WILSON’S LOCAL PRINT AND DIGITAL COMMUNITY INSTITUTION SINCE 1896

Moral relativism undercuts progressives’ professed morality

Posted 1/24/19

The current political harsh and often vitriolic rhetoric that has reached heights that may well be unprecedented. Although there have always been differences between the two major political parties, …

Sign up to keep reading — IT'S FREE!

In an effort to improve our website and enhance our local coverage, WilsonTimes.com has switched to a membership model. Fill out the form below to create a free account. Once you're logged in, you can continue using the site as normal. You should remain logged in on your computer or device as long as you don’t clear your browser history/cookies.

Moral relativism undercuts progressives’ professed morality

Thank you for being one of our most loyal readers. Please consider supporting community journalism by subscribing.

Posted

The current political harsh and often vitriolic rhetoric that has reached heights that may well be unprecedented. Although there have always been differences between the two major political parties, I believe those differences have taken on an entirely new and disgusting manner. Instead of debating policy and solutions to problems in rational and civil tones, we are degenerating to ad hominem arguments and accusations against opponents — people or party — based upon perceived bias, prejudice and phony phobias.

For those on the Progressive Left, it seems to never be about actual practical and definable differences. It seems that the Social Democrats consistently play identity politics when it comes to just about everything. To the Left, because I think abortion is the murder of unborn children, I’m automatically against women and must be a sexist. The white man in Georgia who didn’t vote for the black, female candidate for governor must be a racist and a misogynist. When a non-Democrat voices concern over several thousand illegal immigrants flooding across our border, some of whom may well be criminals, MSNBC instantly labels them as xenophobic.

I find the hypocrisy of the Progressive Left appalling. Nancy Pelosi declares a border wall “immoral” yet has no moral qualms about murdering tens of thousands of unborn babies every month. James Comey pronounces the president morally unqualified for the office yet admits he divulged secrets to a friend in hope that they could be used against Trump. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells us that a system that allows for billionaires is immoral while she is wearing very expensive clothes. (I wonder which system she thinks is morally superior?) She also says it’s better to morally right — according to her standards, of course — than factually correct. Is it not possible to be both?

But there’s something missing: just what is the standard of morality to which they make comparisons? Like postmodern writers and philosophers before them, Michel Foucault being the best example, the Progressive Left boldly asserts that morality is nothing but a social construct and totally fluid; as changeable as clothing styles and without any objective standard. Suggesting that the moral standards of the Taliban, the Third Reich or Mao’s China are/were wrong, much less evil, is unacceptable to postmodern sensibilities. Since the Left insists morality is relative, it’s not possible to say one moral code of conduct is better than another.

An objective and transcendent morality? Horror of horrors! That implies there might be a holy God to whom all humanity — that includes the president — will ultimately be accountable. Yes, readers I am saying that without a moral authority, i.e. God, there is no truly objective moral standard.

Brian Grawburg

Wilson

Comments