"Liberals" and the Cult of Moral Relativism

[libertyisntdead]

From http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/libera.htm

"the "liberal" -- almost always intellectually dishonest to the core -- wants to try to get away in portraying those who express moral sentiments as somehow threatening to impose their morality on others.

What the "liberal" really feels threatened by is not legislation
but the idea that the morality of human behavior might not be arbitrary and
relative but is based on absolute standards and rational principles which if
ignored could affect his life and happiness. (Of course this same liberal
sees nothing wrong or hypocritical with HIM using Big Government to impose
HIS notions of morality on other people -- from compulsory school attendance
laws, forced bussing of school children, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative
Action, compulsory seat belts, FDA restrictions on what vitamins you can
take, laws against "quack" cancer cures, compulsory helmets for cyclists,
compulsory Social Security taxes, restrictions on use of ones own land,
antitrust laws, income taxes, price controls, and many other coercive
interventions against peoples' freedom to engage in capitalist acts among
consenting adults.)"

Great article getting into how a lot of modern liberals think.

 

[Deborah K]

Reminds me of what a friend of mine who doesn't trust liberals once said: "If they didn't have double-standards, they'd have no standards at all."

 

[acptulsa]

This lies at the heart of everthing they use to keep us divided and conquered. And if we're good--really good--only we can reunite this nation against the corporatists. The key, of course, isn't just to point out our principles, but to spend our time figuring out how those principles can have a positive impact on the nation and everyone in it by allowing US to craft our INDIVIDUAL cures to our INDIVIDUAL issues. And, of course, by demonstrating how we can help each other with our heads and hearts and hands far better than some bureaucrats far away in Washington can help us by stuffing us into molds.

It's more than a 'bipartisan' solution. It's just sensible.

 

[libertyisntdead]

Reminds me of what a friend of mine who doesn't trust liberals once said: "If they didn't have double-standards, they'd have no standards at all."

Very good point. From my experience arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a 2 year old. When logic and rational thought fails them after about .02 seconds they resort to throwing temper tantrums and calling you names.

 

[libertyisntdead]

This lies at the heart of everthing they use to keep us divided and conquered. And if we're good--really good--only we can reunite this nation against the corporatists. The key, of course, isn't just to point out our principles, but to spend our time figuring out how those principles can have a positive impact on the nation and everyone in it by allowing US to craft our INDIVIDUAL cures to our INDIVIDUAL issues. And, of course, by demonstrating how we can help each other with our heads and hearts and hands far better than some bureaucrats far away in Washington can help us by stuffing us into molds.

It's more than a 'bipartisan' solution. It's just sensible.

I agree. Expressing our principles as clearly as possible is something I feel we are excellent at. The issue is getting people to listen and getting more respect and coverage from mainstream media. This of course is all happening with Ron Paul which is great and we have to keep the train moving forward.

 

[Echoes]

Reminds me of what a friend of mine who doesn't trust liberals once said: "If they didn't have double-standards, they'd have no standards at all."

I think imma have to borrow that awesome quote.

 

[acptulsa]

I think imma have to borrow that awesome quote.

Yeah, had to give her a +rep on that one. Sure helps one to understand just how it works out that the road to hell gets paved with those good intentions.

 

[nicoleeann]

the funny thing about liberals is they are always saying religious people try to "force their beliefs on me" while this may be true in some laws that religious people try to enact, most of the "forcing" that liberals are complaining about is simply religious people talking loudly about their controversial beliefs and trying to convince other people verbally. While this may be annoying, there certainly isn't anything that should be illegal about it.
Liberals on the other hand are always forcing there beliefs on other people through socialist laws and nanny state laws. Of course regular run of the mill republicans do this too, but they don't have the obvious double standard that democrats do.

 

[Tom in NYC]

From http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/libera.htm

"the "liberal" -- almost always intellectually dishonest to the core -- wants to try to get away in portraying those who express moral sentiments as somehow threatening to impose their morality on others.

What the "liberal" really feels threatened by is not legislation
but the idea that the morality of human behavior might not be arbitrary and
relative but is based on absolute standards and rational principles which if
ignored could affect his life and happiness. (Of course this same liberal
sees nothing wrong or hypocritical with HIM using Big Government to impose
HIS notions of morality on other people -- from compulsory school attendance
laws, forced bussing of school children, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative
Action, compulsory seat belts, FDA restrictions on what vitamins you can
take, laws against "quack" cancer cures, compulsory helmets for cyclists,
compulsory Social Security taxes, restrictions on use of ones own land,
antitrust laws, income taxes, price controls, and many other coercive
interventions against peoples' freedom to engage in capitalist acts among
consenting adults.)"

Great article getting into how a lot of modern liberals think.

Don't mistake this with the idea that moral relativism is necessarily liberal though. I'm an amoralist - meaning I think all moral judgments fall somewhere between pure fantasy and an expression of preference. I think Christians who talk about moral righteousness are silly. But I support the idea that our country is better off allowing for that sort of discourse and thus support libertarian ideas.

 

[libertyisntdead]

Don't mistake this with the idea that moral relativism is necessarily liberal though. I'm an amoralist - meaning I think all moral judgments fall somewhere between pure fantasy and an expression of preference. I think Christians who talk about moral righteousness are silly. But I support the idea that our country is better off allowing for that sort of discourse and thus support libertarian ideas.

I understand what you're saying about Christians. While I would consider myself Christian I also don't support any federal laws banning same sex marriages but at the same time don't think churches should have to marry or recognize same sex couples either. If same sex couples want to call it marriage and get the same federal entitlements as traditional couples then so be it. However the entitlements shouldn't exist for anyone (straight or gay) in the first place and I do have an issue with the far left pushing a homosexual agenda on children.

 

[Tom in NYC]

I understand what you're saying about Christians. While I would consider myself Christian I also don't support any federal laws banning same sex marriages but at the same time don't think churches should have to marry or recognize same sex couples either. If same sex couples want to call it marriage and get the same federal entitlements as traditional couples then so be it. However the entitlements shouldn't exist for anyone (straight or gay) in the first place and I do have an issue with the far left pushing a homosexual agenda on children.

Yeah I was just pointing out that you can believe, as I do, that no moral judgment can have a truth value - or at the very least that the truth value cannot be determined by human beings - and still not necessarily be a liberal or a statist or a lover of all things evil.

 

[libertyisntdead]

Yeah I was just pointing out that you can believe, as I do, that no moral judgment can have a truth value - or at the very least that the truth value cannot be determined by human beings - and still not necessarily be a liberal or a statist or a lover of all things evil.

I respect and understand what you're saying and would agree that amorality doesn't equal liberal big government evil but in my opinion it's a slippery slope when one denies fundamental differences between right and wrong and then society as a whole suffers. Look at America today for a prime example.

 

[Tom in NYC]

I respect and understand what you're saying and would agree that amorality doesn't equal liberal big government evil but in my opinion it's a slippery slope when one denies fundamental differences between right and wrong and then society as a whole suffers. Look at America today for a prime example.

I don't deny those differences in any practical sense. I just don't think they can be independently verified as true and false with any certainty. There's simply no way to do so.

 

[ronpaulitician]

I typically enjoy discussing topics dealing with morality with [label liberals] more so than with [label conservatives]. Liberals seem more open to accepting new input into their moral belief system.

 

[Tom in NYC]

I typically enjoy discussing topics dealing with morality with [label liberals] more so than with [label conservatives]. Liberals seem more open to accepting new input into their moral belief system.

I think there's some truth to that - with the exception of government's control over those moral values. To that end, the article in the OP was accurate.

Often, my conversation drifts to one of two thoughts:
"Well if you're against XX being run by government, then you must hate whatever benefit is intended by that government program," or
"But the Bible says that XX, therefore XX is right."

Neither is convincing to me.

 

[libertyisntdead]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Our founding fathers realized for our constitution to work, morality had to precede it. It can't and wasn't intended to convert amoral or immoral citizens into moral ones. Therefore federal laws enforcing morality and protecting citizens from themselves don't work and are unconstitutional. However without a strong moral belief system which have been traditionally defined by religion, the principles of the constitution are inadequate.

 

[Tom in NYC]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Our founding fathers realized for our constitution to work, morality had to precede it. It can't and wasn't intended to convert amoral or immoral citizens into moral ones. Therefore federal laws enforcing morality and protecting citizens from themselves don't work and are unconstitutional. However without a strong moral belief system which have been traditionally defined by religion, the principles of the constitution are inadequate.

I agree with that sentiment. My points were simply thus:

traditionally defined by religion != necessarily defined by religion (e.g. I am an atheist who makes 'moral' judgments based on reason all day, every day)
defined by religion != any level of certainty about the veracity of the claim

The law in a country that respects differences in religious and moral belief must ignore those beliefs in crafting the law, else we have a tyrannical majority rule. Which sounds familiar. But I think we in general agreement. I took more issue with the original post about liberals and relativity in morality. If I'm a member of that "cult", I certainly don't wear the right robes.

 

[libertyisntdead]

I agree with that sentiment. My points were simply thus:

traditionally defined by religion != necessarily defined by religion (e.g. I am an atheist who makes 'moral' judgments based on reason all day, every day)
defined by religion != any level of certainty about the veracity of the claim

The law in a country that respects differences in religious and moral belief must ignore those beliefs in crafting the law, else we have a tyrannical majority rule. Which sounds familiar. But I think we in general agreement. I took more issue with the original post about liberals and relativity in morality. If I'm a member of that "cult", I certainly don't wear the right robes.

It does seem that today more and more people claim to get their morality outside of any religious institutional influence such as in the rise of spirituality and secular humanism. While on the surface there is nothing wrong with this (and I personally am a very spiritual person or at least I'd like to believe ) it does seem that liberals are champions of secular humanism more so than anyone else. And their morality is a lot more elastic and "relative" as the original post had mentioned which leads to moral confusion rationalizing harmful behavior (substance abuse, extreme sexual permissiveness etc etc) I'm no prude or saint but when a society is constantly redefining what is morally acceptable and the envelope keeps getting pushed further and further eventually there's going to be a backlash and the pendulum is going to start swinging back the other way. Candidates like Michael Bachmann and Rick Santorum are indicative of this. The real problem is when both parties believe the government can fix societies problems when in reality it can't and it just makes things worse.

 

[Johncjackson]

I understand what you're saying about Christians. While I would consider myself Christian I also don't support any federal laws banning same sex marriages but at the same time don't think churches should have to marry or recognize same sex couples either. If same sex couples want to call it marriage and get the same federal entitlements as traditional couples then so be it. However the entitlements shouldn't exist for anyone (straight or gay) in the first place and I do have an issue with the far left pushing a homosexual agenda on children.

I respect your beliefs, and your political beliefs make a lot of sense. I have never seen this "homosexual agenda," though. For the MOST part ( exceptions exist, sure) I don't see liberals or anyone else sexualizing homosexualilty anymore than heterosexuality is publicly sexualized and accepted.

In other words, I see anti-gay people sexualizing everything to a much greater extent than homosexuals and applying a double standard.

 

[libertyisntdead]

I respect your beliefs, and your political beliefs make a lot of sense. I have never seen this "homosexual agenda," though. For the MOST part ( exceptions exist, sure) I don't see liberals or anyone else sexualizing homosexualilty anymore than heterosexuality is publicly sexualized and accepted.

In other words, I see anti-gay people sexualizing everything to a much greater extent than homosexuals and applying a double standard.

I agree that there is too much sexualization everywhere in the mainstream today and feel bad for anyone who has to raise girls in this environment. My issue with the far left is with children's books dealing with homosexuality such as King and King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King. In my opinion any mention of sexuality (straight or gay) in a children's book is inappropriate, period.