A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism. III

  Originally published in 2006

The leftist notions of individualism were previously discussed and shown to be so much trash in the first and second parts in this series: A Theoretical Deconstruction of Liberalism I, II. We continue the dissection and public exposure of this virulent social disease with the third part. We need to discuss the leftist notions and myths of moral-relativism. We find this on the Internet:

Excerpts from http://www.moral-relativism.com/ are cited below in quotes and indents.

“Moral Relativism - What's It All About? Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

It is interesting that no boundaries are mentioned here. Where do we go with ‘deciding’ and at what point do we decide that activities are a detriment to society or outright violent crime? The left-liberals do not wish to define any limits to degeneracy. When we make some kind of decision does this amount to an individual veto to law? Can I decide that certain taxes do not meet my particular vision of moral relativism and refuse to pay?? Perhaps that is just part of ‘my culture.’

For another case study, if Stanley Tookie Williams believed it was proper for him to ‘choose’ a certain 7-11 and murder the workers there with a shotgun blast in the back of one of the victim’s heads it must have been okay—thus sanctioned-- in his culture of street gangs. Was this Tookie’s individual choice? Who opposed this murder and robbery? His peers? Not the left. Tookie was considered an ‘intellectual’ and leader of the left and more an icon breaking new social boundaries than a simple, disgusting murderer. Mumia murdered a cop, but is considered an ‘intellectual’ in France and parts of Europe and has been hailed as a political prisoner and possible candidate for the Nobel Prize in literature.

“In describing her view on morality, the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America once stated, "…teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves." She claims to be morally neutral, yet her message is clearly intended to influence the thinking of others… an intention that is not, in fact, neutral.”

It this is so then where is the condemnation for the US when they hunt down terrorists and obliterate them? Do the far left stumble over their own words as they assert the negative in these cases to oppose what they teach? If some can justify their acts based on the very definitions of moral relativism then who prevents others from doing so?? All I have to do is to give my reasons for believing as I do. The first thing a leftist would do with a terrorist incident is to ask: “Why do they hate us?” Why not just shovel out tons of dollars from taxpayers and maybe they will ‘respect’ us.

The hypocritical left have no intention of allowing any criminals to be executed or even punished if they can prevent it, but they will ignore their own words when used by others to sanction similar acts. We still hear the ringing and noisy applause for Fidel Castro who seized power in Cuba and with a lengthy list marched hundreds up to the wall and had his firing squads gun them down. We hear nothing from the far left on this incident. So, we wonder how they handled Pol Pot in Cambodia. Why, it was the fault of the US!! They caused Viet Nam to invade Cambodia! We heard in the 60s that “the criminal act (murder, rape, larceny, selling dope, slavery, forced prostitution, etc.) is over so why commit more crime by punishing the criminal? Left-Liberals DO have a ‘moral code’ and will not allow others to use their sordid reasoning against them. Their style of addressing morality is to block all other forms of ethics and deny an equal basis of reason. They claim to have a ‘moral’ agenda if you can manage to call their dogma moral. It is not.

Now moral relativism is a cofactor of nihilism, or worse. We wonder how we can control the actions of others if their actions, illegal by statute, are sanctioned and even encouraged by the courts who would strike down such laws. To say that a given law or statute is devoid of some moral basis is to toss out the legal system. Yet, that is what the left-liberal activist judges seem to be doing. One dirt bag was spared prison after being convicted for having sex with children because he was ‘too short.’

“Evidence that moral relativism is seen as more "fair" or "neutral" than a "hardline" stance on morality is seen in a 2002 column from Fox News analyst Bill O'Reilly, who asked "Why is it wrong to be right?" In his article, O'Reilly cites recent Zogby poll findings regarding what is being taught in American universities. Studies indicate 75% of American college professors currently teach that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Rather, they treat the questions of good and evil as relative to "individual values and cultural diversity." The problem with this, according to O'Reilly, is that "they see the world not as it is, but as they want it to be. And annoying questions about moral absolutes and unacceptable behavior are usually left unanswered."

It seems that if we use the liberal notions of moral relativism we should be able to set up the stocks and institute public hangings again on warm Sunday afternoons where all can bring their lunch and tail gait and see their particular form of justice meted out in their personalized form of moral relativism. But, others are not allowed to exercise their own choices or advocate actions because the

We can all now be moral relativists! Since there is no wrong or right let us keep hunting down terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon and killing them. I recommend napalm for its sanitization effects and deference to the environment. That is certainly not wrong in my wisdom base not does it conflict with my views of my own cultural diversity. From the definition of moral relativism I think they ought to die and because I believe it then that's true for me.

Liberalism is crumbling if based on fluff like the above, as it should. No loss.

Go get ‘em.