Monday, July 29, 2013

Moral relativism is taking over

Don't be concerned with the nature of my examples, but the implications, for that is what this is about, not the merits or otherwise of actual ideas and policies. As many expected, by allowing gay, or 'equal' marriage as some insist on calling it, they have set a model of altering the meaning of known words from the precedent here, and opened the door to new requests from other sexual groups. Now if they actually mean 'equal' marriage then of course it is correct, if homosexuals can marry then why not family members or groups, or any other sexual preference, as under their own philosophy all needs are equal so should be catered for by a fair society.

This is called relativism, where there is no good or bad, but just analyses behaviour as a cultural or personal norm, and within the wider view of liberalism, promotes all versions as equal. The fact the golden rule, treat others as you would wish to yourself, has to go, although in both parts of the bible. As female genital mutilation or worse still honour murders are part of their culture, and some would argue should still be allowed when they leave the countries who either permit rape victims to be stoned to death or actually insist on it. How minds became so twisted they actually wanted to condone savage behaviour by people who would get life imprisonment without the cultural reason for what they do is another issue entirely, and one too late to require analysis as the horse has already bolted and is racing down the motorway at 100mph.

The next question is can these promoters of equality see where their philosophy leads to, and do they care? Can Peter Tatchell, or even David Cameron himself understand if you allow marriage to extend beyond who it was created for, then everyone else not yet included will not just want in but possibly insist on it, as it is, as they rightly point out, equal. Could this extend to criminality? Well, as many acts are either legal or illegal in different places and times, why not? Homosexuality was illegal and still is in some countries, so from their point of view when anyone now suggests this country allow marriage between brothers and sisters or parents and children then that would be no different to the majority of us here than homosexuality is to them. Yet they are all the same thing wherever they are carried out, the only thing which varies is the attitude towards them. Of course relativists condemn the countries where homosexuality is illegal, as it discriminates against different sexualities. They get round paedophilia as they say there isn't consent (although the age varies across nearly every border worldwide, and none at all in a few places last time I checked). So they've carried out a little bit of discrimination unwittingly, as surely if they took their own view genuinely they would have to concede that the age of consent is a totally artificial concept, otherwise like murder or theft it would be the same everywhere.

Unfortunately the liberal brigade don't use a great deal of logic, I suppose otherwise they wouldn't even be liberal, but primarily the childlike emotion where you see poor kids on TV as a child and want to give them the food and money from your own house. It's a valid emotion but hardly a practical one if carried out in such ways. But they continue to retain this view throughout their lives, and manage somehow to dominate politics in many western countries in the 21st century, so one by one every element of life under the golden rule is subject to question if it could be seen to discriminate. That's why we're currently in battle with Europe over giving prisoners votes. They didn't respect others' rights so they lose theirs, fair? Not according to the moral relativists. So when they've done their time if allowed the vote, then of course they should never be penalised ever again for what they've done. There should then be no entry on a job application for a criminal record, let alone a criminal record at all, as once they'd been punished surely keeping it on their record would breach their human rights? This attitude has already led to burglars being able to take the residents who attacked them (in self defence) to court and win, and these are not accidental anomalies, but the first steps of relativism becoming law in modern society.

It's really the thinking that's at fault here. If you take any principle and apply it above all others, all details and subtleties are lost. Equality isn't even necessarily a valid concept. Each person is of course of equal value, but even though I personally believe all lives are of equal value (unless they put ours at threat) many people kill animals for pleasure or just because they get in their way. Or unborn children, who are human and alive, and if anyone wants to question me then answer why so many aborted foetuses are alive when they come out? Treating people equally is perfectly fine if applied sensibly, so if everyone qualified for a job has an equal chance of getting it regardless of race, age or sex then that is sensible. But include convicted criminals and common sense kicks in to play. So far it is winning and it's near on impossible for ex-cons to get work, at least depending on what they did and what they're applying for. Admittedly if someone gave them a job it may deter some of them from committing more crimes, but many criminals had jobs at the time they were committed so hardly universal. Ultimately common sense is what keeps all these policies working, but the emotions and related wishes of the activists who take over power have their view of what must be done and will do it at all costs. I'm very curious to see if even one unwitting liberal breaks rank and is true to their principles when the next deviant group requests equal marriage. It's the ultimate catch 22 of being put in a bin and told to pee in the corner, as if they disagree then they've just admitted gay marriage is not equal as it discriminates against close family members etc, and if they agree everyone else will rip them apart. They are on the verge of being hoisted on their own petard, and the sooner and greater so the better.

No comments: