All of us have heard it…the left talking incessantly about moral relativity. According to those on the left, there is no absolute authority. There is no right and there is no wrong. No one should judge anyone else because we are all right; everything is a shade of gray.
When a group of people view the world through a gray lens, everything is okay. There is no room for debate on topics such as abortion or euthanasia. Interestingly, there is also no room for debate on such topics as capital punishment and justifiable war. While all of those topics involve killing, abortion and euthanasia have the approval of the left while capital punishment and justifiable war do not.
This is moral relativism at its best. In effect, the left is saying that if they approve of death it is acceptable but if they don’t it is not. The difference is hard to understand unless we first understand the dynamic behind the thinking.
The left accepts the death of a fetus because it is (in their view) not yet a living human being. They accept the killing of a disabled person because it probably would be difficult to live that way.
The left cannot accept capital punishment and justifiable war because they believe that we cannot judge anyone else and therefore cannot kill them. Besides, perpetrators are victims anyway. But, then again, isn’t a disabled person a victim? It is all so confusing. But that is where moral relativism leads…to a maze of grayness, as if we are looking at the world through a camera with a Vaseline-coated lens. It is difficult to make out the detail…but that is the idea. Grayness allows for the left to promote whatever view they choose at the time…but then they can change that view if they choose. It is ALL up to how the “self” feels at the time.
Oh wait. There is an exception to that rule. It is ALL up to the “self” to decide what is right…except when the “self” wants to do something that is in opposition to the leftist ideology of the moment. For example, if a pharmacist chooses to not dispense birth control pills out of a personal view that it is morally wrong, the left condemns the pharmacist for denying the rights of women and defying scientific data. But the pharmacist is making a statement of personal moral belief. In a world of moral relativism that should be accepted because in such a world we cannot judge others. That is the view taken by the left…unless, of course, they disagree. Confusing? Or is it really conscious obfuscation geared toward undermining the moral fabric of
