*
One of the reasons that mainstream moral commentary is asinine is that people pretend to evaluate issues impartially - this is regarded as the only sophisticated approach, the only sound and decent approach.
For instance, in discussing wars, or religious conflicts, or national conflicts; educated people are extremely careful not to talk in terms of a good and bad side - that would be to descend to the level of children - at best - and more likely that of genocidal Nazis (or whatever...).
This is, of course, complete and utter nonsense.
Moral disputes can only be evaluated after a decision concerning who are the 'goodies' and who are the 'baddies'
- everyone throughout human history knew this until a few decades ago; and the vast majority of the people in the world still regard this as obvious and unchallengeable common sense.
Yet, within the bubble of Western political correctness, the media, the education system, public administration, NGOs, and (especially) the mass media - everybody insists upon and operates on the insane, self-destructive and evil assumption that ethical maturity entails impartiality!
*
Watch out for this! Before embarking on a moral discussion insist that protagonists define who they regard as the goodies and who as the baddies - insist that all participants state who they want to win.
*
2 comments:
Deliberate suspension of moral judgment (the 'virtuous' posture of impartial evaluation) is itself a moral principle.
The line between good and bad has become so indistinct that it can rarely be known which is which.
Personal witness to events is the only way one may honestly decide.
Every historical "fact" I was taught as a child, has now been reversed, and the words themselves, used to describe events, have gained opposite meanings to those they previously had.
My only defense against this is to aim for impartiality.
I may "know" what is good, and what is bad, but I can be certain that others may see things very differently.
Post a Comment