Left’s “don’t judge” ethos is highly contradictory

Pratt on TexasIn his eponymous newsletter Rush Limbaugh wrote “Morality is not defined by individual choice, by what you want it to be, by what you’d rather have it be. You don’t get to define what’s moral and not.”

Rush points out, correctly, that for the last half-century Leftist ideology has informed a constant attack “on the very notion of right and wrong. The left has staked everything on the premise that they get to define “what’s right for them.”” And then Rush asks: “Well, how’s that working out?”

“There are inescapable consequences for wrong behavior, which always, always carries a price. Conversely, morality is a protection, and striving for it (though we all fall short) is a blessing,” Rush wrote.

The situational ethics ethos of the modernist is nothing but way to dress up the idea of no ethics, or morality.

The piece, titled “Morality is not determined by individual choice!” is a fine expression of what I’ve discussed many times in relation to the modern-Leftist liberalism. The situational ethics ethos of the modernist is nothing but way to dress up the idea of no ethics, or morality.

Now we see adherents of a perverted liberalism, those who tell us no one has a right to judge them or others, decry rampant bad behavior in their ranks. But here is a question to throw back at them: Who are you to judge what’s right and wrong?

Another is: How do you declare Harvey Weinstein’s or Matt Lauer’s abuse of women to be bad if there is no moral constant outside of your own self-definitions?

Herein lies one of the most obvious but often overlooked, for entirely selfish reasons, contradictions of the modern Left. You can’t tell us not to “push our morality on you” only to pronounce moral judgment on others yourself.

But they do, and will continue so to do.

What do you think?...

© Pratt on Texas / Perstruo Texas, Inc.