Perri Nelson's Website 

Good, Evil, Left, Right

A lot of bloggers have been writing about the events that took place at the Virginia Tech campus earlier this week. I've pretty much tried to stay away from the topic, but it's one that turns up everywhere. On the web. On the radio. In newspapers. On television.

There have been a few themes I've been hearing/reading. One argues that this tragedy should serve as evidence that more gun control is needed. Another argues that this evil act argues that more guns are needed to allow people to defend themselves from madmen and murderers. I'm not going to get into that. I stand on my second amendment rights, but I don't really want to discuss guns.

Another theme that I've been hearing/reading is that this is a tragedy and that we all need to “heal”. Yet another is that no, this wasn't a tragedy, it was an act of evil and we need to express our righteous anger over it. Most recently, I read a post at Sand In The Hourglass, discussing a CBS article that some students are willing to “forgive, and offer up their prayers to honor the killer's life” (emphasis added).

The victims of Cho Seung-Hui deserve to be remembered. I can't tell you much about any of them, except that none of them deserved to be murdered or assaulted with deadly force. I live on the other side of the country from where all of this took place, so the pain isn't quite as immediate to me.

Even so, it's a terrible human tragedy, the result of unspeakable evil. I mourn a bit for the loss of life and the pain and anguish that the victim's families, and yes, even the murderer's family must be going through.

At the same time, the various reactions to these events point out several things I've been trying to find a way to articulate for months now.

The left is very fond of moral relativism, and multi-culturalism. I might get into the why of that later. Right now, I'm interested in some of the consequences of it.

The whole notion of multi-culturalism seems to be that we must honor all cultures equally. On the surface that sounds quite reasonable. After all, there are many cultures in the world, and they each bring something unique to our perspective.

Moral relativism seems to be, at least in part, a consequence of multi-culturalism. After all, if all cultures are equally valid, then by extension all belief systems must also be equally valid. The problem with that though is that several belief systems are in fact mutually exclusive.

The natural consequence of this is to assume that all belief systems are in fact equally invalid. This is reinforced for the left by another thing they're very fond of — the assumed authority of science as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Science doesn't speak to the supernatural or to the spiritual. In fact, science tends to ignore questions of spirituality and the supernatural, looking instead to things that can be measured and verified by experiment. Science by its very nature cannot rely upon faith to explain anything.

How do you measure faith? How can divine intervention be repeated and verified by the non-divine? So scientists, whether they believe in a supreme being or not, don't rely upon one to explain the workings of the world.

This doesn't say that science excludes the possibility of a supreme being. It simply says that science cannot speak to the spiritual or the supernatural.

Of course if science is the ultimate explainer of anything that can be explained, then the fact that it can't speak to the spiritual or the supernatural is easily used to justify a lack of faith in a supreme being. And, of course, if there's no supreme being to define what is right and what is wrong, then moral relativism is the natural consequence.

There are other  reasons why the left clings to moral relativism. We can begin with a lack of faith for some. For others, it may be more personal. Most belief systems have a fairly straightforward notion of what sort of behavior is and isn't acceptable.

That's not very convenient if you've got a tendency to indulge your passions however you will. None of us like it when the things we enjoy are frowned upon. To have others tell us that it's “wrong” to alter our minds with chemicals or to have sex with everyone we can, of whatever gender we like isn't a comfortable thing.

Who are “they” to decide what's right and wrong anyway? Who are “they” to impose their antiquated notions of morality on me!

So moral relativism is attractive to the hedonist as well. And let's face it, a lot of people on the left today came of age during a period of rebellion against traditional morality. If not them, then their parents did and they passed on their lack of faith to them.

For those who choose not to have faith, rather than for those who have not been shown something to have faith in, their choice has an impact on their spirit. A guilty conscience is a powerful thing, especially when you can't admit, even to yourself, why you have a guilty conscience.

It's an even more powerful thing when you project that guilt upon others. We're privileged and we're guilty, so it must be the fault of our culture. If only we didn't exploit others we wouldn't feel the guilt, so we excoriate one another and preach that we have to stop the exploitation. We must look to other cultures to return to what is pure and natural.

This of course makes multi-culturalism even more attractive. And so we have the beginnings of an escalating cycle.

I think that moral relativism makes a great many people on the left incapable of recognizing evil when they see it. Without a standard of what is good and what is evil, how can evil be recognized?

I believe that this explains the various reactions that we've seen to the murders that took place earlier this week, and to similar incidents in the past.

If evil doesn't exist, then those murders can only be seen as tragic. They can't be recognized as the evil they are. Since they weren't evil then we simply need to begin the healing and move on. Confronting the evil simply isn't an option.

The murderer can't be evil either, at least not if evil doesn't exist. Instead he's got to be a victim himself. So we hear news reports about how he was a stalker, how he was abused, how he was placed under psychiatric observation a few years ago when his disturbing behavior was noted by a couple of women.

The murders can't be his fault because he's damaged. The left would blame the weapons he used rather than the evil intent in his heart. He'd have never shot so many people if he didn't have a legal way to get guns. The second amendment is to blame. We need gun control, we don't need to create disincentives to criminal behavior. [Update: apparently he didn't actually obtain his guns legally. His previous mental illness disqualified him from legally purchasing them. He lied to get them. Explain to me how tighter gun control laws would have prevented that.]

When we hear about how Virginia Tech knew that Cho Seung-Hui had problems, the blame for what happened can be placed on the school, rather than the murderer. If we carry it far enough, we can blame everything except Cho Seung-Hui for the evil acts that took place.

There is no personal responsibility anymore. It's all someone else's fault. We can't blame the criminal for his vile deeds. We can't punish him, instead we need to understand him. We need to rehabilitate him.

All of this comes from an inability to recognize evil. All of this comes from moral relativism. In fact, moral relativism goes so far as to make it possible to honor the murderer.

Carry it far enough, and it even explains the left's strange ideas with regard to international evils.

This is just one of the many reasons why I reject the philosophies of the left.

The fact is, there is evil in the world. Mankind needs to be able to recognize it, and to confront it. This cannot be done without faith. It cannot be done with situational ethics or moral relativism. Evil IS, and it MUST be fought.

People of faith understand this. We also understand that not all belief systems are equally valid. Some of them MUST be wrong. It doesn't follow that they ALL are.

We're all human though. None of us can possibly know it all. An absolute conviction that you have all of the truth is just as bad as a complete lack of faith. Especially if you happen to be wrong.

This is why we need to be tolerant of other faiths. Tolerant. We can't know what is in the heart of another. We likely don't even fully know our own heart.

We should still recognize, confront, and fight evil. We need to protect our society from the evildoer. We need to separate those who would do harm to others from those they would harm. And we must do it in faith and with humility, lest we become evil ourselves.

Angel is asking Why can't we ask Why?, and she reminds us that none of our hands are clean, and to "suffer for the innocents who  paid the price for our debauchery." Go give her post a read.

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=626
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/4/18/626.aspx

Terry_JIm responded with:

Well written article. Thanks for the encouragement. People are equal , ideas are not. In faith and with humility, let's keep fighting the good fight.

Angel responded with:

Excellent insights Perri!..I wanted to copy and paste some of the best but u seem to have that feature disabled....right on spot with the Libs not being able to discern evil!

Bob responded with:

"I think that moral relativism makes a great many people on the left incapable of recognizing evil when they see it. Without a standard of what is good and what is evil, how can evil be recognized?" Well said my friend!