They’re Just Moral Relativists

The left doesn’t even blink when they are accused of being hypocrites, but that is because they are not hypocrites – they are moral relativists. To be a hypocrite, one must believe in absolute good and evil, in basic principles and necessary truths, and then act contrary to those absolute good and evils, principles and truths. For the left, what is good and evil is determined by what they themselves decide is good. Liberalism and all that furthers its cause. Class warfare isn’t good or bad; but it is good for Obama to pit the poor against the rich because it furthers liberalism, and it is wrong for conservatives to pit the wealthy against the poor (a fallacious accusation made by the left against the right) because it detracts from liberalism. Racism isn’t good or bad; but it is okay for the left to use racial epithets when referring to black conservatives because demeaning conservatives furthers liberalism, but it is wrong for conservatives to be racist, in other words, disagree with Obama, because it detracts from liberalism.

A current example of the moral inconsistency of the left is the way they handled the short-lived rampage of Christopher Dorner, an ex-police officer who, after highlighting the perceived injustices he experienced while working for the LAPD in a rambling manifesto, went on a systematic killing spree. Considering the current anti-gun atmosphere in America, it is no surprise that Dorner’s rampage became the top story. Oddly enough, the left did not take the opportunity to condemn the American, wild west, gun-culture or declare it another example of how guns are to blame, as it so often did. In fact, the left seemed to celebrate Dorner, one professor likening Dorner’s bloodbath to that of the movie, Django Unchained. The mainstream media blathered on and on about his psychological state, his motivations, and his grievances … dialogue they barely afforded to Adam Lanza or Jovan Belcher, the football player who shot his girlfriend and then himself. The left over-sympathized with the person behind the gun for Dorner, but for the two other men, the guns and only the guns were to blame.

It seems pretty hypocritical – except it’s not. On the basis that whatever serves liberalisms’ purpose is good, it is very consistent. In Dorner’s case, the narrative was: “White cops are racist.” Victimization is the left’s favorite motivator for blacks and guilt-ridden whites. Dorner’s murders viewed from the perspective that he was just another victimized black man, helped reinforce the beliefs among blacks that without liberalism defending them from whites in authority and blinded by ‘privilege’ (conservative, no doubt), there’d be more Dorner’s. It wasn’t the gun that was the cause of all this violence, but white people! In Lanza’s and Belcher’s case, the narrative was: “Guns are evil.” At the top of the long to-do list of policies to enact when the left gains control of a city, state or country is always gun-control. The left cannot see the contradictory ways in which they treated these murders as hypocritical because in doing so, both cases furthered liberalism. Dorner reinforced the illusion that blacks are perpetual victims of the system, and Lanza’s and Belcher’s murders reinforced that private gun ownership is too dangerous.

NewAveyOwynsICONLiberals do not hold to basic principles from which they derive political goals other than “Liberalism is good”; all else is in flux and their rightness or wrongness is determined by circumstance. Though they might cling to ideologies like equality or feminism, they will easily forfeit these values or turn a blind eye to those who contradict them if it serves to further their cause (extravagant wealth among the liberal elites or not addressing the blatant subjugation of women in Islam). We are dealing with people operating in an entirely different paradigm where hypocrites do not exist and so the repeated attempts by the right to point out the left’s hypocrisy, I feel, are rather pointless.

However, you will find that the left has no problem pointing out the hypocrisy of the right because they understand us better than we do them. They know we value truth and goodness more than we do money or power.

Avey Owyns | University of Windsor (Ontario) | @AveyOwyns

Related News

6 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Fred
    Feb 27, 2013 - 06:37 PM

    This is absurd- not all liberals/leftists are moral relativist. Look at Sam Harris from the secular side or the many religious people on the left. Please be specific- what people on the left are you talking about?

    Someone on the left could rant that conservatives are all biblical literalists who don’t understand science and are trying to turn us into a theocracy. But that would be a false stereotype and a pointless rant with adding anything meaningful to the public discourse on important issues- a lot like this article.

  2. Steve T
    Feb 27, 2013 - 04:26 AM

    Yes, Liberals are incredible hypocrites. But they have the media on their side, and the low-informed voter remains clueless. Until David Letterman, John Stewart, and Steven Colbert start speaking honestly about what is going on politically, most young, naive voters will continue to see conservatives as the bad guys. What a damn pity. Wonderful write up, Avey!!!

  3. Christopher Rushlau
    Feb 26, 2013 - 07:33 PM

    You use “liberalism” as a synonym for satanism: not just sin, but sin aimed at God, sin celebrated. Maybe all sin is aimed at God. There is another definition of liberalism, having to do with John Stewart Mill, rationality, empiricism. Conservatism, now, is very similar to that liberalism. The difference might be where the two place the fulcrum in the balance between faith and reason: at what point do you quit climbing the ladder of reason and admit you’re in the zone of unproveable faith? Conservatives might urge school prayer because that top of the ladder (in an analogy offered me by a college chaplain, apparently from a Scandinavian theologian, whom the chaplain thought I might identify with, probably) is encountered almost immediately, whereas liberals might want to give people more of a chance to wallow around, trial and error, before calling to the heavens for help.
    It’s like defining virtue. It’s very hard to avoid ending up with “my virtue is good, your virtue is evil.” I.e., “I just can’t talk with you.”
    You should do some thinking about politics. I use the idea of the party line a lot. Nietzsche apparently had as his basic motivation contempt for bourgeois people who think reality is scripted, according to an English woman professor talking on BBC shortwave 25 years ago. “Middle-class”. Middle-class conformism is a strong tradition in the US: red scares, sexual victorianism. Vernon Johns, Jr., was MLK, Jr.’s, predecessor at Ebenezer Baptist and was fired for being too radical. One Sunday he turned up in farmer’s dress selling watermelons from a cart in front of the church. The lawyers, doctors, dentists, the cream of the crop of the congregation, were scandalized.
    The party line is the powerful people’s subsitute for citizenship, which is based on personal experience. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is written on the side of the capitol building in Lincoln, Nebraska. So people don’t forget? The party line is by definition right. That sounds like your liberalism. The party line by definition doesn’t make any sense. If it made sense, it wouldn’t have to be backed upo by authority. If you don’t think there is a party line at work where you are, try flouting it and see if you get punished. A very pervasive party line is that Israel is good. What is good about denial of separation of church and state and of equal treatment under the law? I hypothesize that the Israel lobby, so powerful in the US, is still just a victim of a deeper structure of racism (look at US history, from seizing the local people’s land in the first place, through slavery (and its lingering “badges”, like the incarceration rate), through the Vietnam War (three million Vietnamese killed by the US, said Bill Clinton) and up to now, where “haji” has replaced “gook” as the abusive term used by US soldiers for the local people in Iraq and Afghanistan. That deeper structure uses Jews and their money to kill Arabs, Iranians, etc., with the eventual hope that these latter will turn around and kill those Jews who have pegged their hopes on this beachhead on the great Asian land mass. The Establishment in the US and Europe has been trying for five hundred years to conquer Asia. It’s part of the mystique, apparently. Africa was and is just a resource mine for that greater evangelical effort.
    “Good news”. I have some good news for you all. God is not stupid. And God doesn’t make junk. So people are not stupid. Racism is stupid. It is stupidity on horseback, with bells and whistles.
    How do you define evil? St. Augustine defined it as the absence of good. Everything God makes is good. So evil is some illusion, some missing element, like the reason a murderer kills someone (by definition unjustly). Insanity. Folly. There has to be human freedom at work, or else, once again, God is stupid and life is hopeless. But evil has some sort of glue to it that makes it hard to back away from. Look at a group subjected to (subjecting themselves to) a party line. It gets very hard for them to have a good conversation about anything. They’re so afraid of violating the party line. They want to ask the Mistress if it’s okay to smell, but it probably isn’t, so they’d better not. Anxiety. The word comes from a term means “strangulation” as an intransitive verb, like someone with something stuck in their throat.
    So politics is taking that anxious person and convincing them to give themselves a break and life a chance. Drop the party line. Tell me what you think. Do you think you’re stupid? Do you think I’m stupid? Do you think that other guy is stupid?

  4. Martel
    Feb 26, 2013 - 05:16 PM

    I forgot to mention that I do disagree somewhat with the “relativist” designation. To them, relativism is a tool, not an ideology. A professor dealing with patriotic freshmen will use relativism to convince them that there’s good and bad in every civilization. Then, once their faith in the West has been taken down a few notches, switch to “the West is uniquely bad.”

    The pattern follows on other issues. On one hand, women should be free to choose any lifestyle, but if she opts to be a housewife, she’s downright wrong.

    They have a moral code, but it’s by no means objective, it’s subjective. Like you say, what’s good for leftism is good, what hurts it isn’t. A relativist has no issues with either gays or the Southern Baptists who have issues with them. “What’s good for me=good” isn’t relativistic, it’s a code of amorality, consistent but selfish and destructive.

  5. Martel
    Feb 26, 2013 - 04:59 PM

    Very astute. The left discounts the individual in favor of the collective. Individual poor people have no control over their own lives; their lives can only improve if their external circumstances are altered. The left wishes to do change theses circumstances. Therefore, what helps the left is moral.

    Leftist can treat women like crap (Clinton), have massive carbon footprints (Gore), use questionable racial language (Reid), treat their workers horribly (Michael Moore), take advantage of tax loopholes (all of them), and it’s all okay because they CARE.

    This is the mentality of the Anointed that I describe here:

    • autumn zuehlke
      May 16, 2013 - 09:14 PM

      Martel, studies have shown that people get a chemical release when doing good deeds or charity. It is similar to having a euphoric high. I think this is probably what makes a lot of liberals like this. It doesn’t matter whose money they use or who else gets hurt by this so called “caring’ It feels good so they must be right. They are emotional junkies. With all junkies logic and reason always take a back seat when it comes to getting their next fix.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE. Managed by Epic Life Creative