Moral Equivalence

Moral Equivalence

Charlie Earl

Not all correct answers are equal. A logically correct answer to a pressing problem may not be the best alternative available, and sometimes, what seems to be the best answer may, in fact, be an immoral solution. A friend of mine who is a pastor told me that one of his most frustrating tasks was counseling married couples following an affair by one or both of the parties. When he spoke with them individually, the offender would often attempt to justify her/his actions by claiming that the affair and the interloper were so much better than the marriage. In some cases to his chagrin they would state that God must approve of dissolving their marriage and beginning a new life with the other person because they were so happy when they were together. This is an example of one type of moral equivalence. If happiness is moral and comes from God, then an immoral or unethical act must be “OK” because the participant is happy. Happiness becomes the equalizer or equivalizer for determining what is moral.

If someone performs an immoral action and appears to get away with it, then others may believe they’re entitled to a similar or less drastic action because they’re a better person than the original actor. Immorality is justified because the judge or second actor measures the “immoral-ness” of the behavior on a relative scale. “Not-as-bad-as-“ replaces good as the standard of comparison. It is rather like children squabbling in the back seat of a car. You, the driver, detect increased noise and fury. You inquire about the problem and are informed that “he pinched me.” “He” responds with “she hit me first” whereupon she counters with he was moving into “my space.” Escalating moral equivalence rules the day in the back seat of the royal minivan. Childish reactions to childish behavior… just like occurs in the vaunted halls of power.

Relativism has invaded all aspects of our lives. On a personal level relativism is an internal negotiation with God and the community. We know what is right and moral yet we attempt to justify actions or thoughts that are contrary to God’s law and community standards. Hypocrisy is the most obvious indicator of relativistic line. We sense a need for rigid standards, but personally believe that our actions should be exempt.

Communities and governments, on the other hand, see no need for exemptions because they do not recognize the necessity of internal moral and behavioral regulators. They rely on force to ensure the type of behavior they deem most desirable. Governments have no internal conflicts between the “moral” and the “practical.” The root definition of moral equivalency is that one side of a conflict uses it to justify their actions against a foe. “If our atrocities are bad, they are not as bad as theirs.” Evil and immoral acts are justified because they are less heinous than the alternative. Sounds like government….all big governments in all systems: despots, tyrants, monarchs and statists of all stripes. The force used by government is always morally justified in their views because their way is the only right way. In essence….the concept of morality is incidental or, at best, relative. Because governments, groups and other entities have no minds, hearts and souls, morality cannot be an absolute….either right or wrong. For them all behavior on their behalf is justifiable because they have the power to enforce their will. It is somewhat ironic that some statists decry the so-called immorality of America when the notion of morality is always absent in the state. Morality and moral behavior are advanced by individuals not the government. A state or government can be moral only when the people as individuals behave morally. When the state becomes too large and oppressive the INDIVIDUAL desires and behaviors of the citizens have little or no impact on the conduct of public affairs.

The best and only solution for a government or society that is overrun by immorality is an organizational structure wherein EACH individual has the capacity and the responsibility for making moral decisions. The Founders and the Framers had it right, and we squandered it away.

Charlie Earl

cearlwriting@hotmail.com

cearlliberty@gmail.com

http://thelibertylegation.blogspot.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

   

An Unmolested Life

An Unmolested Life

Charlie Earl

Our world and our nation have become a creepy place. If one is a student of history and a biblical scholar, one is aware that we’ve always been a creep-laden planet (at least since the Fall). For two hundred twenty-five years we in the United States have managed to avoid the more intense elements of creepiness because our Founders and Framers devised a plan for liberty wherein people were expected to assume personal responsibility for their actions. Deviants and perverts have always lived among us, but their impact and harm may have been somewhat blunted by the certainty of swift punitive justice if they were to step over the line. Shame, too, was a factor. Our communities of the past did not tolerate harmful aberrant behavior, and thus, twisted individuals faced a greater impetus for controlling their unhealthy behaviors.

Over time it has become clear that many of our communities’ restrictions were unnecessarily harsh and antithetical to personal liberty … gifted and granted by God. Many of the former ways and norms were over-zealous and too tyrannical and created pockets of resentment, agony and persecution. Discreet consensual activity should never be the province of the government, but governments cannot make moral choices, equitable decisions or fair judgments. Where government can and should intervene is when one’s behavior and actions harm another person either physically or materially. The force of government should be implemented to require accountable restitution or imprisonment if the damage was criminal rather than negligent. Damage to children should be handled particularly forcefully because they generally lack the means for defending themselves. Therefore, pedophiles and stalkers should be given no quarter.

There is a level or degree of molestation beyond individual versus individual that should never be permitted in a democratic republic. It is when the government assumes that it has the right and the moral authority to restrict individual liberty. When a government places little value on the peoples’ right to choose their individual destinies, it degrades their decision-making capabilities and thus undermines their accountability for their own actions. If the individual is incapable of making sound choices for him or herself, then the onus is on the chooser when those choices are bad, immoral or unwise. By limiting choice and personal responsibility, governments implicitly encourage bad choices and unwise behavior. The cascading effect is that some deviants may assume that their behaviors have minimal consequences because the sources of their choices are societal rather than personal. A lax attitude generated by the sense that someone else (government) determines life’s choices results in a diminished sense of personal responsibility… and shame.

Those of us who have been around for several decades can attest to the power of shame as a tool for subduing hurtful behavior. When the society and the culture are subservient to government, the prohibitions formerly enforced by society become meaningless because it is the government that assumes collective responsibility through its limiting of personal choice and accountability. Standards disintegrate or become confusing. Acceptable social behavior transforms into a kubuki dance of politically correct and “OK-for-the moment” types of aberrant lifestyles because individuals do not matter, and they are not responsible for the harm and damage they do. Molestation and abuse of any type at any time should never be tolerated. Yet an attitude that undermines individual freedom also discounts personal responsibility. When collective government-preferred mores replace individual consciences and accountability, inhibitions retreat, and shameless entitlement becomes the driving impetus for harming others and damaging their lives and property. 

The apparent flood of molesters, deviants, perverts and murderers who accost our children can be correlated with an overblown, impersonal collective government that denies individual liberty while promoting collective responsibility rather than personal choices and accountability. Big government is deviant and perverse because it has no moral base or foundation. Big government views individuals as threats. Big government at every level is the molester-in-chief and the number one enabler of those who unabashedly and unrepentantly harm others. Amorality begets evil. The new view is that we must understand and correct the malignant molester while we define the lover of individual liberty as a dangerous deviant. The lowest common denominator is now the ruler.

Charlie Earl

cearlwriting@hotmail.com

cearlliberty@gmail.com

http://thelibertylegation.blogspot.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com