Monday, July 02, 2007
Absolutes and Moral Relativism
Today I was having a conversation with someone and the subject of parenting in this current society became the topic of conversation. She said that it's a shame that kids from the gang and drug infested area of Los Angeles, because of their environment, are destined to become gang members and drug users (as if it was an absolute). I responded by telling her that she was wrong in her opinion. Such an environment may make it more likely for a child to wind up in gangs and a drug user, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is absolutely the case every time. I know many kids that came from great upbringings that wound up messed up, and many kids from messed up childhoods that went on to do great things during their adult life.
My point is, in the end, though a number of variables may make something more likely to go in one direction, a change in direction is always possible. In those kinds of cases, one cannot preach absolutes.
Example: The idea of taking the war to the terrorists is to minimize the chances that there will be another attack against the United States. Take the war to them, and keep them off-balance and convinced that the United States is strong and won't put up with their crap. Do this, and odds are the enemy will be more unlikely to attack us. If we show weakness it will tend to embolden the enemy, making it more likely that they will strike against us. Liberals, however, will view this as if conservatives believe it is an absolute. The recent attacks in the United Kingdom drew that kind of garbage from the left - They love to call what they assume to be what conservatives believe about the conflict in Iraq to be what they love to call the "Roach Motel" theory.
Fact is, though being in the Middle East with our troops definitely lessens the chances of more terror attacks against the U.S., it does not absolutely eliminate the chance. With an enemy like the one we currently face, driven by a violent and insane ideology, it just isn't possible to completely eliminate such possibilities of attack. Many of the terrorist cells are independent from each other and don't know what the other ones are doing. They may have the same goal (to bring down the West), but they are not always completely in tune with each other when it comes to coordinating attacks. So, this means that even though the chances are slimmer that they will hit us while we take the war to them, the possibility that the United States may suffer another terrorist attack from Islamism is still present.
Knowing that the opportunity for another terrorist attack against the United States is out there, then it would make sense to continue to take all security measures to protect our nation from such a possibility. This would mean sealing the borders, carefully screening everyone coming in to our country, profiling the group that is most likely to launch a terrorist attack (Muslims between the ages of 15 and 35), and constant heavy security at our most vulnerable places such as airports, and such.
So why don't we do these things?
Political Correctness, and more specifically, multi-culturalism and moral relativism.
I have been quoted in the past as saying things like, "I don't want multi-culturalism and diversity in America." The liberals went nuts on that. I must be a White-Supremicist Nazi for saying something like that, right?
Now that the liberals have their panties up in a bunch, let me explain as I had failed to clearly before.
Back during the sixties the Civil Rights movement's primary goal was to end segregation. Blacks were not going to be treated like second class citizens anymore. After centuries of oppression from Whites, the idea of a single America, regardless of color, was finally taking shape. And the Black leaders of that day, Martin Luther King for one, should be revered for what they did as a part of that movement. No more would there be Blacks, Whites, Browns, and so forth. We would stand together, hopefully someday, as Americans.
The idea of multi-culturalism and diversity teaches that folks should embrace their racial identity, foster bilingualism, and to improve support services and physical facilities for all people by catering to their ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds (unless you are Christian, of course, then it's a crime to do so).
Sounds great, doesn't it? But to do so we must make allowances for each diverse race, ethnicity, religion, and such. This, my friends, means that special allowances should be made to make them feel more at home, rather than having these people assimilate into American Culture. To me this is preferential treatment, as well as a return to segregation. This is why I say I don't want multi-culturalism and diversity. Not because being sensitive to other people's cultures and heritage and such is such a bad thing, but because along with retaining whatever their culture and such is, their number one priority should be to assimilate into our culture. To be an American.
By giving in to these groups and giving them preferential treatment because we are so afraid of offending them or pissing them off, we are offending and pissing off the most important folks of all, those that are Americans.
And with this fear of offending folks of different ethnicities and religions, we have carried it into other parts of our culture, creating a system of moral relativism. For fear of offending folks that perform activities that were once considered immoral we have made concessions, as well as using psychology and philosophy to explain away deviant behavior.
Let me put it this way. A truly wonderful utopian society would be inhabited by people that work together. Everyone would work with their own hands to produce something good, and be glad to do it because it would be for the common good. People would whistle and sing as they worked, with no worries or anxiety because the people all together would be taking care of each other. There would be no argument over anything, because everyone's concern would be the village. Race and religion would be non-issues. Only the smooth clock-work of the common good would matter. The economy wouldn't matter, either, because there would be no rich or poor. We'd all just share and share alike. Ah, what a wonderful world it could be, right? Doesn't that just sound great?
This is the world that socialism, liberalism, and globalism all envision. Sounds like utopia. But it is not rooted in reality. Reality is that if not driven to succeed by competition and the possibility of losing one's level of living, the pieces that moves society forward falls apart. People, when given everything by the government, eventually become dependent upon it, and lose their ability to be self-reliant. When everything is accepted through moral relativism, people will choose to do the wrong thing, and abuse the system. People don't work together too well. It's human nature.
I am a big fan of self-reliance and responsible decision making, and if everyone did the same this would be a great society. But folks don't. But when a poor decision is made it is counter-productive to just explain it away and allow such behavior to continue in an attempt to be tolerant.
There are some absolutes in life that do exist and are important. But unfortunately while everyone is trying to create absolutes in things where no absolute should exist, folks forget the absolutes that should exist. To sum those absolutes up in a nutshell: "Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong." It is wrong to steal, for example. But not in the liberal world. They will, instead, find a reason to nurture the person and to discover why they would do such a thing, rather than offer punishment for the crime. Murder is murder, unless in a situation of self-defense or in war where to kill the enemy will stop a larger slaughter of your own citizens by such enemy. Not in the minds of liberals. If an enemy wishes to kill you, according to them, and if an enemy commits an act of war, even when the enemy is unreasonable and unwilling to listen to reason, we have to be diplomatic. However, also in the liberal's eyes, to kill an unborn baby is perfectly acceptable, because a woman's choice is more important than a child's life.
Is it me, or is the liberal position kind of backwards?