|
Liberal morality, moral chaos
Christian B. writes:
In a Daily Mail story, “New Year reveller, 16, killed after fall on high-voltage railway line” [LA: which for some reason is appearing on March 25], I read this:
Mr Griffiths said his son was “cheerful and fun to be around” and as he grew older developed a “high moral code” which saw him deeply opposed to bullying, racism, homophobia and hypocrisy.
I thought, “How weird.” The poor father seems to be so brainwashed by the liberal agenda, that it seems that he feels he has to say this as a matter of course. Now I come to think about it, it does seem that in many of these tragic deaths, one does find this sort of comment by friends and relatives.
I am pointing this out with reference to your comment in the entry on “Hypocrisy and the good”:
Having gotten rid of the traditional, religious-based idea of the moral good, liberals embrace the liberal idea of the moral good, which is compassion, equality, diversity, inclusion, stopping global warming, etc. Unlike believing in the traditional moral good, believing in the liberal moral good does not involve hypocrisy, because for a person to be good in the liberal sense no actual moral behavior, with its inevitable failures, is required: the person merely needs to affirm that he believes in compassion, equality, diversity, inclusion, and stopping global warming. By signing on to liberalism, one is simply and truly good. This is the source of liberals’ inordinate self-esteem.
LA replies:
Let’s go over this again. First, here’s how Sam Griffiths died:
Later, a group of five friends, including Sam, decided to leave after midnight to go to a friend’s house and they arrived at Burgess Hill station to catch a train.
One of the friends, a 16-year-old girl, said Sam decided to venture across the live railway tracks as a prank, telling them: “Oh, I’ve always wanted to run across.”
He ran across the tracks twice before stripping off his shirt, trousers and shoes, leaving him dressed in just his boxer shorts.
But on the third occasion, witnesses said he slipped and fell on the live line, causing him fatal injuries.
After the death, Sam’s father is reported as saying the following:
Mr Griffiths said his son was “cheerful and fun to be around” and as he grew older developed a “high moral code” which saw him deeply opposed to bullying, racism, homophobia and hypocrisy.
Mr. Griffiths’s son dies as a result of engaging in moronic, suicidally reckless behavior, and what he remembers him for is that he was a good liberal.
Which brings me to a question. If young Sam had believed, not in opposing racism, homophobia and hypocrisy, but in, oh, God, country, Queen, and good conduct, would he have done this?
He ran across the tracks twice before stripping off his shirt, trousers and shoes, leaving him dressed in just his boxer shorts.
But on the third occasion, witnesses said he slipped and fell on the live line, causing him fatal injuries.
I am saying that a boy of normal intelligence, with a minimally normal code of right conduct (e.g., middle-class, working class, Christian, Boy Scout Promise, you name it), living in a normal society, would not have done what Sam did. His deadly prank was a symptom of a society and a people that are out of control. And liberal morality—opposing racism, homophobia, hypocrisy, etc.—does not provide such control.
Christian B. replies:
You have put that together very nicely. The reason that it is in the newspaper now, is because it is an inquest:
Recording a verdict of misadventure, West Sussex Coroner Penelope Schofield said she would write to British Transport Police (BTP) outlining her concerns about public awareness of live rails.
Also, it seems impertinent and heartless to intrude on the father and son’s last words to each other, but I find it really difficult to believe that this was what was said between father and son late at night over the phone in the middle of New Year’s partying:
“He said, ‘Dad, I love you’ and I said, ‘Sam, I love you. Take care’. Those were my last words to him.”
It seems that the father is trying to give himself solace by copying Hollywood/celebrity behaviour—a sort of “Dianafiction (= deceased Princess of Wales) of death”.
- end of initial entry -
James P. writes:
I was 16 quite a while ago, but the way I remember it, there was no chance I would have been allowed to attend a New Year’s Eve party by myself, and attending one at which alcohol was served would have been even more out of the question. The adults who hosted this party were criminally irresponsible and should be held criminally and civilly liable.
March 27
Leonard D. writes:
A few comments on piece and your coverage:
First, the “I love you” bit is treacle, but not strikingly progressive. (The expression of it is, not the love itself.) On the other hand, consider the preceding testimony of the father, who (to recap) has been called by his drunken teen son just after new years: “It was clear that he was at one with himself.” “At one” with himself? Auuggh!
Second, I am amused by the usage of “developed” by the reporter to describe Griffiths’s acceptance of his state religion. One does not “develop” something that one is taught, and especially not something that is the pervasive background, taught and accepted without question in an entire society. In a similar way, one might praise 12th century Europeans for “developing” Catholicism as they grow up.
But finally, in contrast to the above, in a progressive society I do think it is something of note even to accept the state religion, weak reed that it is. Progressivism is not exactly natural, even less so in the case of teenaged boys. By comparison to the nihilism that is the other fashionable alternative, progressivism is a good religion.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 26, 2009 12:56 PM | Send
|