Religion has too long maintained a cartel on morality; we need to find a new scientific ethics
The post After the Pope’s AI Screed, It’s Time to Break Free from Dependency on Religious Morality appeared first on New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism.
“I really hate dying. Still. Always. Every time.”
Wake up. Work. Die. Repeat. Mickey 17 is a sci-fi thought experiment: What if we stopped valuing life, and what would that do to unskilled workers? Mickey 17 addresses these questions by exploring the importance of self-interest in such a context and why one might choose to fight for a meaningful life.
Mickey 17, written and directed by Bong Joon Ho, is a comedic, dystopic techno-futurist film based on the novel Mickey7 (2022) by Edward Ashton. Set in 2054, the plot follows a down-on-his-luck young man, Mickey, who joins a private space exploration mission as an “Expendable” to escape the sadistic mafia boss to whom he owes money.
An Expendable is a disposable employee; Mickey is required to complete fatal missions, often as the sole participant in a scientific experiment, for the sake of keeping the rest of the crew safe. His role is entirely subservient, like a canary being sent into the mines. And when he dies, the scientists on the ship simply “reprint” his body, upload his memories and consciousness, and he does the whole thing again the next day.
The film shows starkly how easily people can lose respect for life. The reprinting started with a semblance of care and consideration from the scientists. In the first reprinting scene, we see a kind of conveyer belt on which Mickey can be reborn comfortably, and one of the scientists even takes care to cover his genital area to maintain his privacy. But as the reprinting continues, they begin to treat him with callous indifference, barely acknowledging his humanity through the process. In a later scene, the scientists neglect to provide the conveyor belt, so Mickey falls to the floor haphazardly. Often Mickey’s missions are preceded by torturous experiences: being injected with incredibly painful diseases, eating poisonous food, and being exposed to toxic levels of radiation. And strangely, no one seems to care.
At one point the scientists trick Mickey into going into space to check a faulty cable. But when he gets there, the lead researcher tells him on the intercom that this was a ploy to get him in contact with high levels of radiation. The lead researcher tells Mickey that he needs to explain every awful thing that he’s feeling so that they can note it and stop it from happening to other crew members, whom they deem more important. He asks Mickey to take off his glove so that they can see what’s happening to his skin, and when he tries to, his hand is sliced off by a blade from the ship’s engines. Instead of the scientists’ expected shock and horror, they all laugh in disbelief, more beguiled by seeing something so extreme than the fact Mickey is suffering.
Then one day, everything changes when the scientists wrongly believe that Mickey 17 is dead and print Mickey 18 in his place, meaning that two iterations of Mickey exist at the same time—an illegal scenario and ethical dilemma.
Mickey 18 is everything that Mickey 17 is not. The contrast exposes the failures of the human printing technology. It promised to create an identical copy after death, but all the clones vary slightly in their personalities—its designers had not accounted for the depth and variety of the subconscious.
Mickey 18 is not just a cloning error; he is a significant outlier. He brings a new perspective to his role that seemingly no other Mickey has done before: He assesses his position and concludes that he deserves more. He is appalled by his crewmates’ treatment of his life and becomes angry and vicious, yet he acts decisively and defends his survival. He tries to kill a fellow crew member with whom Mickey 17 had joined the ship and had a long-standing friendship before the mission because Mickey 18 blames him for his subjugation.
The Mickeys debate, physically fighting over who should stay alive because if they are found to exist at the same time, they both will be killed and Mickey’s lives will be completely terminated—Mickey as such will no longer exist. Mickey 17, understanding this, tries to compromise, offering to halve his workload and meager rations with Mickey 18. Mickey 18 laughs in his face—why should he only get half when he is entitled to it all? And more importantly, why should he do this horrible job in which self-sacrifice is constantly required with little gratitude when he could take revenge and be free?
Mickey 18 soon becomes the hero—a person committed to rational thought and uncompromising integrity who lives for his own sake, even in the face of danger or death. Because Mickey 17 is the complete opposite, the stark differences between these two characters who should be identical reveal the film’s paramount question: Why does Mickey 17 accept his fate instead of fighting against it for his own self-interest?
Mickey 17 is a victim of this society’s values as we see them on the ship. Aside from a few friends and his girlfriend, no one is appalled by Mickey’s subjugation. His value, to most others, derives solely from his self-sacrifice, and he does not benefit from any of the supposed collective goods that derive from it. He will not get to enjoy the vaccines, the painkillers, the genetically modified meat because it is not for him; his sacrifice is for the good of the rest of the ship.
Throughout the film we can see the society’s collectivist undertones—people value each crew member based only on how well he fulfills his role. This affects even the highest ranked; for example, when the head scientist realizes that he hasn’t produced edible genetically manufactured meat, he offers to kill himself as punishment, as easily as one might offer to stay later at work after a mishap. The charges thrown against collectivism by philosopher Ayn Rand apply here—it upholds the existence of a mystic and unperceivable social organism while denying the reality of actual individuals.1[1] This mystic social organism serves as a spiritual replacement for the individual’s life. That is, individuals are made to live their lives for their society instead of for themselves, much in the same way that Abrahamic theologies urge individuals to live their lives for God or in God’s image.
More specifically, Mickey’s belief in sacrifice and suffering as a constructive force for good resembles John Hick’s theory of the value of “soul-making.”2[2] Hick preached a belief that humans were created as imperfect so they could grow into the “likeness” of God through suffering. This, in turn, he argues, would allow us to develop virtues that are more meaningful than if they had simply been imparted by God.
Although Mickey 17 isn’t explicitly religious, this theology expresses itself in his baseless yet absolute belief that he is bad, and he alone cannot ensure his salvation. So, instead of thinking critically or pursuing his interests to form a better relationship with himself and his past, he uses severe punishment to become “good.”
His belief in an innate badness is irrational, an irrationality that fuels his selflessness. He has accepted without much thought that he was responsible for his mother’s death, even though he wasn’t. As a child, he begged his mom to let him sit in the front seat of her car even though he was too young, and she eventually acquiesced despite significant hesitation. While they were driving, he pressed a red button simply to see what it would do, which sent the car hurtling into a wall, killing his mother instantly but leaving him unharmed. His lack of injury is the source of his guilt, which snowballs so that every other guilty feeling he has compounded into the belief that he deserves to be punished. So, on the ship, he readily accepts his treatment. When he is poisoned by the scientists against his will, he says it’s because he didn’t tell his girlfriend straight away when he found out about Mickey 18. When he is being exposed to unthinkable levels of radiation, he says that in fourth-grade science he “messed with a frog,” so this all must be his punishment.
Mickey 18, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be burdened by the same ideas. He wants to kill anyone who has done the Mickeys wrong. He is infallible when Mickey 17 can be weak and easy to overpower; even when the whole ship seems to be against them, Mickey 18 holds strong, which influences Mickey 17 to see his point of view.
I read once that a drama is when you watch a film and think, “What if?” What if he caught her at the airport in time, what if they managed to jump out of the flaming building, what if she could save her baby? Whereas a tragedy makes you think, “If only!” If only Romeo had known that Juliet was still alive, if only Oedipus had known who his real mother was—and if only Mickey 17 could let go of his unearned guilt, he could have avoided so much suffering.
This film is a warning about the horror of sacrificing oneself. Mickey’s suffering shows that abandoning self-interest is not life-promoting or life-fulfilling. He sacrifices himself for the good of his crewmates, hoping to cleanse his spirit of guilt, but all it does is make his situation worse.
Although this film has many layers and meanings, what stood out most to me was the value of self-love; it is not merely an advantage but a requirement to live a happy life. If you don’t value your life, no one else will.
Ayn Rand, “Collectivized Rights,” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964), 103.
David C. Cramer, “John Hick (1922–2012),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/hick (accessed June 23, 2026).
Consider a common communist argument from just a few years ago:
«Fascism and capitalism are basically the same.
The Nazis allowed private ownership, therefore they were capitalist.»
The purpose of this argument was obvious. If fascism could be tied to capitalism, then every crime of fascism could be laid at capitalism's feet.
The problem was always that private ownership on paper is not the same thing as private ownership in practice.
If the government decides what may be produced, who may produce it, how it may be used, what prices are acceptable, what profits are acceptable, and whether the owner may continue operating at all, then the government possesses the essential powers of ownership.
The deed may remain in your name.
The control does not.
Ownership becomes a permission granted by political authority rather than a right protected from political authority.
That was my response then, and it remains my response now.
Yet something interesting happened.
The same people who argued that state control over nominally private property proved fascism was capitalism are now using the exact same arrangement to defend China.
Now the argument sounds like this:
«China proves communism works.
Yes, there are private businesses.
Yes, there are entrepreneurs.
Yes, there are investors.
But the state ultimately controls everything for the good of the people.»
Think about what has happened here.
The same fact pattern is used to condemn one system and defend another.
When discussing fascism:
«Private property under state control proves capitalism is evil.»
When discussing China:
«Private property under state control proves communism is successful.»
At this point, the issue is no longer definitions.
It is consistency.
Either ownership requires meaningful control or it does not.
If state control over nominally private property means the state is the real owner, then that principle applies regardless of whether the flag is red, black, or blue.
If state control does not undermine ownership, then the argument against fascism collapses as well.
You cannot have it both ways.
What makes this contradiction particularly revealing is that it exposes the difference between principles and preferences.
A principle applies equally regardless of who benefits.
A preference changes with the desired conclusion.
Many modern defenders of China have quietly abandoned the earlier argument because it became inconvenient.
They discovered that China's success is difficult to explain without acknowledging private enterprise, markets, profit incentives, investment, and entrepreneurship.
But instead of conceding that these elements played a crucial role, they simply changed the definition.
Now private ownership counts as socialism so long as the state remains powerful enough.
The result is a strange intellectual sleight of hand.
Private ownership under state control is called capitalism when they want to condemn it.
Private ownership under state control is called socialism when they want to praise it.
The labels change.
The arrangement does not.
The real question is not what politicians call the system.
The real question is who ultimately decides.
Who has the final say?
Who controls production?
Who controls investment?
Who controls property?
Who controls the profits?
The institution with final authority is the institution that effectively owns.
Everything else is branding.
And once that principle is understood, many political arguments begin to unravel on their own.
"Socialists see unequal outcomes and ignore the process that created them.
"The interesting part isn't that some people got rich.
"It's that most of the richest people changed within a decade.
"Capitalism doesn't freeze society into classes. It constantly reshuffles them.
"The system they call unfair is one of the few that allows yesterday's winners to be overtaken by tomorrow's innovators."
~ Rock Chartrand
Truth, Justice, Whatever.
The latter was more than “Supergirl’s” marketing campaign. It applies to the film itself, a dimly-lit shrug of IP unworthy of blockbuster status.
Or anyone’s hard-earned money.
Star Milly Alcock isn’t fully to blame, although she does little to enliven matters. There’s no charisma to be found in her performance, but that’s hardly the film’s only sin.
How much time ya got?
Alcock is Kara Zor-El, the dysfunctional gal known as Supergirl. We briefly met her in last year’s tepid “Superman” reboot, and she apparently is still drunk from that appearance.
Literally.
She stumbles from bar to bar, with little purpose other than to visit a series of grim watering holes that quickly lose our interest.
She eventually meets a teen named Ruthke (Eve Ridley) seeking revenge against Krem, the brute who slaughtered her family. Kara isn’t nice, but she is good and decent to those in need. Or so says the on-the-nose dialogue that permeates this clunker. (The less said about the sorry screenplay, the better.)
So when said brute (Matthias Schoenaerts with a bedazzled face and zero interesting qualities) poisons Kara’s Krypto, she must track him down to get the antidote.
Yes, that’s literally the film’s plot. And, more importantly, this is the second James Gunn production that puts enormous emotional weight on a CGI dog that never appears to be anything but a CGI dog.
Hire. A. Real. Dog. How hard is this??
Even worse?
The “they killed my dog, so I need to slaughter a thousand people” spark that ignited “John Wick” had more emotional heft.
So we watch Kara and Ruthye attempt to track Krem down for dual purposes. Along the way, some of young Ruthye’s humanity rubs off on our anti-heroine.
And, once in a while, Jason Momoa shows up as Lobo, a smirking bounty hunter. Who is he? Why does he matter? How does he fit into the story?
To quote The Critical Drinker, “don’t know.”
Just understand that Momoa is given nothing to do save smoke a stogie and prove he has more star power than Alcock on his worst day.
“Supergirl” reportedly endured severe editing in recent months, and boy, does it show. This film is a bona fide mess, a story with no stakes, microscopic character movitation and bland battle scenes.
“Supergirl” features a trafficking subplot that never registers. We also glimpse our heroine’s backstory which is equally blah but suggests why she drinks herself into a stupor.
We also bounce from planet to planet, with some having yellow suns that give Kara super powers and others? Not so much.
So what?
David Corenswet drops in occasionally as cousin Superman, and these moments are like walking into an air-conditioned mall on a sticky summer day. The actor’s “Superman” film may have been a disappointment, but he embodies the character and has a presence that’s lacking here.
Who cares about anything happening in “Supergirl” from start to finish? The best way to sum up this stink bomb of a superhero romp?
Whatever.
HiT or Miss: “Supergirl” is a dud on every level that counts.
The post ‘Supergirl’ – Joyless DC Flop is a Super Mess appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.
***I’m off to Arizona next week to give eight lectures on “The Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution” for Jordan Peterson’s online education platform, Peterson Academy. If you’re in the Phoenix area and would like to attend, you can sign up here. I may then be off to Canada to visit my parents and when I get back, we launch our two-week “intellectual boot camp,” the John Adams Fellows Program. All of that is to say, my publications for the next month may be less than regular.
The audio recording of “Postmodern Marriage” is at the bottom, and I am making it available to all subscribers, paid and unpaid.
“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”—George Orwell, 1984.
Now that we’ve examined what marriage is (see here, here, and, most importantly, here), we should consider what marriage is not. There are many pretenders to the throne, but marriage is something definite, something real, and something worth defending. There are those, however, who would use the idea of marriage as a Trojan Horse to corrupt and destroy the meaning, importance, and living reality of what marriage is.
We live in a postmodern age that seeks to change or destroy the core principles and institutions that are at the foundation not just of the West but of all civilizations. Under the long shadow cast by Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Herbert Marcuse, we live in a time of nihilistic totalitarianism (nihilism is the means and totalitarianism is the end) that has as its direct goal the dismantling of those ways of living grounded in metaphysical reality.
Let’s begin by putting our concerns in a broader context. Those who seek to destroy marriage, do so in the name of an ideological passion.
When early twentieth-century Marxists realized that there would never be a proletarian revolution of oppressed workers because the working class was the greatest conservator of the bourgeois way of life, they recalibrated their strategy and decided that the values most important to the working class would have to be destroyed first and foremost. This led the twentieth-century Left on its “long march through the institutions” to extinguish those moral values and institutions that were suppressing and holding back the Marxist-Leninist revolution foretold by the laws of dialectical materialism. That’s when the Left discovered Nietzsche and Freud and began to wheedle away at the soul of Western man.
After the Left captured and transformed the universities, schools, media, Hollywood, and various professional associations, etc., they went for civilization’s jugular. The single greatest scalp won by the Left in the last twenty years has been their corruption and transformation of the institution of marriage. The postmodern Left is now giggling as their minions have stripped marriage of its necessary component parts and left it corpse dangling for all to see and mock. (Apologies for mixing my metaphors!)
The postmodern view of marriage is radically different from the reality of metaphysical marriage. They are essentially different things. Indeed, the difference between marriage and all other forms of romantic association (e.g., same-sex, polygamous, polyamorous, inter-species, etc.) is not one of degree but one of kind. They are not identical or even similar kinds of relationships; indeed, postmodern unions are a simulacrum of true marriage. The metaphysical and postmodern views differ over the purpose of marriage as well as its fundamental characteristics and functions.
Let’s take a closer look.
Marriage true and false can be distinguished in two major ways. First, in contrast to the metaphysical view of marriage, the new postmodern definition is thoroughly subjectivist in nature. It is not grounded in the facts of reality. It does not refer to a basic human reality with a defined identity, structure, function, and purpose. Indeed, it is disconnected from the necessary facts of reality that give rise to marriage in the first instance and is thus emptied of the necessary content and meaning that define marriage. Postmodern marriage is infinitely malleable. Its purpose is, according to its most vocal proponents, to serve an ideological-political agenda.
To start with, the postmodern view says that marriage is genderless; that a wedding does not require a bride (which must, by definition, be a woman) and a groom (which must, by definition, be a man), that a husband does not require a wife; that a child does not require a mother (which must, by definition, be a woman) or a father (which must, by definition, be a man). Nor is the postmodern view of marriage defined by the magic number, two. The new understanding defines marriage as the union of one or more consenting adults. (In 2012, a woman married herself in Las Vegas.) Lastly, the postmodern view of marriage regards the old-fashioned characteristics that once defined marriage, such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence, as outdated and therefore optional. In fact, according to Elizabeth Brake, a professor at the University of Calgary, a major goal of postmodern marriage is, as she said, to “denormalize heterosexual monogamy as a way of life.” Thus, the postmodern view is open to married “throuples” (a three-person couple), and of course polygamous and polyamorous marriages, “monogamish” couples who limit their marriage to two people but who are permitted to have sexual relations outside their marriage, and limited-term or temporary marriages as defined by “wedleases.”
But if marriage is not between one man and one woman, by what principle can it be defined and limited? Why should it be thought of as something particular, as something with defined characteristics that distinguish it from all other forms of romantic relationships? Postmodern marriage is therefore a fill-in-the-blank institution, and of course it is the loudest voices and government officials who fill in the blanks. Judith Stacey, one of its leading academic proponents, ably summed up the postmodern view of marriage:
If we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise. . . . Two friends might decide to marry without basing their bond on erotic or romantic attachment. . . . Or, more radical still, perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small-group marriages arranged to share resources, nurturance, and labor.
The postmodern view is grounded on emotional needs, feelings, and desires; its principal function is to satisfy intimacy and commitment; and its ultimate purpose is to promote self-esteem and to acquire social and political status in a world governed by the tastes of the notoriously hip and the congenitally envious.
The postmodern view of marriage was first sanctioned legally in a 1993 opinion of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which declared, “This court construes marriage as “‘a partnership to which both partners bring their financial resources as well as their individual energies and efforts.’” According to Andrew Sullivan, one of the leading “conservative” proponents of the postmodern view, marriage is nothing more than the vehicle by “which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another.” Marriage in the new dispensation is defined simply as companionship, as an emotional union, as a partnership, or as a super-duper friendship.
Postmodern marriage is about one or more people who love themselves or each other or who share a strong emotional bond formalizing a long-term commitment to one’s self or to one another, a commitment that lasts as long as it suits the feelings and interests of the adults involved. The definition of marriage has changed in Andrew Sullivan’s view: “From being a means to bringing up children” to being “a way in which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another.” Elsewhere, Sullivan has written that “the essence of a good marriage is not breeding or even the romantic love that can blind us while it overwhelms us,” but rather “a unique and profound friendship.” But if companionship is the definition of marriage, then there simply are no limits on what marriage can or should be except that some people should feel a strong emotional union with oneself, with another person, or with many people.
Marriage defined as partnership, friendship, or companionship does not explain, however, the deeper purposes of postmodern marriage. Andrew Sullivan captured the meaning of those deeper purposes when he wrote in Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality that unless gay marriage is legalized “a whole segment of humanity” will be denied “personal dignity.” Sullivan’s argument—hereby dubbed the argument from guilt—received official sanction in 2003 when the Ontario Court of Appeals’ decided in a case that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms required that same-sex couples be issued marriage licenses:
Marriage is, without dispute, one of the most significant forms of personal relationships. . . . Through the institution of marriage, individuals can publicly express their love and commitment to each other. Through this institution, society publicly recognizes expressions of love and commitment between individuals, granting them respect and legitimacy as a couple. This public recognition and sanction of marital relationships reflect society’s approbation of the personal hopes, desires and aspirations that underlie loving, committed conjugal relationships. This can only enhance an individual’s sense of self-worth and dignity.
The new postmodern definition of marriage, then, is about promoting the “self-worth and dignity” of people who engage in a certain kind of partnership, friendship, or companionship. In other words, postmodern marriage is driven by a kind of identity politics, the purpose of which is to elevate the “self-worth and dignity” of a protected class. But surely dignity and self-worth are not defined by social recognition, sanction, and approbation. As much as I wanted to compete in the Olympics when I was a young man, the fact that I didn’t in no way damaged my dignity and self-worth. Finally, as a married man, I can assure you that neither my dignity nor my self-worth is connected to my being married. My wife makes sure of that!
In sum, there is no relationship between marriage and human dignity, nor is marriage a “human right.” Self-esteem is not the basis of marriage, nor should unearned guilt be the means by which a counterfeit concept corrupts a legitimate one.
It should be obvious by now that the argument for same-sex marriage is fundamentally incoherent. If feelings, companionship, love, and self-esteem are the defining ingredients of marriage, if marriage is a fill-in-the-blank institution, on what grounds would you not recognize polygamous, polyamorous, and non-sexual unions as marriage? Other than sheer bigotry, why should marriage be limited to the number 2? Why shouldn’t a bisexual man marry a man and a woman if that’s his and their choice? Why shouldn’t a “throuple” be allowed to adopt children? Other than sheer bigotry, why shouldn’t five men and five women be allowed to marry? Why shouldn’t the ten people of a polyamorous marriage be allowed to adopt children? Other than sheer bigotry, why shouldn’t a man or a woman be allowed to marry his or her sister, brother, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, adult son or daughter, or another married person if they claim to be in love? Other than traditional taboos, why shouldn’t a father and an adult son be allowed to marry and adopt if they love each other? Other than sheer bigotry, why shouldn’t two heterosexual sisters be allowed to marry for the benefits that accrue with marriage? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to adopt? Surely such a prohibition represents discrimination and a violation of the “privileges and immunities,” “due process,” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment, according to the proponents of postmodern marriage.
Other than sheer bigotry and old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy taboos, why should we not celebrate such relationships? In fact, why shouldn’t we be required or even forced to celebrate such relationships? Surely it is immoral to state a moral preference for one form of family arrangement over another. If male and female are not immutable characteristics of marriage, why should number, exclusivity, permanence, choice, or even species limit marriage? Presumably the only forbidden form of marriage would be to oneself, but then again, why not? And in fact, such a wedding has, as we’ve seen already, occurred recently. And why should marriage be limited to persons? Why can’t we have interspecies marriages? If we can kill and eat animals, surely a humane society would allow us to love and marry animals? This may sound absurd but there are individuals who want to marry animals and have either done so or attempted to do so. Several years ago, a man in Missouri sought a license to marry his horse. And in 2006, a British woman, Sharon Tendler, married a male dolphin named Cindy. (It is not known if “Cindy” is transgendered.) Tendler made it clear that she did not expect Cindy to be monogamous. And why should marriage be limited to sentient beings? In 2013, a woman in France married a 500-year-old bridge.
Ultimately, the postmodern definition of marriage is open-ended and therefore unintelligible. It has no objective referents other than whims and feelings; in fact, it represents an attempt to rewrite reality. But a concept that means everything means nothing. Ultimately, the argument for same-sex marriage is a case of ideological wish-fulfillment.
Second, if the postmodern view is simply the product of human will, wish, and whim unconnected to any metaphysical realities or necessities, it necessarily follows that the postmodernists see marriage as something created and defined by government (i.e., jus dare), which means it is the creature of force. And of course, that which government has the power to create and define can also be recreated and redefined by government at will. This means that government can change at its pleasure the identity, function, and meaning of marriage, including the sex and number of those marrying as well as the other fundamental characteristics of marriage, e.g., exclusivity, monogamy, and permanence.
In 1648, the 2nd Earl of Pembroke famously said, “A parliament can do any thing but make a man a woman, and a woman a man.” The postmodern view says nonsense to that, and so has the British Parliament in the twenty-first century. The postmodern view says that marriage is whatever government says it is and therefore that government can declare a man a bride and a woman a husband. And if government can do that, why can’t it define a bridge or a dolphin to be a spouse. The postmodern concept “marriage” is defined by arbitrary human invention.
Thus, the postmodern view of marriage takes a top-down, central planning approach. It says that what was once established and accepted over millennia by innumerable and radically different societies and literally trillions of people should now be redefined by a small elite at one moment in time and enforced by the coercive power of the State (I capitalize this word to capture its Germanic quality). According to four justices on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in its 2003 same-sex marriage ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, “the government creates civil marriage.” Two years later, a federal trial court in Nebraska declared marriage to be a “creature of statute.” As such, the postmodern view of marriage comes in the form of a government dictate. The State now defines what marriage is, which means that the government defines all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and it is now using its coercive force to uphold its definition of marriage. (I will have more to say on this topic in later essays.)
The result is that marriage is no longer an institution of civil society connected to the metaphysical needs and realities of human life and recognized by government; it is now an institution created by government. And if the State has the authority to create marriage, it shall also have the power to define and create families. Why should families be defined by a mother and father? If government can define what marriage is disconnected from reality, it can certainly define what a family is disconnected from reality. This is the very definition of statism.
The postmodern marriage movement is not and has never been a grassroots movement in the same way that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was or the current homeschool revolution is today. Instead, the postmodern marriage movement is more akin to a top-down ideological putsch promoted by powerful elites in the universities, media, Hollywood, and the courts. It is, we might say, a movement of the 1 percent for the 3 percent. The metaphysical view, by contrast, says that marriage is a naturally and spontaneously evolved social institution that grew from the bottom up in every society known to man. The constituent truth and moral reality of marriage would exist whether it was recognized in the law or not.
In a free society, the law should not create marriage; it should only recognize and sanction it based on metaphysical reality and necessity.
Conclusion
Metaphysical marriage and postmodern “marriage” are not just different things. They are fundamentally different things. One is naturally grounded in the factual (i.e., biological) requirements of human life; the other is grounded in subjective feelings and desires. One defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman; the other says that marriage is entirely open as to number, sex, gender, species, and duration. One has essential attributes (e.g., monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence) and therefore a fixed definition; the other has open-ended attributes and a fluid definition. One protects the rights of children; the other serves the whims of adults. One serves an objective purpose; the other serves subjective purposes. One is recognized by government; the other is created by government fiat. One derives its autonomy from the natural order and voluntary association; the other derives its authority from the coercive power of the State. One protects the rights of individuals; the other violates individual rights. One requires no government force to be experienced and lived out; the other requires the initiation of physical force to be experienced and lived out. One is logically consistent; the other is logically incoherent.
Given the massive difference between metaphysical and postmodern marriage, the fact that both call for “love” and “commitment” means very little. But why should love and commitment be requirements of postmodern marriage. That metaphysical and postmodern marriage share a few superficial similarities (sometimes) does not change the fact that they are essentially different. They are not the same thing. They are different in kind. And precisely because they are fundamentally different, we need different concepts and definitions to denote and define them.
Ultimately, the postmodern view of marriage is built on two logical errors. The first disconnects the concept marriage from the biological reality on which it necessarily depends. The idea of same-sex marriage, for instance, is based not on perceptual reality and truth but on whim and wish. It has nothing to do with the objective purposes and characteristics of marriage; it has nothing to do with the human problem that marriage seeks to solve; and it has nothing to do with the solution marriage provides for the universal human problem. This is not to say that same-sex, polygamous, and polyamorous relationships are not something real; nor is it to say that they can’t or shouldn’t receive some kind of legal recognition. It is only to say they are not and cannot, by definition, be marriages. They are something else. That they are something else does not diminish what they are (i.e., romantic relationships), it just identifies them correctly.
Second, to expand the definition of marriage disconnected from its metaphysical roots and mixed with various emotional states is to disconnect it from its purpose, function, and characteristics. The proponents of the postmodern marriage must ultimately say that marriage is a relationship between people. It wouldn’t even have to be a romantic relationship. The sex difference, the number, the exclusivity, and the permanence are now all optional or open-ended. Marriage can be between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, and innumerable other permutations; marriage can be based on limited-term contracts, and it can be open to multiple sexual partners. Same-sex, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, and inter-species “marriages” have now been classified as, and made equal to, traditional marriages. And yes, why shouldn’t a woman’s dignity and self-worth be recognized and celebrated if she wants to marry a dolphin!
It is critically important, however, that we distinguish marriage from companionship. They are different things that deserve different names and definitions. The postmodern view of marriage is a conceptual farrago that is in the process of diluting and destroying a special and vitally important institution. It claims to support and democratize a venerable institution while it ignores and denies the metaphysical foundations on which true marriage is grounded. But there is no good reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
In a free society, men and women will have the freedom to associate with whomever they choose, and they will have the right to form private contracts that define the rights and responsibilities of their particular associations. That’s what a free and just society would do.
Audio Recording: I’m not sure what happened to the nice English gentlemen who usually reads my essays. Instead, we have a very clear and direct American woman reading the essay, and she does a fine job!
Have a great day!
Log in
