Being Holy Week, permit me to begin this week’s entry from the Bible. One of the seemingly less relevant of the Ten Commandments would seem to be the one about not making graven images. The admonition against creating “gods” from molten metal would seem to have little to do with modern society. Mankind in the 21st century, for the most part, seems to have overcome the temptation to create golden calves or giant statues to bow down to and worship… or have we?
Man will always seek to replace the immutable and unchanging truth with what he deems more convenient, less daunting, and centered on his own needs and desires. Today’s idolatry emanates from opinion polls, and our idols are formed in the foundry of popular culture. Progressive thought sees Truth as a destination, an unknown that we are ever journeying toward, constantly adjusting our attitudes as we become more and more enlightened. Conservatism regards Truth more as a light for the journey, the unchanging North Star by which we set our course.
Consider the Constitution. Conservatives view it as a sure foundation, possibly divinely inspired; at any rate a wondrously effective structure for government stumbled upon by the founding fathers, the lodestone of our success as a nation, not to be taken lightly or trifled with. Progressives tend to see it with less sanctity, as an imperfect document written for a society that no longer exists; more a tether than a compass, the rules as they now exist, but a starting place rather than a road map.
It is in most men a natural motivation to do what is right and good. Only sociopaths live their lives free from conscience and a moral compass. The concept of absolute virtues dates back to Plato and Aristotle. Attributes universally seen as desirable for a person to have, and inherently good, are juxtaposed to vices, attributes deemed to be unacceptable and inherently evil. Humility is preferred to Pride, Patience to Wrath, Temperance to Gluttony, Chastity to Lust, Diligence to Sloth…
In keeping with the Progressive world view, the idea of unchanging virtues in a changing society is antiquated. In a world where there is no absolute truth, there are no absolute virtues. People still desire to do what is right, but “what is right” is adjusted to be more convenient, more in keeping with the times, more the products of the gods we have created. The quaint virtues of yesteryear are replaced with more modern ones. Chastity is adjusted to “safe” sex. Humility is replaced with Celebrity and Fame. Fairness and Justice are redefined from “getting what you deserve”, to “everybody gets the same”. Where kindness and deference were once admired, domination, violence, and coercing respect are increasingly regarded as virtuous. Charity is replaced with raising taxes, Social Conscience with laws and regulations. Restraint falls to enlightened license; Courage to an exaggerated quest for safety, Diligence to success, Wisdom to sophistication, Mercy and Love to tolerance.
IMHO: The hubris of Man persuades him to believe that he can order the Universe. There is truth that is eternal, virtues whose roots run back to the day of creation. Men have wrongly considered all manner of things to be virtuous; human sacrifice, slavery, genocide, infanticide, apartheid, tyranny. True virtue is seldom something newly arrived at or discovered, but a truth that though possibly deviated from, has been there all along. We often lose our way, but that doesn’t mean we need a new way. “Just because you’re lost doesn’t mean your compass is broken.” We can no more redefine virtue than change the orbits of the planets. True north does not change because we would like to walk downhill. You can’t redefine reality.
Obama capitalized on the concept of “creating a narrative” to win the approval of those who put their hope in change.
If you are suggesting that most progressives are moral relativists and only those on the political right believe in the existence of absolute truths I must disagree. We show blatant disregard for the value of the human person, for example, across the political spectrum. While support for capital punishment is still significant among conservatives, support for abortion rights is widespread among the left. Both practices are equally objectionable on moral grounds. And regarding the constitution, why are those who feel that the constitution is threatened always talking about its amendments? Had the constitution been drafted as a static framework, none of its amendments would even exist. And since we have grown morally as a people (we have overcome slavery and, to some extent, racism), shouldn’t we allow our constitution to grow as well?
@tsc444: Some excellent observations. I guess I am suggesting that MOST Progressives are moral relativists, though certainly not suggesting that only those on the right believe in the existence of absolute truth. I am not an advocate of capital punishment, but have a difficult time equating it with abortion. Clearly, the inclusion of a process for ammending the Constitution presumes that its edicts are not set in stone, and that time or wisdom might require modifications to the framework. It is intentionally a difficult process to avoid changes on a whim, or without an overwhelming consensus. The problem comes when society or politicians seek a shortcut around the Constitution. Amendments to the Constitution are to be considered a perfecting and refinement of a wondrous framework if they do in fact reflect moral growth; unfortunately, all change is not growth, and attempts to change the framework based on moral and institutional decay must be resisted lest the Union be infected by the idol du jour.
Like you said, the constitution’s amendment process is long and difficult and shortcuts should be prevented by the Supreme Court. Maybe I’m naive but to me, all the recent talk about the constitution being threatened sounds like right-wing demagoguery for whatever political reasons. And sadly, in politics, our moral convictions only matter as long as they suit our political agenda. If President Obama had any moral integrity, he would have returned the Nobel Peace Price by now. But you’re definitely onto something with your observation. What I think it comes down to is an open bias of the mainstream left towards moral relativism and a tendency of the right to abandon the moral absolutes it touts whenever ideologically necessary. As a result, the left may be wrong on certain issues but at least they are being consistent / honest. The right deserve my admiration for their dedication to certain social issues but overall, they come across as hypocrites half the time. Just out of curiosity, why are you having a difficult time equating capital punishment to abortion? If every human person is valuable in itself, isn’t the intentional act of killing a human person all that matters, morally speaking?
@tsc444: Quite right about political hypocrisy. To a great extent we have ourselves toblame when we permit such Constitutionally questionable incursions like the Patriot Act or current drone policy to fly by unchallenged because “our guy” is in charge.
As far as capital punishment and abortion, I think I’m looking at this less philosophically than you. For me it’s a little like the difference between a general being killed in a war, versus a small innocent child. Both are a loss of a human life, and I’m sure God is grieved, but one is totally without blame and undeserving of this fate, while the other is the architect of this travesty. Ethical arguments can be made regarding the act of killing for whatever the reason, but in law there are “mitigating circumstances”; the man who rapes and kills a child, for me, has made his life worth a little less than the child he kills. If the father of that child then exacts vengeance, while possibly also wrong, I don’t find the two acts equally abhorrent. Forgive me, but there may be the rare instance where the defense position “He needed killing” is difficult to argue with.