Moral Relativism
| Wed Apr. 22, 2009 8:47 AM PDT
When the subject has anything to do with sex, the right in America is the party of moral absolutes. We know what's right, we know what's wrong, and even if there's a price to pay we can't shirk our responsibility to set a proper example and do the right thing.
But when the subject is torture, suddenly it's all about carefully weighing the costs and benefits. Having an honest debate about how far we should go to protect ourselves. Understanding the context of what happened. It's just not possible to flatly say that waterboarding and sleep deprivation and stress positions are barbarisms unfit for use by a civilized country. It's much more complex than that.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
I've made exactly that point on my blog before. But relativism has subtly infected quite a bit on the right. How else does one make the case that the Iraq War was legal? How else do you get the Limbaugh/Gingrich/Cheney axis just making stuff up with impunity, with no pushback from the rest of right? How about the "law and order" party refusing to follow the laws of the land on civil liberties and torture? The Scooter Libby sentence commutation and the border agents pardons, all of whom were found guilty in court, are a prime example. The merits of the cases weren't in question by the right, just the notion that they should be punished for breaking the law. And let's not get into the importance of deficits or of criticizing the president during wartime, as both seem to depend on what letter comes after the president's name.
The only principle in the GOP today is political power. Whatever leads to the GOP getting more powerful is what they support. No matter how icky it is, or how silly it makes them look, that's what they're for.
This is caricature
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 9:37 AM PDT.
This is caricature masquerading as mundane hypocrisy accusation. Yawn.
It's in the culture
Submitted by Madlad on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 9:56 AM PDT.
Much as I loath this political double standard, it's not just the GOP. You see the same thing in other domains of our public life. Movies that show violence, even implied torture, are given the same rating as movies that contain the merest suggestion of sex (not even nudity). We're inured to violence and prudish about sex, and we're much more comfortable with public discourse about blood lust than lust.
GP13
Submitted by Caspian of the Lake on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:32 AM PDT.
Clearly you don't have young children because you have this exactly wrong. The liberal elites decided for America a long time ago that anything goes as far as sex is concerned. So when you go to a PG 13 movie it is stunning how much sex, screwing, nudity, vulgar language is permitted. It is frightening how much is being exposed to 13 year olds. Maybe that's one of the reasons 40% of children born today are in single parent (if you can call them that) homes.
On the other hand, any amount of violent, real or implied quickly earns an "R" rating. In fact the movie rating system is a perfect gauge of the left's hold on culture.
And it sucks.
Not so fast
Submitted by Madlad on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:53 AM PDT.
I do indeed have young children, and my example was based on actual recent experiences. My wife and I took our kids to see "Mamma Mia," which we all enjoyed a lot. It was rated PG-13, and the only justifications I could come up with were (a) promiscuity resulting in out-of-wedlock childbirth and (b) a flower being used as a phallic symbol. We later to our kids to see "Iron Man," which contained incredible violence and implied torture. My kids cowered in their seats, it was so intense. Same rating.
I don't know what movies you're watching, but in my experience there is virtually no nudity in PG-13 movies - nudity typically warrants an immediate R. For violence on the other hand, unless it's graphic anything goes at the PG and PG-13 levels.
I do think that the discussion of sex in this country is an insane combination of prudishness and prurience, but I can't disagree more that the current state of affairs is the fault of the "liberal elites" (who are these people, by the way?). A mature discussion of sex at any level (school, television) sends the right wing into a faint. Meanwhile, "24" is held up by GOP representatives in government as a viable example of national security policy and attempts at even mild regulation to rein in rising gun violence are greeted with panic by the NRA and the GOP.
You are absolutely correct
Submitted by Mike (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 8:58 AM PDT.
You are absolutely correct about movie ratings.
The entire "Saw" series, which is easily the most disturbing movie series I have ever seen theatrically, is rated "R".
You know what else is rated "R"? Two of the best and most inspiring and thought-provoking (in a good sense) movies I have ever seen, "Into the wild" and "Brokeback Mountain".
So as a parent, what guidance is that supposed to give me as far as ratings go? Would I want my 10 year old son to be allowed to see "Into the wild" or "Saw III"?
The movie ratings are a joke. But they are indeed a good metaphor for the morals of the Republican party and much of the US.
Rated "H"
Submitted by wbinmd (not verified) on Fri Apr. 24, 2009 4:28 PM PDT.
I would have agree with you on Saw vs. Into the Wind. However, the other movie you cite, "Brokeback Mountain," exemplifies Hollywood's "understanding," acceptance, and in reality, "glorification" of homosexuality which, like Saw has not place in our society.
I agree. My children are
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 11:37 AM PDT.
I agree. My children are grown, but I remember when they were young, that my concern was visual images of violence, not sex. My friends were very concerned that my husband and I answered any and all questions, including about sex and (god forbid) about AIDS, but we would not allow them to watch movies containing explicit violence. We would, however, allow them to read anything.
Our view, was that if they could comprehend what they were reading, they should be allowed to read it. If they hadn't been exposed to the images, it would be difficult to imagine things too disturbing. We believed that sexuality was normal and natural - within limits - and although we didn't let them watch R-rated movies until they were older, we believed that violence was more damaging to them then any sexual imagery.
As adults, they're amazing, well grounded, sensitive, thoughtful, caring people. Many of their friends parents believed that if their children were protected from sexual images and themes, then they would accept without question any strictures the parent placed on them. Allowing them, however, to watch violent movies gave them a distorted view of the world and there were a lot of messed up kids coming out of our very small, very conservative, extremely religious town.
no correlation
Submitted by wbinmd (not verified) on Fri Apr. 24, 2009 4:45 PM PDT.
Your conclusion would lead one to believe that religious people allow their children to watch violent movies, but not movies with sexual content. Quite the contrary. We allow our children to watch neither. We often times turn off programs which upon our initial screening seemed to be acceptable, only to find our the content to be offensive for a variety of reasons (sexual, language, violence, or homosexual behavior).
Our children witness a loving mother and father who embrace each other each day before leaving for work and upon our return. We hug them repeatedly upon our departure, sometimes taking longer than we'd like to get out the door. As for regular TV, we "Opt out" almost completely. Shows like "Little House on the Prarie" just are "stimulating" enough for our general populous these days. That is unfortunate as the morals and lessons in each episode are worthwhile for people of all walks of life. that is why we watch an DVD episode each Sunday night. Even this show raises questions (one episode had a moraphine adict) by our children which we take time to address after the show.
Parenting takes time, discipline, dedication, AND morals.
What?
Submitted by sputnik (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 6:46 AM PDT.
Funny that this post is about torture and Caspian thinks it appropriate to go off on the MPAA. No wonder this country is in the hole it's in.
Sex vs. Violence
Submitted by jimBOB on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 7:07 AM PDT.
Sex is a normal, healthy part of the daily lives of many, if not most, Americans. Violence (hopefully) isn't. (Dunno about you, but I've never personally witnessed a murder or a maiming assault, and would be glad never to do so.)
Yet we have freakouts about including depictions of the sex in entertainment narratives, but consider explicit, horrific violence just routine. Weird.
Freaking out across the board
Submitted by wbinmd (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 9:07 AM PDT.
So, are you pointing the routine tolerance at conservatives, or in general?
Remember, the large majority of movies come from liberal producers, directors, actors, etc. It is a constant onslaught from the left coast.
PG Language
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 6:32 AM PDT.
Dear Caspian,
I find it interesting that in the context of complaining about what children are exposed to you use the language that you do; 'screw' and 'suck.' What do you suppose those words imply? Or is it okay when one is posting to a bulletin board or to the net to use the very words that imply what you so obsess about?
I don't like it that kids are exposed to some of the things they are either, but I wouldn't let a 13 year old go to a movie I disapproved of. I don't like Cinderella and Snow White either for what they teach little girls about being a woman! How about you? Do they bother YOU?
You might think about using some of these kinds of media as jumping off points for discussion with your kids. They WILL be exposed to things you don't like by just living in this world, so you'd better be talking with your kids! (Even if you got your way and banned all this stuff; they'd still be exposed to things you disapprove of by token of your being an individual who does not follow the crowd.)
This is as opposed to
Submitted by MBunge (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 9:59 AM PDT.
This is as opposed to liberals who think you can moralize about whether someone recycles but have coniption fits over any moral judgment made about someone's sexual behavior?
Mike
That's right, Mike. The
Submitted by dob (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:03 AM PDT.
That's right, Mike. The former involves an external cost to society not borne by the principal. The latter is personal matter that doesn't involve anyone outside of the direct participants.
Better trolls, please.
Not so fast.
Submitted by Brian on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:18 AM PDT.
Sexual behavior may have external costs. Having children imposes costs on society and aborting a pregnancy may do so as well. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Better non-trolls, please.
slow down, yourself
Submitted by junebug on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 11:56 AM PDT.
Funny, then, that the right should get so worked up about homosexuality, which leads to neither having children, nor abortion.
Better whatever-you're-calling-yourself-these-days, please.
I'll write this slowly for you.
Submitted by Brian on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 2:23 PM PDT.
Which part of my comment supports your moronic reply, exactly?
Better dumbass-repliers, please.
There's nothing wrong with
Submitted by Measure for Measure (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:13 AM PDT.
There's nothing wrong with moralizing: there is nothing wrong with making moral judgments. What Kevin is talking about here is distinguishing between moral absolutes - issues where little weighing of costs and benefits are necessary - and cases where greater and lesser evils should be compared.
Moral relativism is actually a separate matter. That's when someone apologizes for a behavior by simply stating that it reflects a different value system -- and that all value systems are equally valid. Philosophers like to point out that the latter claim contradicts itself: how does it address the value system that states that all systems are *not* equally valid?
To address the concerns of modern conservatives on this page, the link between human suffering and consensual safe sex is a lot more tenuous than the link between government torture and tyranny. So yeah, I would condemn apologists for waterboarding unequivocally.
Count me in.
Submitted by Brian on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:22 AM PDT.
If we're including same sex marriage as "having to do with sex," then I'm an absolutist. It should be allowed. If a woman wants to have an abortion, the government should stay the heck out the way. I guess that I'm just another hypocrite - but since I'm no longer a bonehead teenager I could hardly care less.
Funny how that works
Submitted by Caspian of the Lake on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 10:25 AM PDT.
And Kevin when it comes to the left and sex anything goes and so we now have 40% of the children born today in single parent homes. And when it comes to harsh interrogation methods anything beyond 'please sir' is considered torture. Guess you forgot to look at both sides of the coin again.
Let's look at the "big picture"
Submitted by UCSB Gaucho (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 1:51 PM PDT.
Conservatives love to use the rising percentages of single-parent homes in order to demonstrate our lack of morals, which is then directly correlated to the "liberal elites" and their views on premarital sex, sex education, etc.
I think what's more important is looking at what is causing these rising percentages. Studies have found that children who are taught abstinence-only sex education have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. I'm sure the decreasing moral taboo against sex has had some effect as well, but that is definitely not the only causal factor. This issue is way more complicated than how it's being presented.
p.s. I grew up in a single parent household and turned out just fine. I don't think my childhood would have been any better if my parents decided together...in fact, it probably would have been worse because they would have been fighting all the time. It's not necessarily a black and white issue.
only half of the story
Submitted by wruscle (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 11:20 AM PDT.
It occurs to me that there's at least the appearance of an interesting dicotomy here. With regard to the two big taboo issues, sex and violence, conservatives are absolutists on sex and relativists on violence, while liberal progressives are absolutists on violence and relativists on sex. I'm clearly painting with too broad a brush, but maybe there's a there here.
moral relativity
Submitted by Paul Gottlieb (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 11:28 AM PDT.
This is easy. Liberal want to have sex, Conservatives want to torture people.
All of the official
Submitted by Caspian of the Lake on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 12:05 PM PDT.
All of the official documents, all of the legal opinions refer to it as 'harsh treatment'. The army subjected their soldiers, for training purposes, to the exact same techniques. They are harsh. It is not torture. But that doesn't fit the left's agenda now does it? That's okay. They've redefined marriage what's to stop them with assigning whatever definition they want to anything else?
The army submitted american
Submitted by giovanni da procida (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 12:25 PM PDT.
The army submitted american soldiers to waterboarding? I think you mean "the Air Force", during the SERE training school. Or maybe by "the army" you mean "Japanese army soldiers during World War II."
Incidently, those Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for their actions. Because waterboarding is torture. It was when the Spanish Inquisition did it, it was when Pol Pot's thugs did it, and it still is. That is why the SERE school uses it. To prepare some of our high risk soldiers for the torture they may face if captured by dictatorships that practice torture.
I'm a big fan of traditional marriage. I want eight wives just like King David.
All of the official documents, all of the legal opinions refer to it as 'harsh treatment'.
This is so patently stupid that I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but here goes. Your point can only be true if, by "all of the official documents, all of the legal opinions," you mean only those generated by the Bush administration. By your logic, their official documents & legal opinions could have just as easily referred to the very same practices as "cuddling," and that would have made it so.
The simple fact is that the US is one of the signatories to the Third & Fourth Geneva Conventions, as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture, all of which define torture to include the very practices to which the US has been subjecting the detainees to which you refer.
Undo the Italics
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 4:53 AM PDT.
italics off
Others have dealt with some parts of this ludicrous post, but I wanted to focus on the claim that because our military personnel have been subjected to waterboarding, it's not torture. Rubbish. You ignore the most salient part of the experience - the soldiers submitted themselves to the training voluntarily. They knew what to expect, and more to the point they knew that no-one was going to let them come to harm. They felt in control of the situation. Not so for detainees subjected to torture. They had no assurances that they wouldn't be harmed or drowned - indeed I'd imagine they expected to be harmed. Otherwise, there's be no point to the torture, would there?
You do realize, don't you, that you are defending acts that generations of human beings have considered barbaric? As an American, I consider these acts indefensible on any grounds. How do you find them acceptable?
Dont want to be tortured? STOP volunteering to kill Americans!
Submitted by Waiting...preparing...for YOU! (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 6:27 PM PDT.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Didn't the 9/11 hijackers and conspirators volunteer for their "assignment." Didn't Al-Qaeda members volunteer to kill Americans in Iraq? They are volunteering to kill and they are killing Americans and Iraqis.
I’m ashamed that we tolerate this level of dedication by a group of people, ALL MUSLIMS BTW to kill and maim Americans. I’m equally ashamed of our inability to keep classified information classified. Thanks New York Times. Thanks Washington Post. Thanks loose-lipped treasonous bastards. Thanks a lot spineless liberals. All you do is weaken our Nation.
1.4 Million Muslims will one day all jump in unison. Who will protect you limp-wristed, gun control fanatical liberals when that happens? Don’t come crawling my way. I’ll be protecting my family from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
America's enemies
Submitted by iLarynx (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 7:28 AM PDT.
Don't forget that the Nazis were ALL CHRISTIANS too. As were Mussolini's fascists.
When you decide to protect your family from all enemies foreign and domestic (right-wingers always forget that the soldier's duty is to protect the Constitution), don't forget to look in the mirror. And aim accordingly.
Labels
Submitted by StrugglingChristian (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 9:24 AM PDT.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And those who carried out the crusades were
Christians. Claiming the title is one thing. Walking the walk is entirely different, for anyone except Christ himself. The phrase should be amended to "Struggling Christian." I struggle to comprehend your reliance on government solutions and your faith in Obama. I pray for your enlightenment. I pray for patience in the interim. You shall be enlightened on day...iLarynx.
BTW, I'm a former Marine, and I took that oath. While I'm no longer bound to defend it, I will always do my utmost to keep it intact; away from liberal distortion and eradication.
And since you bring up the constitution, why don't you read it and assess whether our country in the past 100 days has exponentially diverged from its basis.
BTW, the constitution also provides for a "well organized militia." When you come, I'll be looking right at you buddy. Up close and personal if you dare.
cannot achieve sexual arousal without some form of torture
Submitted by tpx on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 12:06 PM PDT.
Actually, the American right cannot achieve sexual arousal without some form of torture being performed on a child of color.
WTF??
Submitted by wisdom (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 6:30 PM PDT.
WTF do you come off claiming "the American right cannot achieve sexual arousal without some form of torture being performed on a child of color." Perhaps some of us are married to someone "of color." Get a grip you f'n racial bastard.
you're a moron who doesn't
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 5:17 AM PDT.
you're a moron who doesn't understand sarcasm
Moron???
Submitted by wbinmd (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 9:41 AM PDT.
On MoJo, you never know what is whacked out and what is for real. And I'm somehow now a moron because I jump on a racial comment? Who's the moron buddy? Perhaps we should meet and discuss further yes?
I retract the unseemly
Submitted by tpx on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 1:08 PM PDT.
I retract the unseemly 'color' remark, which was inserted as a modifier to claim the American right is racist. The American right is racist, but they sexually enjoy torture of anyone.
Make love, not war
Submitted by Trippp on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 3:14 PM PDT.
Paul,
Liberal want to have sex, Conservatives want to torture people.
It is even simpler than that, at least as far as men are concerned. All men want to have sex. Conservative men can't seem to get sex which makes them angry and frustrated and makes them want to torture people. And control women.
Shorter Tripp - conservatives are liberals who can't score with the laydeez.
Tripp
Think David Vitter ....
Submitted by Ydobon (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 5:09 PM PDT.
Kevin,
Moral relativism here has nothing to do with sex or torture, but has to do with their tribal logic.
If the conservatives do it (whatever the IT is), it's right. If the liberals do it, it's wrong.
What right wing are you seeing?
Submitted by MaryContrary (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 5:55 PM PDT.
I see no evidence of any moral relativism on the part of right wingers with regard to torture. Quite the opposite, they are very absolute on it. They seem to regard torture as an unqualified good, in almost all cases when it could be employed.
The only moral relativism they may have is whether to use it on Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.
Thugs
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Apr. 22, 2009 7:55 PM PDT.
There's nothing complicated, modern "conservatives" (if these people are conservative, the term has no real meaning), are just uncivilized thugs or mindless pantwetters. They have no concept of why torture is evil, why they are evil for supporting it, and no interest in learning. They have no way of judging the cost of throwing away almost 250 years of America's policy of no torture, fairly unusual at the time and now followed by every decent government in the world.
Need some history lessons...
Submitted by Barry on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 1:03 PM PDT.
Anon
I am conservative, I do not wet the bed or my pants, and I believe torture that results in permanent physical damage is wrong. Temporary mental or physical discomfort is not torture. Taking pictures of someone wearing women's clothing is not torture. Kneeling on rice is not torture.
That said, if you really believe in the 233 year history of our nation we never tortured people - real torture, that is - you are very naive. I would also say that during that time most every country in the world engaged in torture. Of course, the published policy might say one thing, but the practice is there nonetheless.
I have spoken with people who served in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. There was torture. Was it right? No. Were all captured combatants treated to the Geneva Convention protocols? No. However, I can understand how a GI might feel after listening to his captured buddies scream during the night as their skin was stripped from their living bodies, finding them the next day nailed to a palm tree. Talk to one of them about "moral relativism." Ask a parent of a person murdered in the Twin Towers how they feel about water boarding the admitted 9/11 master mind. Ask a person that works in the LA office tower that was marked for destruction how they feel about the intel gathered during these "harsh interrogations".
We are all subject to moral relativism - it is not the domain of one political party or ideology.
False equivalence
Submitted by Madlad on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 1:08 PM PDT.
You're equating the desperate acts of isolated individuals with official policy articulated at the highest levels of government along with legal opinions created to permit it. These are simply not the same thing.
Madlad
Isolated acts? Hardely. Bush made the mistake of asking for an "official policy" or legal decision on the definition of torture... some previous administrations just looked the other way and did not want to know or admit what went on...others condoned it but weren't about to write it down.
And in the history of our country...do you suppose there was official written policy that allowed torture? Check out your history on what the official policy was regarding treatment of disobedient or runaway slaves, Native Americans that went off the reservation, or county chain gains... many would have preferred water boarding.
When someone ends up with
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 5:51 AM PDT.
When someone ends up with bruises, cuts, broken bones or internal bleeding during interrogation, it is torture. When someone is suicidal because of interrogation, it is torture. When someone is killed during interrogation, it is torture. All of these things have been documented during US interrogations. And for those who think that waterboarding is NOT torture, try it at home. It's quite easy to do. You can search "christopher hitchens waterboarding" on youtube to learn how.
Babies are blessings, hate brings more hate
Submitted by Katie bo batie (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 6:01 AM PDT.
The hate speech posted in some these comments is frightening and disturbing. Saying that all Muslims will one day try to kill us and that people who oppose torture are 'limp-wristed' are hateful, disrespectful and uninformed. I encourage all posters to post comments with respect for the views and thoughts that others share. Dialogue is the key to finding common grounds, which can help us move forward in finding solutions.
I would like to comment on the recurring theme of 'single-parent households'. This term (in most cases) refer to homes where the only parent present is the mother. This infers that a woman had children without a stable relationship, and that this is a burden on our society. But the burden actually results from our inequitable and targeted system of distribution of wealth. Single-moms bear the full brunt of raising the next generation. Babies should not be liabilities in our society. We should provide societal supports (like universal day care and health care!) so that these children from 'single-parent households' (like myself) will grow into smart, healthy and productive contributors to society. Babies are blessings!
Read the Koran Katie.
Submitted by wbinmd (not verified) on Fri Apr. 24, 2009 5:06 PM PDT.
It clearly states that infidels must be killed. YOU and I, and all non muslims are infidels.
Sex is a moral issue? Why?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Apr. 23, 2009 6:57 AM PDT.
Sex is a moral issue? Why?
I thought it was just for fun and reproduction. Morality comes into play only when it is accompanied by violence, i.e. when conservatives/fascists practice it.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
