In the fourth and final part of our study, we’ll take a look at liberal ethics and how they justify their hypocritical positions. After all, how can liberals always be right, and conservatives always wrong, if there’s not some type of standard to determine right and wrong? Of course, a complete lack of standards, or constantly shifting standards, makes it difficult, but I did say there was some complexity in there. This final point will provide some insight, and give you the ability to better understand positions taken by liberals.
Most would assume that liberals have no ethics and no standards. This could not be farther from the truth. All liberals have a moral compass, though it does not always point north, or always in the same direction, as has been noted here before. It is the shifting or misdirected ethical pointer that drives much of the liberal thinking. This is commonly known as “situational ethics”, and refers to the fact that an ethical standard will shift, depending on the situation. No, not the insanely idiotic moron from New Jersey, but the events surrounding the liberal at that particular time.
When the situation changes, for example a Conservative is making a point, the liberal will change ethical standard to allow alignment with other aspects of their thinking process. Conservatives are never right, so ethics are shifted to ensure that the liberal can argue against the Conservative, even if they have agreed with him or her when speaking to other liberals. By shifting ethical standards to adapt to the situation, the liberal can then justify any point they choose, making their personal preference the definition of right and all other points invalid.
The recent discussion on “civility” is a perfect example of a shifting ethical standard. It sounds well and proper that we should hold civil, intelligent discourse, even if we disagree. Liberals, including our boy Barry Obama, will take this position in public and private. All liberal politicians agree. Those same liberal politicians then cal Republicans “Nazis” as soon as the situation changes. They talk about the “destruction” of various government agencies, and how the GOP is “targeting” the poor, minorities, etc. This is the type of uncivil discourse liberals claim to deplore, but only when the situation calls for that ethic.
This then becomes the basis for hypocrisy, and results in an endless list of justifications that require more shifts in ethics and more changes in position. How do liberals deal with all this? Well, you will have to admit that it does take some level of intellectual skill to manage a consistently shifting ethical standard. The acrobatics around the civility debate alone have been impressive, worthy of Cirque du Soleil. Thus assuming that liberals are idiots or morons would have to discount their ability to manage multiple positions and arguments at the drop of a conservative hat. The ability to shift ethical position and create a justification for nearly any situation is evidence of an impressive intellect.
Does this mean open discussion with liberals is pointless? Not really, though it can be frustrating. But, also as previously noted, it can be somewhat entertaining. Now that you have a better understanding of the liberal mind, I encourage you to venture out into the world and strike up a conversation. Discuss the validity of Roe v. Wade in light of the Illinois doctor who is killing children, or how much you think Sarah Palin has contributed to the national healing in light of the Tucson shooting. Your first few efforts may result in an angry rebuke or violent outburst, but be patient and keep practicing. One day you too may be able to explain the liberal mind.
Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home
Copyright 2011. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.