It's Not Pineapple Pizza
I have a confession to make. I don’t really think that Pineapple Pizza is blasphemous. It’s an awful thing, don’t get me wrong. But it’s awful for slightly more prosaic reasons than blasphemy. It is insulting to Italians, it makes the underlying pizza soggy, and it burns my mouth.
There, glad to get that off my chest. It is, all things considered, not of eternal significance if you put pineapple on your pizza.1 I have reasons for not doing so, but they aren’t eternal reasons. However nor are they all mere preferences. But nor are they of anything resembling the importance of the issues we will be discussing in this post.
has posted his latest post in our ‘Pizza and Sushi’ exchange. The series began with his statement that believing in religion was no more important than liking pizza or sushi. (He did not mention pineapple at the time). After several letters, we have now reached the point where we are discussing ethics vs morality… and how they relate to such things as logic, homosexuality, and the source of Sushi.
Ethics vs Morality
Fallible proposes a distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’. And I think he is right… in part. He proposes a definition of ethics as
“Moral actions determined by innate principles”
and morals as
“an external set of rules and judgments that have no logic but are accepted prima facie as correct”
Now, these definitions have a bit of a problem, as the word ‘moral’ is in both of them, yet the word ‘moral’ is in the name of one of them. Confusing. Let me see if this change helps:
Ethics: “A belief in the rightness or wrongness of a given action based on innate principles”
Morality: “A belief in the rightness or wrongness of a given set of rules and judgments that have no logic but are accepted prima fascie as correct.”
Now, those definitions still have some problems, so I am going to go further. I wonder if Fallible would accept this:
Morality: “A set of ethical principles which are presuppositional, and do not rely on any more foundational principles.”
Ethics: “A working out of a given morality.”
This would mean that you start with ‘morality’… you cannot get there from somewhere else. You have to start somewhere, and you start with morality.
Then you work out ethics: given this or that principle of morality, here is how it would work in the real world under these circumstances. For example,. ‘Journalism Ethics’ would not be foundational, but built upon general principles of morality and applied to journalism.
Fornication
He wrote:
Ethics tells one not to cheat, it harms your partners, and probably causes you to lie.
Morals tells you not to fornicate, no explanation needed.
Now that I can give a clear reasoning for why not to fornicate, I assumed I had found morality. Yet this falls short. I can explain, ethically, why not to fornicate: your future children may be harmed, unwittingly spreading diseases to partners, emotional damage, and the potential to lie, use and discard come to mind.
Notice that all of his reasons for not fornicating would need reasons themselves… unless they were accepted presuppositionally. One must think it is a good thing, indeed a moral thing, to not harm your future children, or not spread disease, not cause emotional damage, etc etc. Now, I am fascinated by his list, and very fascinated by his rejection of fornication. But for my purposes here, it is enough to point out that his reasons need reasons… unless they don’t.
Homosexuality
Now, I need to take a brief digression. I dislike using the word ‘homosexuality’, because it is a combination of things, thus any discussion of it can lead very quickly into equivocation. (And because I don’t believe it exists, but that is very much the subject of another post.) So, for the purposes of this post, I will be using the term ‘Sodomy’, and clarifying its meaning as ‘male-on-male sexual activity’. I am willing to speak of all sorts of other permutations and perversions, but for this post, that is the definition I am using: male-on-male sexual activity.
Sodomy
So Fallible draws a very confusing line: one between Sodomy (he speaks of Homosexuality) and Fornication. Historically speaking, his line is confusing, in that he reverses the polarity. Historically, when these two sins have been compared, in religion or in law, Sodomy has always been much more roundly condemned than fornication.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27
He also draws a confusing line because, up until recently, all acts of Sodomy have been acts of fornication, legally speaking. Until recently, when we started pretending that two men could be married, the standard English definition of fornication as ‘any sexual act outside of marriage’ would, of necessity, include all acts of Sodomy. (That is not the Biblical definition, but the Biblical definition makes it even worse for Sodomy, so moving right along.)
Thus, any condemnation of ‘fornication’ would have, at least, included all of the issues involved in ’Sodomy’. They would have been included automatically.
And looking at his list for ‘what’s wrong with fornication’, it goes more than double for Sodomy:
-Harm future children: What future children? The fornicator might produce children by his fornication, and hopefully in his later marriage, but Sodomite sex can never even produce children!
-Disease: (Warning! Squeamish and young young readers should skip this point) I was reading a post by a Sodomite (probably a post by someone else quoting a Sodomite, actually) and the Sodomite said something like, “It is well-known that we who XXX often suffer from XXX incontinence at a young age and have to wear adult diapers. If it doesn’t bother us, why should it bother you?” And that is one of the dozens or even hundreds of diseases and disabilities that come from this perversion.
-Emotional damage: It has been admitted by many Sodomites that they suffered sexual abuse when young, or some other form of emotional abuse. It beggars the imagination that this is not passed on.
-Potential to lie, use, and discard: standard in Sodomy. (Again, squeamish and young readers should not read this point). I will just say, here, ‘holes in restroom walls’. If you don’t get the reference, I am glad. Sodomite relationships are notorious for their brevity and ‘use’.
The Source of Sushi and the use of logic
I would ask you to cast your mind back to my most recent post in this series. In it I likened morality to a series of locations and steps. You have an ocean, in which swum fish, which were caught by fishermen, transported by truckers, prepared by chefs, put out on the buffet by waiters, picked up by diners, and eaten. (Possibly while kneeling.) Let me relate that to Fallible’s suggestions about ethics and morality:
1) The Ocean: God. An external rule giver; who has both the power and knowledge to give rules that apply to everyone.
2) Fish: Moral principles. These have to be caught, not invented. They exist as they exist (no GMO fish involved).
3) Fishermen, truckers, chefs, waiters: Moral teachers. People who have wisdom and knowledge and impart it. These can include religious figures, parents, siblings, employers, drill sergeants, and just ordinary Joes who happen to talk to you. (Note: the conscience involves fish going direct to the table. Sorry, it doesn’t quite fit. Sashimi.)
4) The table, eating, and you: Individuals are faced with a whole series of situations in their life where they have to decide how to act. They are given, from their history and current environment, all sorts of principles to use in making their decisions, and they choose what to do. They might even eat from things not on the sushi table. (Even Pineapple Pizza).
Now this metaphor isn’t perfect, but I think it helps us look at the issue of logic and morality. In this example, we can’t ask ‘Where were the fish prior to the ocean?” We can ask ‘prior to the table’… and receive a long chain of answers: involving fishermen, truckers, chefs and the like. But we can’t ask ‘prior to the ocean’.
So if we are going to ask, “Why is Sodomy evil?” we can do so… and receive a chain of reasons. But eventually, those reasons will end with ‘swimming around in the ocean’. In the end, some aspects of moral reasoning will be grounded in fundamental truth, not truth dependent on reasoning.
The Evil of Sodomy
In addition to the list that Fallible produced that clearly condemns Sodomy, I will add some more foundational issues. They are issues that come… foundationally. That require a foundation for morality.
-Sodomy is forbidden. God clearly forbids it. All decent societies have also forbidden it.
-Sodomy is blasphemy against the Creator. God made the marriage relationship to include a man and a woman, with each representing one part of His relationship to us.
-Sodomy is anti-fertile. The perversion of Sodomite sex cannot produce children.
-Sodomy is anti “made them male and female”. As we all know, the human reproductive system is wonderfully designed. It has millions of working parts spread across two sexes. It regulates attraction, arousal, intercourse, ejaculation, impregnation, growth, birth, and lactation. Along with thousands of hormonal actions that lead to bonding. Sodomy is a perversion of some of those, and missing the rest.
-Sodomy is anti vive ‘la difference in raising children’. History, common sense, and research has clearly shown not only the differences between men and women but also how these affect childraising.
-God has promised judgment on individuals and societies accepting Sodomy.
Conclusion
Fallible says that we must ‘just accept’ foundational moral principles, and that is both true and not true. As I mentioned in my ‘Pound of Pizza’ post, we can see, vaguely and over generations, how a given set of moral principles, in the context of a given culture, work out. But we can only measure them by their internal consistency, not against any external standard. Because, to do so would be to elevate that standard above that which we are measuring.
Can we judge the Japanese value of suicide by pointing out that the person who commits suicide ends up dying? That was literally the goal.
Whenever we make a moral judgement, we cannot merely say ‘X produces Y’ with the assumption that Y is a good thing. We have to have ‘Y is a good thing’ as part of the system itself. If we are going to evaluate rape, slavery, adultery, transgenderism, sodomy, murder, cheating, child abuse… we must realise that we are using a moral system to do the evaluation. That for each of those things, there have been moral systems (or at least cultures) which taught that those were good things, or at least OK things.
Using his terms, one can never judge another person’s ethics, unless you do so either
In relation to their moral system or
In relation to yours.
You might say, as I did above, “Your moral condemnation of fornication involves factors that contradict your moral approval of Sodomy”. Or you need to be able to say, “Your approval of suicide (Japanese) or man-on-boy sex (Greece) is wrong… and I call it wrong because I hold that your moral system is wrong. All moral systems are not created equal. Some accord with God’s will, and some are opposed to it.”
Every appeal to morality is, in the end, either a statement of feelings or an appeal to God Himself. Either it was fine for Greek men to have sex with Greek boys, or there is a God sitting above all of us who will judge. Either all of your morality is mere feelings, or there is an objective standard, with an objective standard maker, who will judge the quick and the dead.
Personalisation
Speaking directly to
…I’m glad to hear your family is well and I rejoice in your newest addition. Mine is as well. Twenty-three grandchildren born so far, and more on the way. And hopefully more after that.
So… how do I react to where you are now? I think you have a choice. You can give up your idea of objective morality, or you can give up your atheism. Have you read ‘Mere Christianity’ by Lewis? Or ‘The Abolition of Man’?
Ethics are all very well, but in the end they have to come from somewhere, somewhere objective and eternal. As Julie Andrews, the famous philosopher, once said, “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.” If you wish to judge the rapist… there must be a code he is violating. If a code, then a codegiver.
PS
Anytime you wish to discuss all of those Jewish laws, I’m your man :)
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
Links
Pizza Discussion
The “Pizza Discussion” is a letter exchange with
. In it we discuss issues of the importance of religion, God, and morality… comparing them to the importance of Pizza and Sushi. It started when he posted a post entitled ‘Religion’ and specifically comes from this line: “Arguing over religion strikes me as the same as arguing over whether sushi or pizza is better.”
has also contributed.
Sushi, Pizza, and the Existence of God
Pizza, Sushi, and the Definition of Morality
The knowledge of Pizza, Defintion of Sushi, and Existence of Food
A Piece of Pi // Podcast Version
A Pound of Pizza
The Source of Sushi
Out of the main line, a post about arguing itself:
Quote, Misquote, and Steelman: How and when to quote an opponent
His actual quote was “Arguing over religion strikes me as the same as arguing over whether sushi or pizza is better.” And I strongly encourage you to read the entire thread to see how he has developed it.
I've always understood ethics to be a standard and morals a measure of adherence to that standard. Don't know if that helps but it doesn't make sense to call them synonyms.