Just because we were against it when Bush did it, does NOT mean we are hypocrites now

[Igel]

19. Two options.

You decide what's right and what's wrong. You develope a moral and ethical center, and judge actions against it.

If an action is wrong, it's wrong. You may shade it and say, "Well, doing that was wrong, but in the end it was for a good cause." But you should have the honesty to say, "Yes, doing that was wrong" and not make it into some kind of virtue.

Bush does X, it's wrong. Obama does X, it's still wrong. To have different standards based on some non-ethical, non-moral principle is, well, hypocrisy. It's moral if I do it, immoral if you don't.

It's being Pharisaical, the original hypocrites. You make laws for others that you're not willing to bear. It's one thing to falter under the weight of them, but that would inculpate yourself with them, instead of exculpating yourself while inculpating them.


Then there's the politically expedient option. There is no morality, there is just power. This is its own principle. If it gets power for me and my side, it's good because, well, getting power for one's team is good. If they get power, it's bad--even if they save lives and make things better, it's evil because it doesn't get us power. A lot of extreme parties are like that. It's rather like the Crusaders versus the Muslims--your side is right because it's your side, and how dare anybody say God isn't in your pocket where you put him?

Actions are weighted first and foremost against self-interest. "Does it help me? If so, it's good." This gives rise to false flag operations--kill you own, but if it gets you additional power and support, lets the laws be ignored in your favor, then it's a worthy human sacrifice. Because power is its own cause, and the only bad gain of power is the opponent's.

This isn't precisely amoral. It's more like substituting lust for control and self-worship for anything like a set of standard morals. That was, I guess, something like Nietsche's point: A Superman rises above human morality with his will to power.

Look where it got the Nazis. (Not an example of Godwin's law, BTW, because it actually does proceed as a logical part of the argument and not gratuitous name calling. This was a large part of their reasoning. And this kind of reasoning was precisely why Orwell decided to produce the semantically well-formed, if anomalous appearing, 'liberal fascism.' It was a will to power, a denial of morality in the interests of pure power to be imposed on the masses 'for their own good,' but instead of it being a fascist world-view it would be a Progressive world view.)

So it comes down to, as I see it, a horrible choice. Perhaps it's a false choice and there are other options--weakness of logic and thought (otherwise known as 'stupidity'), or an unwillingness to accept human inadequacy and inability to adhere to a moral standard and with it an unwillingness to call a spade a spade because it might dishonor an idol with clay feet, perhaps something else. None are good options, and they're not really much better than "hypocrisy." Certainly better than being called a liberal fascist.