I'm sure I've discussed this issue before. Conservatives often accuse Liberals of using, "moral relativism," and how sinful that behavior is. It's a ridiculous charge because everybody does it and we couldn't function as a society without it. It's a heck of a lot better than moral equivalence, which Conservatives do when they're not using moral relativism, for instance when they compare Bush to Clinton. Their flawed logic is since Clinton lied about sex, any of Bush's myriad lies about the law, war, oil, torture, elections, freedom, just shouldn't matter to Americans. Yes, if Democrats were in charge, Bush would probably be successfully impeached by now.
So tag me a moral relativist because I believe that murder is morally worse than lying! I'm sure you're with me on that.
I keep wondering if the mainstream press is going to report that Bush lied when he said that "America does not torture." I think most people knew he was lying, or technically fudging it, but I wonder if the press will actually say he lied, or actually more the truth, explain how he has redefined the word "torture" for himself. You know, like Clinton questioned the definition of what "is" is. Darn it, I'm such a moral relativist...
Darn it, see, Rove keeps distracting me from the mess in Iraq and the fact that our government is owned by China and big oil!
Peace
2 comments:
Kate Millett, The Politics of Cruelty, (1994):
How does the state come by its powers [to torture]? Through its monopoly on force and its capacity to incarcerate. Therefore it has always had them, relinquished them only after long campaigns of agitation produced certain restraints which eventually curtailed them. But only for a while, since vigilance is the price of this type of freedom.
This is a fantastic post! Keep your eye on the shiny metal object over here.... Don't look over there.
XOXO,
Post a Comment