In this morning’s podcast with Layla, we touched on how moral matters are being politicized and political matters are moralized.
As you can hear in the podcast, I find this a very disturbing trend. During the podcast I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss this at length but was going to do a post explaining why this is a disturbing trend.
Then this afternoon Larwyn sent this article by Tim Thorstenson, Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
Now enter the moral angle. If global warming is now a moral matter, it would seem to suggest an associated implication that these inconvenient viewpoints are immoral. Apparently it is now the duty of “good” people to reject these opinions on this “moral” basis and without regard to whether they are factually true or false.
The most bizarre aspect of this strategy is that it is exactly what the liberals have always (unfairly) accused us conservatives of doing. Here, morality is not being used as a lens through which to view the facts, but rather as a hammer that can smash the inconvenient ones. Regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I must not believe it possible for Bob to have shot George because such a fact is not compatible with the accepted moral viewpoint! If I dare to believe otherwise, then I am “immoral”.
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are “good” (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are “bad” (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are “immoral”.
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained “moral” position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?
The liberals always claimed that such behavior – allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones – was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this “ultimate evil” becomes “acceptable strategy” if the cause is justified. This is “liberal moral relativism” taken to a whole new level.
Read it all.
“The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion.” (Larwyn)
Sounds like the basic premise of Islam to me. Believe or off with your head!
And it’s not even a matter of faith; my podcast guest of 2 weeks ago, Dr Fleming, discussed how Sst Augustine believe in faith through reason. This trend is much worse: It’s as if the Enlightment didn’t happen – which is why I find this to be so disturbing.
This boil is past the point of being lanced. It is beginning to infect the tissue around it and will soon result in the lost of a limb.
We had a situation in our church lately, that relates, in a weird round-about way. One of the younger members, mid-thirties, a father and a deacon, yelled at the pastor in the hallway after service over some stupid debate that had been raging for weeks in all sorts of different meetings.
The next day, one of the oldest and most respected members visited the pastor and told him he would take care of it. The next day, the “yeller” visited the pastor and apologized. Sincerely. Seems the older and wiser gentleman took him aside and gently instructed in the error of ways. Not to mention, you don’t yell at the pastor. Or the priest. Or whomever the leader is.
The moral behind this story, I think, is that we’ve lost something as our ‘older and wiser’ folks have gone on to their reward. There are fewer and fewer of those around who understand America 101, basic civility or even know which fork to use at a fancy table. It’s certainly not taught at school! And young parents today probably didn’t learn it from their parents, either!
Siggy had some interesting facts the other day in his post, I think it was the one about the Looking Glass, about how Americans make up less than 5% of the world’s population, but the rest of the world obsesses about us constantly.
Those who live in America now (well, at least most of those) simply don’t get it. How couple so few a people make such an implact in such a short time?
Sorry, didn’t mean for this to turn into a post! Sometimes when I get on my soapbox, somebody needs to haul me off of it with the vaudeville hook!
OS, I’m very glad you comment!
There are fewer and fewer of those around who understand America 101, basic civility or even know which fork to use at a fancy table
I blame the generation that came of age in the 1960s. I’m not sure if it’s due to self-absorbtion, rudeness, or what, but they definitely tossed away values.
Instead they embraced “letting it all hang out”, anything goes, and the easy way out.
Unfortunately life is not about the easy way out. Life is about living morally with Reason, and using judgement.
Which brings me to the subject of using the right fork. People who know nowadays which one is the right fork are those, at least that I have observed, who Reason and use judgement.
Exactly! When it comes to Reason or Judgement, most pick the “None of the above” option.
Have you ever watched “Parental Control” on MTV? (Sorry, my kids got me into this one! I try to stay away from reality shows, but this one has an interesting twist.) It’s a show where the parents interview and pick 2 suitors for their teen, hoping their child will in turn replace the loser boy/girlfriend with the new person. The teen then goes on a date with each “contestant” while the loser boy/girlfriend has to stay with the parents and watch videos of each date. Then at the end the kid decides whether to stay with loser or venture out with someone new. Results are usually 50-50.
Two things get me about this show. First, the interview. You wouldn’t believe what comes out the prospective date’s mouths to adults they’ve just met, and obviously need to impress. F-bombs, “is she a virgin?”, etc. Mountains of disrespect. Second, the “couch session” where the parents and current squeeze watch the date videos. More mountains of disprespect. Real in-law material there. Uh-huh.
It’s MTV, so I’m sure part of it is scripted just for shockvalue. That’s their MO. BUT, it illustrates the tip of the iceberg with the decline in values here. Parents don’t want to be parents and kids know they can get away with most anything. Then these same kids grow up and run for Congress.
Parents don’t want to be parents
Any parent who would rather be a friend to their child than a parent to their child, has totally disqualified himself/herself for the job.