Go
Saints!

Friday
March 29th, 2024
L&T Opinions Page

earl watt mugL&T Publisher Earl Watt

 

We are getting a glimpse of the future of our nation with leaders like Andrea Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O’Rourke. Their focus is on claiming morality as justification for political action regardless of facts, statistics, costs or massive disruptions to the very way of life for hundreds of millions of people.

The biggest question, of course, is who determines the accepted morality that will be enforced by the government?

On an interview with CNN, Cortez said, “I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

If you believe your cause to be morally superior, any action taken to achieve your outcome becomes acceptable.

The problem with this position is that may people take many different moral positions.

Abortion is the perfect example. Is it moral to take the life of the unborn? Some are willing to stake their own life in protecting those yet born.

Or, is it moral to protect a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion at will?

The debate has been ongoing and will continue to do so. For those like Cortez, their position has the moral high ground and all others are inferior.

What has continued to be a part of this ongoing discussion are those working to be “precisely, factually and semantically correct.” Questions like “When does life begin?” or “Can a developing baby feel pain in the womb?” help us shape our position on this issue, which in turn reflects the morality or immorality of abortion.

The newest moral argument is now centered around eating meat. Cortez and her clan have deemed eating meat immoral, therefore, no other discussion is needed.

What are the health benefits of eating meat? What are the downsides?

We need not concern ourselves with facts once the morally superior have passed judgement — it’s wrong, they said so.

Nothing compels anyone to eat meat. You are not required to do so. You do, however, have the freedom to eat meat, at least today.

New York City Mayor Bill DiBlasio just took meat off all the public school trays in New York City on Monday, because his higher moral authority gave him the power to affect the lives of millions.

It didn’t matter that they always had the freedom to refrain from meat. DeBlasio’s higher moral authority position was used to force it on everyone.

This is where their argument falls flat — morality is not the same as legality.

Morality is never forced upon anyone. It is adopted or embraced.

There are major differences, for example, between the morality of Jesus Christ and that of Mohammad.

Neither should be forced on anyone, but anyone should be able to choose the moral code they want to follow.

This is where government gets it wrong, nd people who have no clue what the role of government is gets it wrong.

Morality and freedom only exist when they are given to those who disagree with you.

What moral freedom is given to a person who chooses to eat meat by those who disagree? None.

What moral freedom is given to someone who chooses not to eat meat? All the freedom in the world.

Many believe the gay lifestyle is immoral. However, does that stop someone from being able to live a gay lifestyle? No.

But did the morally superior try to force someone else into making a gay cake? Yes, they did. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the cake maker, another sign that we cannot force our morality onto others.

We all know the harmful effects of smoking, and yet, people have the freedom to smoke. Even President Barack Obama lit up from time to time.

We don’t hear the calls against this activity as contributing to global warming or increasing the costs to the health care system. Why is that? Perhaps it is because Cortez and those like her have yet to deem it morally wrong.

Some will claim it is immoral to own a gun.

What moral freedom is ever given?

For those who claim they are morally superior to everyone else, it’s always about taking away privileges, not extending freedom.

If we want people to benefit economically, we have to tear down barriers that prevent them from advancing. Social safety nets with no work requirement, for example, do not encourage people to push their limits and break the bonds of welfare. Instead, it traps them in a life of mediocrity. Is that moral?

When others are paying for the safety net, should they know that they are rehabilitating someone down on their luck, or should they simply accept they have to provide a living for someone else for the rest of their lives even though that person has the ability to work? Is that moral?

Is there a difference between a social safety net and a hammock?

These are moral questions that require study and facts, and none among us — none among us — has the moral superiority over all others.

But when morality is used as the only justification for enacting more government control, it’s not about freedom. Freedom and morality coexist nicely, because morality is a free choice you make.

When the government dictates you do it, that is not morality, it is tyranny.. 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, Reita Isaacs, Liberal

 

From the time I found the subject for my next article [ ... ]

Read more...

MY PERSPECTIVE, Gary Damron

 

With Easter approaching, millions around the world will celebrate [ ... ]

Read more...