Moral Relativism and the Right
One of the more popular phrases used by the Right to describe the Left is "moral relativists."
"Good golly, Chip, these liberals have no sense of good and evil. They have no appreciation for the fact that there is Real Evil in the world, and that stems from their moral relativism! They accept that a bad deed is not quite so bad in certain instances. But we know that evil is always evil, right, Chip?"
"Right you are, Skip. Some things are always evil. Like hating freedom."
(For some reason, I always picture far-right mouthbreathers having cute nicknames for each other, like Skippy or Chip. I blame this prejudice on both Scooter Libby and our president's weird quirk of assigning nicknames to everything and everyone: Brownie, Guru, and the ever-popular Turd-blossom. It seems he's given everything a nickname but the White House Rose Garden. ... Wait, has he nicknamed that too? Maybe he calls it "Roselita" or something. Jesus ... Anyway, enough of the tangent. I believe the Far Right all have goofy nicknames. Enough said.)
But in this case, with all apologies to the title of Arianna Huffington's new book, the Right is right. For the most part, we on the Left side of the political divide -- along with most thoughtful types -- recognize that morality is a mushy subject. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's family is not the same thing as, say, draining a pension fund and stealing millions from hapless workers who will then have to steal bread to feed their families.
But the interesting part about the moral relativism of the Left is that, out there on the edge, where man's inhumanity to man becomes truly horrific, we suddenly throw moral relativism out the window and recognize that certain actions are always wrong, regardless of the reasons why. Rape is always wrong. Child molestation is always wrong. And, yes, torture is always wrong.
When it comes to moral relativism, the difference between the Right and the Left seems not one of who practices the philosophy and who doesn't, but in which areas we are willing to concede that, among all the stark black and whites, there is room for shades of gray.
The moral relativism of the Right is found in its specious arguments for torturing the bejesus out of jumpsuit-clad detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom are as deserving of being locked up as anyone reading this. Take, for example, the case of al-Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj, who was released from the American internment camp in Cuba last week after six years. He was never charged with a crime and, when captured by Pakistani intelligence officers in Afghanistan, he carried a work visa and was on assignment in the oft-war-torn country.
And yet, back when the Republican presidential primary was still sexy, the contenders were falling all over themselves to assure potential voters how far they would go in maiming Guantanamo detainees. Moral relativists like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani fell all over themselves to see who could win the requisite pro-torture voting bloc.
Now that it's over, and John McCain is the man, the Right has found perhaps its most shameful flunky for its pro-torture message. The coming debate between McCain and Barack Obama (I like Hillary too, but let's be real here.) will be a debate about the future of our country. The Right fears that an Obama administration would "cut and run," "give comfort to our enemies," or "insert focus-group-tested slogan here." It fears that an Obama administration would mean the destruction of America, or at least that's what it screams to make people afraid enough to vote against their own best interests. But America is, of course, too strong for that. The only way America will ever be destroyed is if we destroy ourselves; if we destroy what America means. And tossing out habeas corpus, the Constitution and basic human rights should accomplish that destruction nicely.
Which is why I ask of the moral relativists of the Right: Why do you hate America?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
While I applaud Dan's well-reasoned and well-written article, it does seem like a rather lengthy expression of the reality of conservatism which can be expressed succinctly: The Hypocritical Right.
"Moral relativists like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani fell all over themselves to see who could win the requisite pro-torture voting bloc."
Does it not bother hard working Americans, white Americans, that there's actually a "pro-torture voting bloc" in America? How can you be a god-fearing Christian, and be pro-torture? It's a bit like the pro-lifers all being for the death penalty. America! Can't you just watch some violent porn, or a snuff film or two, to satiate that bloodlust? When do you start throwing the immigrants to the lions? Surely the bloodbath that you call your foreign policy, and the Caligulian excesses of your culture signal of the Fall of the American Empire.
There isn't actually a pro-torture voting bloc. That was a description by the author. I don't think that there is a certain bloc of people that would vote based on a candidate's "torture record", if that can even be measured. As such, I think the comments on the American insatiable bloodlust are well outside what those on this post string would consider "reasonable."
But it is interesting that you would encourage us to watch violent porn and snuff films and then rebuff America's excesses as Caligulan...are you trying to rehabilitate us, or kill us off? ; - )
The detainees at Guantanamo are not immigrants. I am an immigrant to the U.S. I have yet to see any lions here. It's not perfect, but with all its shortcomings it's better than anything I've seen anywhere else.
There is a large constitutency in America that votes out of its fears. Rove and others have been mainpulating this fear for years. That is why when Bush ran against Kerry the color code or warning something of an attack kept climbing depending how Bush was doing in the polls. Romney and others were appealing to the crowd who votes out of fear. They want an expanded Quantanamo, care little of losing liberties, and may advocate the use of torture on prisoners. The question is do these policies make us safer and do we lose our values if we pursue them. After all, the goal of losing our moral compass or bankrupting us is exactly what the terrorists want to do. I do not think these policies make us safer, but do otherwise, and they do bankrupt us morally.
Moral relativism can be seen as systemic inverse feature of the political idiom employed; on the Left we see the "gray" areas as being the on the bottom end of the range, encompassing the relatively minor crimes of those who have little or no personal power; the gradient "shade" [black being absolute moral responsibility] gets darker as the numbers decrease and the amount of potential responsibility increases [therefore in the US, the greatest responsibility for immorality should be those individuals who have the most wealth and/or power].
So then from a Leftist perspective, the greatest responsibility for immorality in our society lies with those who structure the world we inhabit.
on the Right they see the "gray" areas as being the at the top end of the range, encompassing what they perceive as the relatively minor crimes of those who have the most personal power; the gradient "shade" [black being absolute moral responsibility] gets darker as the numbers increase and the amount of potential responsibility decreases [therefore in the US, the greatest responsibility for immorality is assigned to those who have the least wealth and/or power].
So then from a Rightwing perspective, the greatest responsibility for immorality in our society lies with the majority who populate the world, and those at the top are the Moral Leviathans who are ever engaged in the struggle to keep us in line.
IMO, concepts are inherent to these ideologies, sands religious dogma.
The moral relativists of the Right hate America because we still have the freedom not to pander to their views or worship their god.
It is because I love America that I would fight for your right NOT to pander me. I would also fight for your right to think I'm an absolute idiot. Forcing my beliefs on you is no better than forcing communism on you, but reason and thoughtful discussion must prevail.
Without freedom, there is no morality. There cannot be because morality is a choice. So in my mind, freedom MUST be paramount in a society that protects religious, social, and other civil liberties.
But pandering is more of a political tool used for election and posturing, to get the less-informed fringe vote on the left and the right. I don't really need to be pandered...in fact I typically suspect it.
...I'll get off my soapbox now, but don't say that the right hates America.
"pandering is more of a political tool"
You got the point.
Liberals on the other hand tend more to the views that there is only one God, if any, that evil cannot be perfected or destroyed, and that there is good in most things if not everything. They also tend to believe that evil is usually not binary but a matter of degree. Whether they believe in God or not they tend to believe that actions are moral or not on a universal basis - that deceit is wrong, even if the person deceived is a right wing fanatic.
Don't you mean that deceit is relatively more wrong? If you don't, then you've just disproved your entire thesis. If so, then more wrong than what? Or is it situational?
My personal view is that there is moral relativity...to an extent. Your argument that deceit is inherently wrong is true, I agree with that. But there are degrees or "shades" on the continuum as well. But, as you point out, there are absolutes, there has to be, otherwise relativism cannnot take itself seriously. They are not mutually exclusive, and I believe that intent really plays the biggest part here.
Most of the far right and far left in this country are generally good people looking to improve this country in the way they believe to be correct. Moderate voices are the only ones that can bank and cool the river of fire that burns at both ends of the political spectrum. This is why I would vote for Clinton before Obama, and McCain before Clinton. McCain mainly because having one party control all legislative branches is never a good idea in a republic...
"Having one party control all legislative branches is never a good idea in a republic." Tell that to Bush and Rove and company.
You were probably cheering on all Rove's manuevers and now you want bipartisan leadership. How quickly turns the state of affairs!
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals see the world in shades of grey, and conservatives see the world in black and white. And because for them the world is black and white, it's impossible for them to live up to their own standards.
They claim they don't want to interfere in people's lives, that to do so goes against the constitution, but they pick and choose which parts of the constitution they wish to uphold. They have no problem not following the spirit of the constitution when it means legislating morality. Because they can still break those moral codes they want to impose since they have G-d's forgiveness to fall back on.
My understanding of right wing morality is a bit different.
For starters they believe in a two God system if they believe in God at all. They believe that evil exists and that it has a champion, Satan, who is nearly as powerful as God, and a body of followers, and that evil can be destroyed.
The right wing tends to view actions as moral or immoral depending on whether the object or target of the action is one of them or not one of them. Their morality is relativistic on a tribal basis. They believe that murder of the other (who are, after all, evil) can be good while murder by the other of one of them (who are, after all, good) is always wrong. The same for deceit. They see no problem in lying to a liberal but would rightly be outraged if a liberal were to ly to them.
Of course, not everyone on the right believes in God. When right wing morality is built up from utility theory and tools like game theory the binary view of the world is especially useful. Everything tends to be cast as a zero sum game and the morality is judged by whether the payoff is positive or negative for them.
I don't have time to make this deep so this will have to do. Anyway I have found this a useful way to understand the actions of most right wing people. You may too.
Ah, Good Cop - Bad Cop has progressed to Good Murder - Bad Murder. Good point!
Moral relativism; sounds good to me. Yes, somethings are wrong and somethings are right. . .it really all depends on the circumstances. I prefer "live and let live" and for those who really enjoy passing judgment on others, "what goes around, comes around or one shouldn't throw rocks when one lives in a glass house" or how about, "live by the sword, die by the sword". Let the rights knock itself out, they never learn.
Yes, Romney wanted to double the size of Quantanamo. Many Republican nominees for President said they did not even believe in evolution. Their party is becoming some Middle Ages era, science-denying cult. Sometimes listening to those even in the mainstream of the party is frightening. They back an America very unfamiliar to me and very unfamiliar to our constitution.
The first thing Obama should do as president, besides moving into the West Wing, is to restore habeas corpus, warrants for eavesdropping, and a fair process for trying Quantanamo detainees. We must restore our international reputation. Because we are seen as being fair and law abiding is why so many of Saddam's soldier's surrendered during both Gulf Wars. We must always respect the process, civil liberties, international treaties and the rule of law. Otherwise, we are no longer America.
cont....Was this cameraman ever waterboarded? The writer here tries to imply that he was tortured without actually saying whether he was. The CNN story doesn't say. As for the prisoner's story of being only a cameraman, that is the defense team's story, the public side of the case. It could very well be true but we don't hear the U.S.'s side.
There are a lot of innocent prisoners in the U.S. prison system on faulty presumptions. For that, and possible errors at Guantanamo, we can only offer apologies...and perhaps some tangible restitution. But there is another story not being told here. At the end of the day the prison in Guantanamo is small compared to the number of enemies captured. The detention of many of these individuals has cause.
I know that honest Abe, and the men and women of the military down at Guantanamo love the freedoms of this country as much as you or I and are not walking a fine line between the very freedoms they have sworn to protect and trampling on them because of some "eye for eye" retribution mentality. I can't imagine that there are hundreds of Mike Nifongs down there running things. At least I hope not.
I have to concede, though, that between all of the writer's posturing and self-righteous banter he does raise some interesting questions.
Interesting that sloagm's post assumes, Jack Bauer-like, that prisoners subject to torture must necessarily have information that could save "hundreds or thousands of lives." Just as interesting is how Obama's statement that he would talk with world leaders becomes "love-ins" with "brutal dictators." And of course he has to bring up the old chestnut about Honest Abe suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt was another great president who threw thousands of American citizens into concentration camps because of their ancestry. Does this mean that sloagm would be in favor of "detaining" Americans of Arab descent? Would this include John Sununu and Ralph Nader?
I'm glad you noticed my use of caraciture and overstatement in my descriptions. It was on purpose. I was really trying to counter the author's extremely biased descriptive devices. It cuts both ways. I only hope that you noticed Mr. Sweeny's as well.
For those on the right the case of American exceptionalism is so great and not even to be analyzed. Sloagm assumes we can hold prisoners for multiple years and then if it comes out later that they were completely innocent, we can just say sorry and maybe offer some restitution. Then, I suppose, they can gladly say thank you and move on. Meanwhile, their wives may have remarried, their children no longer know them, they have no job to return to, and they may be physically and pychologically broken.
We offered the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan $5,000 or so for each member of Al-Qaida they would turn over to us. They offered any foreigners who were in the country as members of al-Qaida, regardless of the background of many. Why? For the reward. Three Brits of a Pakistani background were retained at Quantanamo for years and were eventually released with no charges. They had no connection with al-Qaida. It is very hard to prove a negative, anyway. How does one prove he had no connection with a group?
We should have in place some fair system to try these individuals through our military court system or turn them over to the Hague. We are radicalizing a generation of people by holding them or their peers for no reason. Our reputation suffers severely.
Please do not think I treat these issues with such a cavalier attitude. These are difficult decisions. The wrong one has severe implications, so does the right one. Doesn't the Military Process Act that Sweeny calls "unconstitutional" provide such a process?
If we go back to moral relativism, that act is relatively better than the one that our prisoners get, e.g. having one's skin turned outside one's body, or being beheaded on camera. But maybe I'm using the wrong benchmark.
I really think the radicalization goes back much further than Guantanamo, however, the velocity may have increased. Even when we were providing the Afghans with billions to fight the Soviets they hated us. In fact, they immediately sided with Saddam in Gulf War 1, despite our bi-partisan support.
Couple of things to comment on here. You will recall that habeas corpus was suspended by none other than honest Abe well over a hundred years ago, and that was on U.S. citizens no less...so while suspending it is a pretty strong measure, it is not unprecedented. Romney and Giuliani's political maneuvers are no less egregious than Obama's naivete in announcing his platform to have love-ins with some of the most brutal dictators in the world, e.g. North Korea, whose record on human rights and weapons proliferation is outrageous.
So let's review. The left's candidate is willing to cuddle up to someone starving his own people. In essence, giving someone a pass on killing others indiscriminantly, but thinks waterboarding unusually cruel for those that may have information that could save hundreds or thousands...or even one person. That seems very inhumane. I'm sort of okay with the waterboarding...that's just me. At least I'm okay with it to the extent that I understand it.
On the right you have people wlling to waterboard in the hopes that it will save human lives, willing to live with the inhumanity of making someone feel like they are drowning in an effort to possibly garner life-saving information. At the end of the day though, Mr. McCain's torture experiences and his vehement opposition to it has to weigh on the thoughtful mind....cont.
Hey, sloagm!
I appreciate all your commentary on my article, but I would like to point out one thing in regard to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. I've heard that defense for the current suspension of the writ, and frankly, I don't think it holds water. The Constitution states, in Article I, Sec. 9, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Thus, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was constitutional, as America was facing a rebellion. Bush's (and, to be fair in spreading blame, the congress that passed the blatantly unconstitutional Military Commissions Act of 2006) suspension of the writ, however, is decidedly less so.
Interesting. So then was FDR's suspension unconstitutional? I'm not pointing the finger I'm asking the question. Would the invasion of the U.S. on 9/11, and the subsequent support by many of these detainees in support of the group responsible for that "invasion" qualify under that constitutional reasoning? Also, how does the constitution apply to a military facility in Cuba, or detainees there?
Is it even being suspended when we are talking about non-citizen combatants (obviously you would dispute the word combatant, but assuming they are)?
I see where you are coming from and you make some valid points. Unfortunately, I cannot make a completely informed opinion on what is or is not constitutional based on the evidence now being disclosed, and why the Military Commissions act is, or is not, constitutional.
Sloagm has a very limited understanding of things. The right for years had a very hard line policy toward Cuba. No trade, limited travel, and sanctions. Where did it get us? Castro was in power for like 40 years. If we would have traded with them, we would have helped them to develop a middle class. That middle class would have been the greatest agent of change from within the country.
Obama wants to talk to North Korea, of course, through lower levels of diplomacy. We are already talking to them in the six-party talks. The leader of North Korea will not be around forever. The North and South already have made serious efforts of rapprochement and my within our lifetimes be unified. We should do what we can to facilitate this effort. Surely, those at the top of the North Korea pedestal know their economic system is failing. I am sure many there want change.
Waterboarding people does not make us a better country. McCain when he was tortured signed a statement accusing the United States of various crimes. Is he to blame? Of course not! Anyone will sign anything under torture. McCain has served his country well. Torture is not the answer to radical Islam. A fair process and maintaining the rule of law allows us to keep our moral authority in the world and for people to desire a way of life which may resemble ours.
I think JFK and hundred of thousands of Cubans in south Florida would disagree with your assessment on Cuban/American relations. As for the creation of the middle class, I would have to say, it depends. Trade certainly "can" bring wealth and prosperity, but the systems of the free flow of capital, a strong monetary system, fiscal discipline, and an non-corrupt government have to be in place for a middle class to thrive. Castro is unbelievably wealthy. So are a few sheikhs in the middle east, but their populations are in poverty. It is difficult to judge whether he would have redirected the increased wealth to support a middle class.
I believe Obama wanted direct bi-lateral talks with Pyongyang, it was Romney who suggested that lower level talks go on continually behind the scenes, but do not give the heads of state the right to meet unless certain bi-lateral conditions are met. If that has changed or evolved please correct me.
Again, on waterboarding, I revert to my discussion on the imminency and efficacy of the threats. Both of those topics could support an entire separate thread.
And how is it patriotic to torture people? I despise George Bush for this more than of his many other failures, incompetencies, and crimes. His lackadaisical unconcern about this utterly flabbergasts me. This man should be ashamed to walk around making his stupid jokes with the media, doing his ridiculous imitations of Fred Astaire or dancing with intentional buffoonery during an African tribal ceremony. He should be walking around somberly everyday as though he has a great weight on his shoulders from this ungodly war he has inflicted on us and the Iraqi people. I get absolutely no sense that this guy goes to bed at night with all those deaths, and ruined lives weighing on his conscience. And I find that unconscionable. But the only time he looks serious is when he is admonishing Congress sternly when they try to dig in their heels about continuing to fund his pet project, or habeas corpus or torture.
The Republicans have begun the process of taking away our freedom in the name of freedom. It kills me when I hear them blather on and on about empty symbols of freedom and patriotism when true patriotism means caring about what America stands for and what makes it a great country. They pick and choose which parts of the constitution they want to adhere to, without according equal respect to all (think guns). What George Bush has done by taking away habeas corpus,and through the Patriot Act is to have opened the door to more power grabs by the Executive branch, and less freedom for our citizens. How is that patriotic? The utter self-righteous hypocrisy of this administration in the face of widespread corruption and moral relativism within its own ranks disgusts me -- what else can you call all the sex scandals and corruption charges these past two years if not moral relativism? But they don't consider it moral relativism because when they don't follow the moral code they so self-righteously impose on us all, they rationalize it away by calling it a 'sin' , which they can then completely erase by asking G-d's forgiveness.
I can't wait for the calm, sanity, and civility of an Obama presidency.
Yes, modern Republicans see wearing an American flag lapel pin as more patriotic than actual military service. They did nothing but malign Kerry for his service.
If I remember correctly he was not maligned for his service, he was maligned for his maligning...and contradictory views on some of his "war stories."
Is it worse to tell the NRA you're a hunter when all you've killed are prairie dogs? Or worse to tell people you were shelled in Bosnia as the first lady when you clearly were not? Or to put yourself up as a war hero when your fellow soldiers say that you were not?
...all playing to the crowd.
GREAT post, sir.
Right on time with the whole "conservatives are happier" article.
PS.
Skippy and Chip... I love it.
From aforementioned article:
"...the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization,..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080507/sc_livescience/conservativeshappierthanliberals
Don't you understand? The moralists on the right are OLD TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and all that stuff.
I grew up in a culture like that, the fundmentalist christian psycho trip. I managed to escape, years ago, leaving my fundament behind. Looking in from the outside, I see very little difference between christian fundamentalism and radical forms of Islam. The difference is that one is hidden in plain sight and the other is out in the open, where it simply appears much worse. If christian fundamentalism had the same grip on the US as conservative Islam has in their areas, this would indeed be a vary different country, one I'm afraid most "regular" christians would not like to live in. Those of us, as agnostics (or whatever you want to call it), would live in fear of being persecuted, ostracized, or worse. Pretty scary
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
