Getting It Wrong About Morality and Reality

David Brooks gets it entirely wrong in his NYT op-ed piece “Morality and Reality”.

What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.

The socially conservative argument does not have moral force. The slogan “Right to Life” does not accord with what is in the Bible. Joshua put all the survivors, men, women, children, and animals, to the sword after the battle of Jericho at the command of god. Those claiming the absolute and universal moral right to life based on scripture are either ignorant of scripture or hypocrites. The “Right to Life” slogan is one of the many contradictions arising from the erratic socially conservative application of morally relativistic principles.

The prevalent attitude of social conservatives seems to be if the law meets their special interest, the law is fine. However, if the law does not suit their desires, it should be subverted by whatever pragmatic and practicable means. This is the opposite of what Mr. Brooks claims.

The “liberal argument” is anything but pragmatic. The argument points out that in a democracy the laws are created in an environment of rational moral inquiry where all points of view are discussed.

The overwhelming reaction by those questioning the meaningless slogan “Right to Life” indicates more than an commitment to process. The “liberal argument” claims moral force too, one based on both religious and reasoned inquiry into moral truths and the reality to which they will be applied.

People are growing weary with being called immoral, morally relativistic, or nihilistic whenever they point out the contradiction or hypocrisy in a socially conservative position. And people are starting to see through the mistakes about morality commonly made by certain NYT op-ed columnists.