Gardner serving life in prison is not justice, only his life for their life is.

Some try to argue for abortion by saying the unborn, especially in early stages, is not human.  Josh Brahm is offering to shut down his pro-life YouTube channel if someone can successfully make an argument from science proving that the unborn is not a human being. Check out Josh at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4MnelFIJr8 to view his pro-life challenge.  Can anyone prove the unborn is not human?

On a long bike ride with my atheist friend, we got talking about morality and evolution. I said if evolution is true and all of us are simply material beings, products of evolution, then objective morality doesn’t exist; there are no transcendent standards for behavior that are binding upon everyone and for all time. Therefore, if North Korea thinks we are a threat and if survival of the fittest is the driving force, then if they wipe us out with a nuclear bomb that act wouldn’t be wrong universally. You and I may not like it but it would not be a universal wrong because according to your view, all morality is simply a social convention. North Korea would be doing what they believe is right and eliminating a threat like the US, in their minds, would benefit their survival. Without a standard of morality; without objective morality, right and wrong simply becomes “might makes right.” My friend had trouble accepting my conclusion but also struggled with how to answer my argument. We will pick up where we left off on our next ride.