“In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism,†President Bush told Pope Benedict XVI this week. But as Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post noted, Bush’s presidency has been fraught with moral relativism. In addition to the pre-emptive war with Iraq, Bush defends torture by arguing that the ends justify the means.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
14 Comments
“Most notably, he defends the use of interrogation tactics that violate human dignity by arguing that the ends justify the means.”
Political attack points are in the eye of the beholder.
No one can argue with any cohesive logic that interrogation techniques used to prevent future murderous suicide attacks are morally wrong.
Those who have an irrational political vendetta will do so to accomplish their own desired end.
Who is a bigger relativist than the Decider? It’s amazing to hear him use the word “dictatorship” without irony.
RFL,
And no one can argue with “cohesive logic” that we should protect the Constitution by destroying the safeguards built into it.
Relativist WingnutSpeak: “Cohesive logic” = “whatever supports my position and discredits yours.” Or, put otherwise, “heads I win, tails you lose.”
The suspects we’ve tortured provided us with no information of the sort. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it has. And THEN you will need to convince me that any such information is more valuable than the Constitutional protections you’ve trashed in the process of acquiring it.
What was it bush said about helping people down on their luck or otherwise oppressed?
Something about “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
I speak con. Let me translate. “If folks are hurting, it is their fault and if we help them we are only enabling them to do their worst”.
bush IS incompetent. But some of his speech writers should get an award for turning down into up.
cons: pot, meet kettle.
I set here trying to think of something to say about Bush talking about absolute truth and Moral absolutes.
I finally conclude that either you have it or will never get the problem with this.
OK, I thought of something to say! Bush does have absolute morals and from those he has his own absolute truths. But because his absolute morals are far and away from the standard absolute morals taught by the likes of the Pope. It allows him to justify in his own mind what he see as the absolute truths. He is as assured in his mind that he is right that the facts and realities do not matter to him. For they are outside of the absolute morals and truths he believes.
Dog – makes his mind not just closed but slammed shut!
Yes.
The term “moral relativism” is typically used by the foaming right to criticize situational ethics , i.e. the notion that determining the morality of a situation depends upon the details. This is something everyone does–because it’s the only sane approach–but is typically absent from a crusade.
In this type of static mindset, of course torturing prisoners is fine, because they’re bad people and we should do anything to protect America from attack.
The static mind cannot process simple notions that (1) they’re not always “bad people” or even the right people, and, (2) doing “anything” means sometimes doing the wrong thing.
So it comes to down to indulging the worst prejudices to quiet the cognitive dissonance: evil Arab Muslim jihadist terrorists, all of them! Peace through superior firepower! Kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out! Concern about immoral conduct by our side becomes “supporting terrorists.”
It’s easier than thinking.
Bush of course thinks moral relativism means treating your family well.
Phillip,
Please show me where Bush defened “torture?”
You can’t.
Do you know exactly what the CIA did? Exactly what was authorized?
Yet you proclaim that Bush defends torture?
This is the exact type of crap journalism that I have come to expect from the likes of you.
Nathan,
You’re defining torture by the “Torquemada” standard, that ends in burning the victim at the stake. How christian of you.
Morals are culturally derived. They are not beamed down to earth from the Central Decider. Remember when homosexuality was wrong, and it was chic to smoke in bars and restuarants?
Everything is relative. Nothing means anything out of context.
Bush displays extraordinarily malleable morals, to say the very least (”malleable” is being extremely generous), and yet still many self-identified conservatives absolutely lap it up. They absolutely love to call it “leadership,” in fact.
Mark my words, the GOP will pay dearly for it. As in, through the nose.
This is, and always has been, THE elephant in the Oval Office held by one Augustus Stupidus. The elephant in the room, so to speak.
Namely: he’s led the GOP straight into the land of moral relativism….and they don’t know it.
Yet.
One Trackback
Federal Housing Administration Act…
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet….