(Oringinally published 9/2/14)
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!" (Is.5:20-21)
Moral cowardice is an unwillingness and a refusal to recognize evil for the evil that it is. It looks for moral equivalencies where none exist. But there is no moral equivalency between good and evil, or light and darkness. Sweet is not bitter, and bitter is not sweet no matter what today's social engineers may say. Why is it, that in these days in which we live, there seems to be a real reluctance amongst so many people in the public sphere to acknowledge that evil actually exists? Not just bad behavior, but a deep and malevolent existential evil?
It is plainly evident that we are living in an age of moral cowardice, where there is little or no moral clarity at all. Preachers soften up their messages so as not to hurt the sensibilities of their congregants, and political leaders speak bold faced lies to garnish the support of their constituents. The courage to speak unfettered truth has all but died having been relentlessly beaten down by the smear tactics of the thought police. Those that dare to take a stand for natural marriage are vilified as haters. Those that dare to speak out against atrocities such as abortion are accused of waging 'a war on woman'. Never mind the innocent life that was brutally exterminated. Where is the moral clarity in a society that will create laws to protect eagles eggs upon penalty of imprisonment, but strains and convulses at passing laws protecting a human child in the womb?
I've often said, that 'ideas have consequences', and today we have a generation of leaders, politicians, educators, authority figures, and media political pundits, who after having been brought up in a morally relativistic educational and societal climate are not even remotely capable of recognizing evil for what it is. Moral cowardice is the logical end result of moral relativism. It refuses to acknowledge existential evil. And, it utterly fails to understand the pathology and ideology of evil intent.
Moral cowardice hides behind a mask called "open mindedness" and euphemism's such as "free thinker". It makes for a tragic parenting which exchanges the rod of discipline for a hand book on self esteem, and rewards intent rather then actual achievement. It is the root cause of a parenting that is reluctant, or incapable of inculcating foundational spiritual and moral values and it leads exactly to the results we are experiencing in today's society, viz. moral indifference and lack of moral clarity.
The unfairness of 'fairness'!
The irony of moral cowardice is that it often parades itself as enlightened morality! Moral cowards see themselves as the open minded and enlightened arbiters of "fairness" and "equity'! It seems to me however, that these folks that seek to base every decision, law, or policy on the ambiguity of an idea called 'fairness', are actually belying the real issue, which is their own lack of moral clarity. They simply refuse to understand why sweet is not bitter, and bitter is not sweet. Surely 'fairness' ought to be that everything is sweet! 'Fairness' is the mantra of the moral coward. In their Utopian world view 'fairness' and "equity" is the ultimate goal. It sounds so very noble on the surface. However, the truth is, "fairness" ought not to be the goal, but what is "righteous" is what ought to be the goal. And no, they are not the same thing! Very often what may be deemed "fair", may not always be right! Moral government must not seek after "fairness", it must seek after "rightness". For what is "right", is righteousness, and righteousness will always result in "fairness" in the end result.
Moral cowards espouse a utopian world view to one degree or another, and hold to an egalitarian belief system. The problem is however, that reality is not egalitarian, and life isn't 'fair'. Dr. Gary Hull Phd. a Duke university professor lays it out pretty clearly in an essay where he writes, "Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot... In an attempt to 'dumb down' all students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and students of superior ability...Imagine the following Academy Award ceremony. There are no awards for best picture or best actor. Instead, every picture gets a certificate and every actor receives a prize. That is not an awards ceremony, you say? So it isn't. But it is an egalitarian's dream -- and an achiever's torment. Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are told to sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze them to the level of the incompetent and the weak..." (see here)
So then, these moral cowards, in an effort to force 'fairness' into situations where 'fairness' ought not to be the issue, and to define and dictate what in their minds is 'fair', the end result of the fairness arbiters is ironically oftentimes the furtherance of unfairness!
As a further example of what I mean, again, take the modernist idea of removing score keeping from kid’s competitive sports. (Actually the very idea of competition is anathema to these folks!) Since 'losing" might make the 'losers' feel bad, (and that's not 'fair') there are those who say we'll just not keep score at all! If you don't keep score there are no winners and losers. But is that 'fair' to the better team? Is that 'fair' to the better and more talented players? Is that 'fair' to the kids that practiced hard and sought to excel and achieve? Furthermore, in reality is it really even 'fair' to keep the bitter experience of losing away from the 'losers'? The experience of losing can actually be a positive experience, a motivating factor to pursue excellence, and to pursue applying yourself in a greater way. But in the Moral Cowards world, we're all equal! Everyone gets the participation trophy, bitter defeat is eliminated and it's all sweet! It's a simplified illustration I know. But Woe! Unto those, who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Because the ramifications of this philosophical world view when brought to its logical conclusion has real life consequences. Remember, ideas have consequences! For when that mindset and that world view exists in the minds of governmental and world leaders, the consequences can and will be deadly and disastrous! Because, this is not how the real world lives or exists.
Evil does not play by the game-rules of "fairness"
When leaders are moral cowards they become appeasers. The historical record of Neville Chamberlain's dealings with Adolf Hitler is a prime example of the consequences and dangers of moral cowards. When people with a blurred sense of moral clarity come to power, such as we have today, good and evil become subjective equivalencies, that oscillate within shifting situations. Who can say then who is the oppressor, or who is the oppressed? Who can declare who the villain is, or who the victim is? The moral coward would rather rationalize and justify the evil, and give it the appearance of an misunderstood goodness then actually deal with the issue of evil. Do we not hear some equating today's terrorists with yesterday's patriots? Or, actually calling today's terrorists, 'freedom fighters'? Murderous thugs, pillage, rape, and behead innocent people, and the moral cowards want to engage in a sociological debate as to the reasons why these people feel the need to do these things?!
To those that lack moral clarity, evil is just a symbolism, nothing more than a misunderstanding of sorts, or simply the result of a failure to communicate properly. Therefore, it must be something you can come to a mutual understanding with, or compromise with, so they reason. However, Evil will be empowered by the abject failure of those who reject the fact that there can be no compromise with evil. If you compromise your food with poison, you will end up in the hospital, or worse, dead. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Moral cowards never take responsibility for their actions. The disastrous consequences of their weak and feckless policies notwithstanding, they will either deny the reality of the consequences, and if that is not possible, they will then blame any and all failures on some other factor, person, or mitigating circumstance. The challenge that is set before us is, will we continue to allow leaders who have no moral clarity to remain in power? Or, will a people rise up with the moral courage to speak light into the darkness of the moral cowards?
The writer of Proverbs said; "He who says to the wicked, “You are righteous,” Him the people will curse; Nations will abhor him. But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, And a good blessing will come upon them." (Proverbs 24:24-25)
Do we have the moral courage to speak out? To call out the evil for what it is? To rebuke those who would exchange light for darkness?
-Andy White_
Comments