Perhaps the ultimate confusion is that "the Left" has long been accused of "moral relativism" for pointing out the use of these terms when the essence of "moral relativism" is judging an act not based on what it is, but on who is doing it. It's the adolescent self-love of believing that "X, by definition, is good when I do it and bad when you do it."
And this is why we progressive military analysts - we few, we band of brothers - need our compatriots in the non-military fields, to point out aspects of political and social issues that we might otherwise miss. And as I mentioned below, it's important to understand the social and political base against which our military capabilities are developed.
Moral Relativism is a hard call for some on the Illogical Right to make against the Looney Left. Especially considering that the Left don't own the rights to sole use of it. You will notice I use the caution "some", which is something that "many" loudmouths on the Right do not use(I may be a Conservative, but generally not a loudmouth or illogical).
As this article demonstrates, hypocracy is alive and well. But Moral Relativism is a lot more complex a call to make about the cases in this article. These cases are definitely Hypocracy, but not necessarily moral relativism.
Never the less, an excellent article, reminding us that the "Golden Rule"(a moral maxim: do unto others...." is something that the Illogical Right needs to use more often.
Or maybe the Illogical Right expect others to have double standards too? That could be the answer. Which would imlpy that the also expect the Left to complain about Illogical Right's hypocracy, because they want to be able to able to complain about the Lefts hypocracy.
oh no, this is leading to a head-ache....
Posted by: Scathsealgaire | 30 September 2009 at 11:58 PM