Evil without judgment

Did anyone else notice how, in all the coverage we’ve been seeing of the horrifying mass murder at the Amish school house in Pennsylvania, there is not a single word of moral condemnation of the killer? Nothing new about this, of course, and maybe that’s why we don’t notice it. For at least the last 30 years the U.S. news media have routinely reported even the most shocking crimes of violence as horrible events, as “tragedies,” but never as crimes, as outrages against the community. It did not use to be this way. Once upon a time, the press and the broadcast media represented the moral sense of the community, and described vile murderers as vile murderers. Well, I guess they are still representing the moral sense of the community—only now that moral sense consists of non-judgmental relativism.

Unless of course one is a Republican congressman who sent sexually salacious e-mails to a 16-year-old Congressional page, in which case one is an enemy of society. Not for engaging in homosexual conduct, of course, but for “exploiting” an unequal power relationship.

However, there was, thankfully, one exception to the non-judgmental coverage of the school-house atrocity, a female psychologist and consultant on one of the cable stations (I didn’t get her name) who kept describing the killer as a psychopath who got pleasure from doing evil.

* * *

Mark A. writes:

“Unless of course one is a Republican congressman who sent sexually salacious e-mails to a 16-year-old Congressional page, in which case one is an enemy of society. Not for engaging in homosexual conduct, of course, but for ‘exploiting’ an unequal power relationship.”

There is no judgment in the shooting because that judgment wouldn’t raise a liberal virtue. A judgment of the shooter would raise a conservative virtue—evil should be condemned rather than rationalized. This cannot be allowed. The only judgments permitted in today’s liberal society are those judgments that uphold a liberal virtue. Thus, smoking is judged as being bad so that it may raise the liberal virtue of being a glutton. (Ever notice how the obese are so offended by smoking?) Judgment of Rep. Foley is permitted because it raises the liberal virtue of fornication—fornication is great, but “My GOD not with a 16-year old! Heaven forbid!”

Even the values of secular liberals are ranked hierarchically in the liberal mind. Thus, the liberal needs something to look down upon in order to uphold his perversion (virtue). This perfectly explains why people like Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, and Howard Stern will howl to the moon about the horrible nature of committing a sexual act with those who are not of age.

In conclusion, condemning the shooter raises no liberal virtue as the victims and the shooter were white. If, for example, the victims of the shooter were black, the shooter would be called evil so that it could call attention to the liberal virtue that white people are inherently bad and black people are inherently good.

The blog Maggie’s Farm also has a comment on this subject.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 03, 2006 11:32 PM | Send