The utter hypocrisy of it all: wingers post-9/11 moral relativism

[darkstar]

These are the shits that say there are *always* moral absolutes, down to spousal benefits for gays. But the answer to the torture scandals, the Patriot Act, preemptive wars and the like is that "9/11 changed everything."

I know it's but a pipe dream, but to me to demonstrate that their bedrock philosophical framework is not inviolate when they are in themselves in charge of the ENTIRE GOVT should be the death knell to the neocon's shell game.

People have probably said this before (and better) here at DU, but it hit me like a ton of bricks yesterday upon hearing O'Reilly talking about how we "need a national discussion on torture, these bad guys aren't part of any government army, 9/11, blah, blah." If that's not "situational ethics," I don't know what is. How I'd love to hear a caller get through and nail him and his ilk on this.

[togiak]

1. Selective Moralism

I came up with a term to describe them (and they hate when I use it on them). I call it selective moralism. There morals are absolute only when it applies to others.

Have you ever had a gay marriage debate with them.......they invariably say "if we allow gay marriage then we will have to allow all forms of perversion such as poligamy and incest, etc". Then bring up how the bible is rife with poligamy and incest and that God didn't make any judgements about it. They will rapidly bring up the "times were different" argument.

Their morals are quite fluid when it comes to themselves.

[gratuitous]

2. Yep

And sometimes, the best you can hope for is to get them to acknowledge that they're being selective in their morality. Just like everyone else -- although that's a step they can't usually make for a while.

I deal with it all the time in my work for my church's denomination. We cover a wide range of attitudes and beliefs, and sometimes we just have to agree that we're going to help flood victims or build housing, and let the rest sort itself out.