Liberals inherently turn to moral relativism because acknowledging Judeo-Christian or any objective understanding of ‘right and wrong’ is contrary to their efforts. In liberalism a fluid morality is necessary for the efficient promotion of a strong centralized government. The exploitation of the grievances of conflicting victim groups requires amoral devotion. i.e. Defending Sharia law while claiming to be a feminist, claiming to care for inner city blacks while supporting sanctuary city policies, supporting women’s rights while using government to allow biological men into female locker rooms. Each group has a grievance, but only with moral relativism can someone ignore the conflicts of advocating all positions simultaneously… yet liberals do it all the time.

When right and wrong are relative, the “victimized” label can take any form. Oppression becomes subjective. An expectation of civility on one man can be felt as weighted oppression by another, an equal standard of entry on merit can be touted as “unfair”. For the liberal, victimhood is the primary currency for government growth. Liberal academics have fine-tuned the victimhood political currency money press by doing two things, the creation of micro-aggression grievances, and refusing to acknowledge the illegality of entering America improperly. By doing these two things they can keep a segment of non-white Americans perpetually angry at white Americans, and convince some Americans that those who are against illegal immigration, are against all immigration. Ensuring grievance and division. 

In their morally relative minds, more diversity equals more victim groups, and more victim groups means more government growth… or “progress”.

When right and wrong are relative, disapproval of a lifestyle can be construed as victimization (calling for the government to force approval).

When right and wrong are relative, an expectation of assimilation might be considered victimization (calling for the government to cater to the unassimilated).

When right and wrong are relative, fathers can leave their families, and society will not hold them accountable for the victimization of their family (calling for the government to support the family).

When right and wrong are relative, opposing the murder of a baby in the womb can be considered “anti-women”(calling for the government to fund abortion clinics).

The traditional understanding of morality, the inherent nature of right vs wrong is refuted by modern liberalism. Not because it appreciates evil over good, but because they insist that “evil and good” are relative at best, and nonexistent at worst.

Compassion, though misguided, has convinced liberals that an expectation of objective morality is oppressive. Relative morality on the other hand allows them to ignore the double standards of championing opposing victimgroups. One glaring example is the liberal’s refusal to denounce Muslim Sharia law while claiming to support the LGBT community.

This moral relativism is cloaked in political correctness. Intentionally dulling and discouraging the ability to recognize cultural aspects and pointedly define reality. With the inference that moral definitions and expectations are oppressive to anyone the liberal culture deems less capable, bestowing on them a mantle of victimhood.

The liberal’s refusal to discuss the correlation between gang-related crime and fatherless homes in the black community is suspect. They either believe black males shouldn’t be burdened by the expectations of fatherhood, or they know acknowledging such a correlation and addressing it, would reduce their victimhood currency.

To the morally relative mind, correlations like this are rejected because they require objective expectations and lack the opportunity to expand government.

Any attempt to raise such an issue is quickly met with disingenuous cries of “racism”. Yet when asked whether they believe if black fathers should be held at expectations equal to that of other races, the liberal will ramble off a litany of victim-creating issues such as police racism, poverty, gun violence, slavery, inherent racism in the work place, and “white supremacy”. None of which come close to explaining why a father would willingly leave his family. Or why the dramatic influx of fatherless homes in the black community corresponds directly with the availability of welfare. But to the liberal, any excuse for victimhood, justified or not, is a valid explanation for lowered moral expectations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s