The Irrationality of the Left
Why is it that anymore the left side of the political agenda has been waging moral complaints against the right? I mean I have no problems with someone wanting to challenge someone on a moral level, but it seems like the accusations are constant from the left.
For instance, during the hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a leftist radio talk show host was hosting a talk program during a break in the questioning. He wanted to show how the right was all for Alito, so he brought on someone from the Pro-life movement. He said, "So, you are Pro-life. Do you support the death penalty? Do you support the war in Iraq?" He then, of course, asked if he supported Samuel Alito. Obviously, such an attempt was nothing more than to say, "This is an example of a stupid right wing person who supports Samuel Alito." However all of his questions were but straw men as no one believes that human life is to be preserved in every instance. Taking human life in self defense, for instance, has never been characterized as murder.
However, even more to the point, why have we seen this onslaught of moral attacks from the left? I am not saying that they may or may not be right as no President or system of government is infallible. However, even the singing group The Dixie Chicks were on Larry King Live a few nights ago, and I heard that they made comments against the President on a moral level.
The problem that I have with this is that the vast majority of the left has no foundation for morality at all. One example being that the majority of the left wants to teach evolution in school as they believe that it is scientific. However, that absolutely shatters any ability to say that the war in Iraq or what happened in New Orleans with hurricane Katrina was wrong. I mean, why should we care if balls of chemicals get blown up in Iraq or put underwater in hurricane Katrina? Chemicals have that happen to them every day in a Chemistry laboratory. You may say that it is because of survival of the fittest. One may say that we should work towards the happiness of humanity because we have all made it this far. However, why should we work for the happiness of humanity, and why should I care that we have made it this far? Why is it wrong for a serial killer to go around taking away the happiness of humanity? You might say "because that would make the world unlivable." My response is why should we make the world livable? It would seem that if survival of the fittest is true, then people such as George Bush have the right to kill people indiscriminately over in Iraq if they want to?
The problem is that you have to have ultimate authority in order to have ethics. The left can give us the moral code, but can they give us a reason as to why they should obey it. The problem is best illustrated in the differences between Plato and Sartre. Plato said that the gods had some moral code which even restrained them. However, Plato could not say what it was without being arbitrary. That is, after Plato presented the view, we would have to answer how it is that he knows that these are the laws to which even the gods are subject. Sartre had just the opposite problem. He could give us the moral code, but could not give us any reason why we are to follow it.
Hence, once you reject the fact that there is a sovereign, transcendent, immanent God who has revealed himself in his word the Bible, you have no foundation for ethics at all. If you try to take the view that God is so high that no words can describe him much like Islam does, then you are left with no way of having revelation. This, of course, is similar to Plato's problem. However, if you take a position that all is one and that all experience of distinction is maya much like Hinduism, then you are left with the problem of why we should be moral since morality and immorality are one.
In other words, the left contradicts itself when it tries to use moral standards against the right because it has no foundation upon which to say anything is wrong. Therefore, the left is borrowing from the fundamentalist Christian worldview in order to attack the right, but not wanting to admit it. I will probably study the war in Iraq, the situation in New Orleans, and other things the left points to now after this has all past in a few years. However, if I find the left was right about these things, I will have a foundation for saying it was wrong, because of the fact that I am a fundamentalist conservative Christian. The left will not and does not.
Why is it that anymore the left side of the political agenda has been waging moral complaints against the right? I mean I have no problems with someone wanting to challenge someone on a moral level, but it seems like the accusations are constant from the left.
For instance, during the hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a leftist radio talk show host was hosting a talk program during a break in the questioning. He wanted to show how the right was all for Alito, so he brought on someone from the Pro-life movement. He said, "So, you are Pro-life. Do you support the death penalty? Do you support the war in Iraq?" He then, of course, asked if he supported Samuel Alito. Obviously, such an attempt was nothing more than to say, "This is an example of a stupid right wing person who supports Samuel Alito." However all of his questions were but straw men as no one believes that human life is to be preserved in every instance. Taking human life in self defense, for instance, has never been characterized as murder.
However, even more to the point, why have we seen this onslaught of moral attacks from the left? I am not saying that they may or may not be right as no President or system of government is infallible. However, even the singing group The Dixie Chicks were on Larry King Live a few nights ago, and I heard that they made comments against the President on a moral level.
The problem that I have with this is that the vast majority of the left has no foundation for morality at all. One example being that the majority of the left wants to teach evolution in school as they believe that it is scientific. However, that absolutely shatters any ability to say that the war in Iraq or what happened in New Orleans with hurricane Katrina was wrong. I mean, why should we care if balls of chemicals get blown up in Iraq or put underwater in hurricane Katrina? Chemicals have that happen to them every day in a Chemistry laboratory. You may say that it is because of survival of the fittest. One may say that we should work towards the happiness of humanity because we have all made it this far. However, why should we work for the happiness of humanity, and why should I care that we have made it this far? Why is it wrong for a serial killer to go around taking away the happiness of humanity? You might say "because that would make the world unlivable." My response is why should we make the world livable? It would seem that if survival of the fittest is true, then people such as George Bush have the right to kill people indiscriminately over in Iraq if they want to?
The problem is that you have to have ultimate authority in order to have ethics. The left can give us the moral code, but can they give us a reason as to why they should obey it. The problem is best illustrated in the differences between Plato and Sartre. Plato said that the gods had some moral code which even restrained them. However, Plato could not say what it was without being arbitrary. That is, after Plato presented the view, we would have to answer how it is that he knows that these are the laws to which even the gods are subject. Sartre had just the opposite problem. He could give us the moral code, but could not give us any reason why we are to follow it.
Hence, once you reject the fact that there is a sovereign, transcendent, immanent God who has revealed himself in his word the Bible, you have no foundation for ethics at all. If you try to take the view that God is so high that no words can describe him much like Islam does, then you are left with no way of having revelation. This, of course, is similar to Plato's problem. However, if you take a position that all is one and that all experience of distinction is maya much like Hinduism, then you are left with the problem of why we should be moral since morality and immorality are one.
In other words, the left contradicts itself when it tries to use moral standards against the right because it has no foundation upon which to say anything is wrong. Therefore, the left is borrowing from the fundamentalist Christian worldview in order to attack the right, but not wanting to admit it. I will probably study the war in Iraq, the situation in New Orleans, and other things the left points to now after this has all past in a few years. However, if I find the left was right about these things, I will have a foundation for saying it was wrong, because of the fact that I am a fundamentalist conservative Christian. The left will not and does not.
1 comment:
First off what is meant by the term Left? For example, Jimmy Carter is an evangelical christian Baptist, and also a liberal Democrat. So your critique would not apply to him. Or do you mean the far left, like marxian socialists? Assuming that you mean the latter, I shall attempt to answer your points. Number one, evolution is meant to deal with matters pertaining to the natural order, not the moral order. Social darwinism, which actually is the basis for laisez faire capitalism not socialism, is the social application of what was originaly meant to describe the developement of various lifeforms. Like the survival of turtles but not dinosaurs. I had some evolutionary theory in the last year of High School, and I learned that there is not one single theory of evolution. Scientists still disagree as to how different lifeforms came into being naturaly. Now back on the topic of morality. It is wrong to unjustly take life because all of us are of equal worth. So just as I would not like to be killed by others, I must also respect other peoples right to also live in peace. This is a part of the universal law, called the golden rule. "Do unto others as they would have them do unto you." Almost all peoples and religions teach this, from Jesus to Confucious. Just because one may not have any particular god or religion, does not mean that one can not have an "ethical culture". In Islam, Allah is revealed through the prophets. We can not understand the ways of God, because His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts, according to all of the abrahamic faiths including Islam. Within hinduism, one is to observe the dharma in order to have good karma. In other words,"what goes around comes around." A marxist philosopher like Satre does not give a reason for being just because he does not feel the need for one. The believer feels the need to be a good person so that s/he may be righteous before God and not be divinely punished, in this life or the next. A secular humanist however feels that one should do right for it's own sake, not just because some god says so. Secular progressives do have ideals which we value, like humanity, equality, and liberty for example. And also sometimes a belief in a higher divine authority can motivate one to violate other people. Like for instance the suicide attack on the World Trade Center was commited by men who believed that they were following there god's will. "Holy war" is a result of established organised religion, not in spite of it. During the crusades, chistians and muslims violently fought against each other, eventhough they both claimed to value human life. It's just that they valued there god even more. For if our intrinstic worth comes from God, then in the name of God human life may be taken away. It's like if a potter wants to smask his pot, because it has a flaw, he may. This has been the basis for capital punishment for ecclesiastical offenses, under theocracy. Just as Rosie O'Donnell has said, radical christians and muslims do not unconditionaly value the lives of certain people, like homosexuals, and heretics for example. A liberal democrat believes that human rights are inalienable gifts from nature, while a conservative theocrat views them as being from an omnipotent God. Therefore if one commits an offense against the religious legal code, human rights are then forfeited. To summarise, the moral law is both universal, as well as natural. And our nation consists of an entire melting pot of different people, with differing beliefs. You can not expect a pagan to follow the commandments of the biblical scriptures, any more than a christian may be expected to confirm to laws forbiding the slaughter of cattle or swine. So instead we have in our country a common law, with separation between church and state. As long as it harms no one else, an indivisual may do whatever one wants. This is the personal freedom of the indivisual, under the civil law.
Post a Comment