Posted on 03/31/2003 4:28:53 AM PST by ml/nj
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:14:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
THE MODERN liberal asks the question, "How can we justify imposing our Western, Christian ideals on someone else?" It is commonplace to hear people ask, "Who are we to judge someone?" This sham of moral relativity leads to the degradation of the moral fiber of our society, penalizing anyone who dares to take a stand on moral grounds. Issues are no longer seen as black and white, but a thousand shades of gray.
(Excerpt) Read more at cavalierdaily.com ...
ML/NJ
Nice post. I have always countered the 'shades of gray" analogy by pointing out that life is actually in technicolor.
However, two of those colors are black and white.
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room. Full text
Some philosophic background:
In the early part of this century, a loose aggregation of intellectuals known as the "Frankfurt School" produced a body of work which was haunted by exactly such issues. Most of its names have by now become familiar to the academic community: Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm.
While they engaged a dazzlingly diverse group of intellectual disciplines and theoretical approaches, the guiding thread of all of their analyses was the diagnosis of the ruined, pathological world of the early 20th century. Under the triumphant twin shadows of full-blown industrial capitalism and National Socialism, the Frankfurt School asked two familiar questions: How did we get here? and Where does salvation lie? What was so tremendously original about their collective responses was that the answers lay not in political activism or in a revolutionary labor movement, but in such abstruse phenomena as avant-garde art, psychoanalysis, dialectical philosophy, and a messianic religious faith.
Their studies-which go under the general name of "Critical Theory"-were among the first which can be properly labeled interdisciplinary, encompassing insights from so many different areas. By the time of their mature works-most notably Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment-the members of the Frankfurt School no longer referred to their work as philosophy, sociology, aesthetics or psychology; it was, simply, "Theory."
If you "tolerate" others with different beliefs, you're saying, in effect, "You're wrong, but I'll let it slide". A little patronizing, yes?
Whenever I hear this argument, I counter with: "I think slavery (murder, et al) is wrong and I'd never own a slave (murder someone, et al), but I don't want to limit another person's right to feel differently." It's strange how many don't see any similarities.
The problem is the notion that morality can be personal. I do not have a personal morality, although I may have a personal opinion about morality. There is a moral law in the universe, just as there is a physical law in the universe. Our job as people is to discover that law and abide by it.
The distinction, unfortunately, is that it is much more difficult for people to determine what the moral law is. Social issues defy experimentation. Therefore, we are left with two options: 1) accept the historical examples, 2) accept revelation from an intelligence superior to ours. Both approaches yield remarkably similar results.
In the 21st century, neither answer is socially acceptable.
Shalom.
A cogent point. Noam Chomsky and various other left-wingers have observed that to own the language is to own the discourse. That is why words such as "discrimination" have been so vilified. In a more genteel age, "discriminating taste" was a compliment.
This is also true of such euphemisms as "affirmative action," which is neither affirmative nor action, but simply racial prejudice with a candy coating; "partial-birth abortion," which is simply murder; and "gay rights," which is legitimization of perversion.
If the Left speaks frankly, their agenda becomes clear and people will recoil in horror. So they disguise their motives just as they disguise their intent.
Bob Grant refers his listners to The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase when this topic arises.
ML/NJ
Moral misconceptions(BTW, I disagree with Ms. White. She hasn't a Clue.)
While Daniel Bagley's March 31 column, "The problem with moral relativism," may portray "moral relativism" as "a dangerous thing," we know from history that it is far more dangerous to claim moral absolutism, as he does in his latest column. Let's make it clear that when he proposes that we "reintroduce morality into our society," he is speaking of the Daniel Bagley morality. Everyone wants our society to be a moral one, but we have to understand that we come from different backgrounds and thus we do have different standards of what is right and wrong. For example, I believe that it is morally wrong to cause the unnecessary suffering of other beings, thus I am against killing others in the name of war, killing others under the false justification of the death penalty, exploiting others through poverty wages, or exploiting animals for food, clothing, or product testing. I'm guessing from Bagley's criticism of "the modern liberal" that he would not accept all of my ethical claims, thus he would have to realize that there are "shades of gray," and that there is not a universal ethical code we could all agree on. Accepting moral relativism does not send the world into chaos, it allows us to understand the cultural and historical contexts of our beliefs. It is dangerous to propose that we see the world in "black and white" when you realize who is deciding where the line is.
Leslie White
CLAS II
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.