(Even then, there are more complicated moral concerns to take into account, since it can also be better for couples to reconcile even after adultery or abandonment has occurred.) While Christians might not all apply the language of intrinsic immorality to divorce, they would still certainly refer to lying (and selecting a child to die) as intrinsically immoral.Nonetheless, without denying these acts’ intrinsic immorality, one can posit exceedingly rare circumstances which morally legitimize instances of these intrinsically immoral acts.It deserves an assessment which vindicates the historical Christian belief on these matters, showing how intertwined an anti-miscegenist and anti-racial egalitarian outlook is with the rest of Christian and biblical morality.In my previous article on miscegenation, I strove to make the case that interracial marriage has a certain sort of moral presumption (or weight, or preponderance) against it.That was my stepmother, the day after Thanksgiving, the day after she discovered I was dating someone. Maybe, in a long time, he might change his mind, but I don’t think so. A premise which far too many people unquestioningly and unthinkingly accept today is the moral propriety of interracial marriage.Choosing a child to die is grievously wrong in ordinary circumstances, but it might be permitted in these very dire circumstances.To use a better and less ghastly example of a moral dilemma, consider the Hebrew midwives who lied to Pharaoh in order to save their own people’s babies (Exodus -20).
Morality by its very nature allows for exemptions in certain circumstances; and this occurs not because God’s law lacks universal validity, but because God’s law accounts for conflicts of moral goods—that is, moral dilemmas.
The mother therefore has the very difficult decision of choosing one (or both) of her own sons to die.
Such a situation would be a moral dilemma, for moral reasons resist all three of the options (choosing the first son, choosing the second son, and choosing neither) but one of them must be selected.
After noting that the answer to the question can lie anywhere on the continuum between “wrong in all circumstances” and “wrong in no circumstances,” I gave a number of reasons trying to tip the scales further and further towards the “wrong in all circumstances” side, even though I conceded that rare, desert-island scenarios could morally permit extraordinary instances of miscegenation.
In that article, I essentially argued that miscegenation is wrong in ordinary circumstances, though I did not explicate very deeply what is meant by that.
Egalitarian propaganda has so efficaciously transformed our minds in the last several decades that even the slightest resistance to it – even a father’s stating a mere against it – is deemed the unforgivable sin.