Moral relativity. Does it reinforce the racism and stereotypes that so called progressives seek to eradicate; or is a self-defeating loop where groups are defended as pretext within a struggle within more dominant social classes. The idea of accepting racism in the belief that the racist can be converted to the good path. Like excusing terrorism since it is underpinned by a struggle against imperialism. The “progressive ” accepting what they should naturally be opposed to. But its not that simple: If moral relativism results in chaos and moral absolutism leads tyranny, as in the effort to restore sharia law, what direction lies the safe harbour? There has to be a minimum number of incontrovertible and unambiguous moral principles, otherwise not much of a moral base from which to live upon, without neglecting distinct historic and cultural factors of each society. The relativist argument that there are no objective moral values is rubbish. Its a form of moral nihilism, apocalyptic and messianic violence akin to the absolutist.
By zealously asserting that there is no truth, people become close-minded to the possibility of appraoaching truth. Think of the Pussy Riot fiasco in Russia, where the state reacted against the assertion of absolute freedom to do anything. The shadow behind most of the moral rhetoric in America today is indeed moral relativism,the deeply secular moral perch, the “being” of Heidegger at the street level and pop culture of a transcending and unquestionable character, the self-centered me and ego driven “society of the spectacle” in which at least Guy Debord got that part right.The interview between Erin Burnett and Laura Bush is a good example of how of how moral relativism is a seducing force in the way many people approach public moral issues.
(see link at end)…CNN anchor Erin Burnett during an interview with former first lady Laura Bush that aired Monday posed a bit of a head-scratcher: Should we “accept” anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism “when we want to make change” in the Middle East?
…“An Egyptian woman, her name’s Samir Ibrahim, and she’s done a lot of things, courageous things. She’s also been criticized for sending tweets that are anti-Semitic, anti-American,” Burnnett said during a segment on the George W. Bush Institute’s Women’s Initiative Fellowship Program.
“Does the U.S. need to accept that when we want to make change? You have to support people that do those things — financially in term of awards, in terms of all these things — because it pays off in the end? Is that a trade-off we have to make?” she asked.
Mrs. Bush responded with a laughing, “No.”
Ibrahim’s past tweets included celebratory comments relating to the death of five Israeli tourists in a 2012 suicide bombing in Bulgaria. “An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport in Bulgaria on the Black Sea,” she tweeted directly following the attack. “Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news.”
Ibrahim’s vitriol is not reserved strictly for Jews, however. The Egyptian activist even holds the very country that was slated to honor her with an award in equal contempt. Following the riots that set siege to the United States embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, Ibrahim said that every year should mark America’s destruction.
“Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with
Doubling down on her racist diatribes, in August 2012, Ibrahim referred to Saudi Arabia’s ruling Al Saud family as “dirtier than the Jews” and not long after, admiringly quoted Hitler.
“I have discovered with the passage of days, that no act contrary to morality, no crime against society, takes place, except with the Jews having a hand in it. Hitler,” Ibrahim tweeted.
The fallacy of the moral relativist argument is that since there are no objective standard by which to judge cultural norms, there are no objective moral values. That is, everyone can get a get out of jail card. Anything can be excused. Its all part of the Hannah Arendt “pulse of history.” Its intellectual premise is that its more tolerant, more open, and more current than absolutism, with a smack of cool factor. But it is equally inconsistent with tolerance. The political pornography in the last election can attest to that. What may be even more nefarious than fanatical moral relativism and its flip side of the coin in religious fanaticism is the degree passive apathy,aggressive indifference that arises, which is invisible but is the fallout and collateral damage of the war of extremism on both sides.
(see link at end)…A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.
Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’
Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’. Rashid, from Birmingham, admitted he had sex with the girl, saying he had been ‘tempted by her’ after they met online. They initially exchanged messages on Facebook before sending texts and chatting on the phone over a two-month period….
…after his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law. The court heard he found it was illegal only when he was informed by a family member. In other interviews with psychologists, Rashid claimed he had been taught in his school that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html#ixzz2NVoJw1A5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(see link at end)…Moral relativism holds that all morality is subjective; nothing is fundamentally good or bad. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder and no one can claim the moral high ground. I don’t doubt that there are purists who unwaveringly adhere to this nihilistic philosophy, but the far left does not belong to this orthodox breed. In fact, the far left shuns moral relativism with as much fervor as the “moralizers” the far left purports to despise.
The far left has no qualms about defending third-world barbarism, yet proclaims with an aura of ultimate righteousness that corporations are evil and that the men who lead them are corrupt tyrants, who profit at the expense of the public good. They routinely vilify Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and all others who do not adhere to utopian Marxist ideals and variations thereof. To many of these so-called relativists Dick Cheney epitomizes evil; a man who served not only as the Secretary of Defense for the imperialistic United States but as Chief Executive of the multinational corporation Halliburton, itself a symbol of evil.
The far left’s tirades against “evil” corporations and Christian (but almost never Muslim) zealots are not relativistic, neither in tone nor in substance. They are unambiguously absolutist. The left moralizes about perceived injustices — be it the effects of capitalism or the war against global jihad — with a religious-like conviction, never uttering the word “relative” in its condemnations.
After Saigon fell in 1975, the American left willfully ignored the enslavement, expatriation, and slaughter of millions of Vietnamese by the North Vietnamese Communists. Of course during the war itself, the left was quite brazen and outspoken in condemning America’s involvement….
…The aversion to Western culture and its core ideals, namely individualism, personal responsibility, and capitalism is the cornerstone of the far left’s ethical code. The far left tolerates or condones only that which is the antithesis of Western culture: third-world barbarism, communist despotism, nihilism, and so forth. If Western ideals are the root of all evil, then its opposites must be good, or at least, not as bad.
The far left’s support for domestic militarism is based on the premise that American institutions, especially constitutional republicanism and capitalism, are inherently corrupt and engender violent reactionary movements. Similarly, the barbaric acts of Communist despots are justifiable on the grounds that they represent a natural reaction to the oppressive capitalist system, as well as a means to a utopian end…Read More:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/the_lefts_moral_absolutism_1.html