A spoonful of sugar

Conservatives (and religious leaders) are fond of decrying 'situational ethics' (Newt Gingrich did so recently in relation to Virginia Tech) and 'moral relativism', the idea that circumstances alter cases; that if we want to understand a crime we need to understand the background; that beliefs and ideals are affected by cultural factors; that absolutism is as dangerous in personal philosophy and social relationships as it is in government. Conservatives will tell you that right is always right and wrong is always wrong and that Progressives are wishy washy flipper floppers for not understanding that. Lack values; in fact have no values if the truth be known, and are corrupting youth who need the firm guidance on right and wrong that only Republicans and evangelical leaders can provide.

Many years ago I was on a field trip with college students. The arrangement was that each student would take it in turn to prepare meals. I came out early for breakfast one day to see the student in charge tipping the last sugar from the almost empty sugar jar into his coffee. 'Just as well I was on meals today', he said with a grin, 'someone has forgotten to buy sugar, and I was here first in time to use the last spoonful'. When I expressed horror at this selfish approach to group living he said, in some surprise, 'Well, if I don't take the last spoonful of sugar someone else will'. The incident came back to me when NBC decided to show the Virginia Tech killer's rant, and newsrooms around the world followed suit.

The head of NBC has the same answer as that long ago student - if we didn't show the tape someone else would have. Saw a program the other day about a pimp in Manila who was buying 10-12 year old girls from poor families and forcing them to work as prostitute slaves. When interviewed about this awful practice he admitted that he knew it was wrong, he had sleepless nights because of his conscience, but, wait for it, 'if I didn't buy 12 year old girls for prostitution someone else would buy them'.

You hear the rationalization over and over again - 'If we stop producing CO2 someone else will produce it. If we don't sell uranium someone else will. If we don't allow live sheep and cattle exports to countries where they will be brutally slaughtered someone else will. If I don't rob the bank someone else will. If we don't cut our forests down someone else will cut down their's. If I don't sell drugs to children someone else will. If I don't shoot the last living tiger (buffalo, polar bear, passenger pigeon) someone else will get the trophy. If I don't take the the last drop of water from upstream in the river, someone will take it downstream. If I don't catch the last marlin someone else will. If I don't have a gun a criminal will. If I don't torture these detainees someone else will. If I don't set up a tourist resort in pristine wilderness someone else will.'

Don't know about you, but these alibis from the Right (and they always come from the Right) sound awfully like moral relativism to me. Is it not always wrong to broadcast an insane killer's press kit? Not always wrong to prostitute young girls? Cause global warming? Do conservatives have no moral compass at all? No values at all? Does what they do always depend on what someone else may do or may not do? Do they always have to have an alibi for doing the wrong thing? Can they never simply do the right thing (instead of the Right thing)? Can they never share the sugar?