Now that Obama is president of the USA, I've been wondering how he can justify his contradictory moral views. For example, he is actively promoting abortion for all the world but he is against torture. How are we to make sense of the Liberal Utopian creed?
My theory is that the driving principle in the Liberal Utopian vision is to create a world in which there is no suffering. As I think of various examples of liberal policies they seem to fit this model rather well.
I should list the various creeds and policies which drive the Liberal Utopian agenda:
In the Liberal Utopia we should not harm others. This includes animals, plants, and even the earth (Gaia) herself. I agree with much of this. Some musings:
The Catholic Church certainly agrees that torture is immoral and that we should be humane to animals:
Since plants don't feel pain there is no moral restriction on using plants for whatever purpose we wish. However, since we must be good stewards of the earth we have to consider how we use plants.
The earth is not alive so we need not be concerned about harming her. However, since we need to be good stewards of the earth we need to be concerned with our interaction and impact on the environment.
Certainly we should be concerned that our actions don't result in the extinction of species.
In my opinion the world is overpopulated. We should be able to fish and hunt without interfering too much with animal populations. Our need for wood should not result in the deforestation of large areas of the earth.
What is the logical outcome of the Liberal Utopian ideology? What trends should we expect to develop in the future? Some musings.
Once we start tampering with the genetic code of humans we should expect that we will find ways to "improve" the human species through genetic engineering. It will start out innocent enough — providing fixes to the genes to prevent disease or disabling conditions.
But if the goal is to alleviate suffering (physical, mental and psychological) we should expect Liberal Utopians to some day start improving the lot of humans by modifying them to better match the ideal of the perfect man. Since abortion is considered to be a good thing we should expect the state to begin mandating testing of those in the womb and to require that those who do not meet a certain standard to be aborted.
Once we are able to program personality traits into humanity we should expect humans to be bred and modified until we have various social classes of people that are bred to be content with their lot in life. For example, assembly line workers should not become bored of repetitive manual tasks; politicians should be able to gain followers and influence the masses; soldiers should be strong and undisturbed by the brutalities of war. Shrewd leaders will use all this to their advantage. There will be pressure to create ever-new human forms designed for whatever purpose the creator has in mind.
There will be a growing need for embryos. Thus, there will become a class of poor, exploited women who sell their embryos for basic survival. And of course there will need to be the men who are willing to impregnate these women — this will make prostitution an important aspect of society.
At some point the Liberal Utopians will want to exterminate those who oppose their views. As a result we should expect genocide to occur from time to time. The first to be targeted will be those with a strong moral code and authority outside the state — the religious. The goal will be to eradicate all religious practice except that which embraces the Liberal Utopia. Religions will need to be state-sanctioned.
As we emphasize the importance of the quality and the pleasures of life and feel ever-more comfortable with euthanasia we will start to resent those who are no longer contributing to society and who are obviously not enjoying life's pleasures. Forced euthanasia will begin to be mandated by the state. Doctors and psychologists will determine who should be euthanized. Long, drawn-out, and expensive illnesses will become a thing of the past.
There will be those who object to these practices and who publicly protest. They will be arrested and euthanized. While proclaiming itself to be free, the state will become totalitarian. We will have a repeat of the holocaust of Nazi Germany but this time no one will take notice or be offended because they will in their conscience approve of it themselves.
The state will take an ever-more-active role in child rearing. The only way to enforce the norms required in a Liberal Utopia is for the state to indoctrinate the young. Parents can't be trusted to do this. Already we have ever increasing restrictions on what parents can and can't do in raising their children. Because the American Psychological Association (APA) has decreed that spanking is harmful the state will wish to impose this restriction on all citizens.
We should expect there to someday be two classes of individuals:
Those who don't contribute to society will be euthanized so that they don't use the resources that can be better used by those who do contribute to society.
Why does the Liberal Utopian creed consider the right to an abortion to be such a fundamental freedom? To answer this we need to consider the purpose of abortion. We can think of it this way — if everyone followed conservative Christian teaching there would be no need for abortion because only married couples who were committed to having children would be having sex. Thus we can conclude that an important foundation of the Liberal Utopia is the freedom to have sex even in relationships in which there is no lifelong commitment to child rearing. In other words, in the Liberal Utopian creed we are free to behave irresponsibility if we wish even if our actions require the killing of an innocent person.
Thus we see that pleasure trumps responsibility. Presumably it is considered too difficult, too painful to expect people to say no to their sex drive. But if we can't say no to that what other inappropriate and irresponsible passions will we indulge in?
I find it odd that such little concern is given to the pain and suffering resulting from engaging in sexual relationships which end in breakups. I guess it's because the sex drive is so strong that saying no to it is more painful than any emotional trauma caused by the indulgence in promiscuous behavior. Perhaps people adapt and lower their expectations in a new relationship expecting that it will end.
If avoiding suffering were the goal of the Liberal Utopia why would late-term abortions be permitted since they obviously cause distress and pain to the about-to-be-born infant? I think it is because the right of the mother over her body trumps those of the about-to-be-born who resides within her. The suffering of the mother who must endure an unwanted pregnancy and who must bear the burden of caring for an unwanted child causes suffering for her and her suffering trumps that of the about-to-be-born child who is not yet contributing to society. In addition, an unwanted child will not experience an adequate quality of life so euthanasia (by abortion) is deemed to be the appropriate remedy.
Liberals claim to be caring people who help the poor and needy. But I've noticed that in spite of this there are still millions of poor and needy. If they cared as much as they claim to they would solve the problem.
I don't believe the Liberal Utopians will ever solve the problem. Perhaps they will ensure that everyone gets health care (with the prospect of euthanasia for those whose quality of life is not adequate).
The difficulty is that taking care of the poor and needy has a cost. The suffering of the needy must be weighed against the suffering of the well-to-do who would have to forgo the pleasures of life. Liberal Utopians are willing to help the poor up to a point but after this they turn a cold-shoulder. It is true that there are self-sacrificing people who would give their very lives in helping those in need. Many of these are religiously-motivated. As religion becomes more-and-more distrusted, these helpers of the poor will no longer be allowed to help (since they might share their faith with those they help).
In the Liberal Utopian view in which only suffering is bad it is totally acceptable to obtain embryos and to perform various experiments on them. This is because embryos don't feel pain.
Those who promote stem cell research usually tout the goal of relieving human suffering and perhaps that goal will be realized.
One side-effect of this is that it will be possible to practice genetic engineering and to create races of humans designed for various purposes.
Another side-effect of this is that there will be a growing need for embryos. Thus, there will become a class of poor, exploited women who sell their embryos for basic survival. And of course there will need to be the men who are willing to impregnate these women — this will make prostitution an important aspect of society.
The Liberal Utopia has weird contradictions. Its goal is to eliminate suffering but it tolerates certain kinds of suffering:
In the Liberal Utopia the best way to eradicate a person's suffering is to allow them the freedom to choose what they wish for themselves. By imposing moral standards on people they will suffer as their own standards collide with the state-imposed standards.
Or so the Liberal Utopia argument goes. But the reality is that without true moral guidance (as provided by conservative Christian teaching) people will suffer. Indulgence in sinful activities always leads to suffering (including eternal suffering in hell). And life itself entails a certain amount of suffering, more for some than for others.
But even in the Liberal Utopia people have limits on their freedoms. For example, they must contribute to the orderly functioning of society and they must cheerfully follow the state-sanctioned moral standards imposed on them by the state.
Certainly Christianity has the ultimate goal of relieving the suffering of man — in the eternal Utopia (Heaven) there will be no suffering and it is God's desire that all achieve this goal. But attaining to the Utopia of Christianity requires that we live our lives in accordance with God's moral law. Conservative Christianity teaches that many of the practices of Liberal Utopians will actually result in the practitioners ending up in the eternal hell where they will suffer for ever. Therefore, I must conclude that these Liberal Utopians do not believe the life-giving message of Christianity since a consequence of some of their doctrines is eternal suffering. Their concern is only for this life, for this world, for the here and now.
A side-effect of the Liberal Utopia is that all must be exposed to the moral filth of the few (the many?) Because free speech is an inherent right we must allow everyone to express their views through words, images, and other ways. Thus, the public forum is exposed to the moral filth of any who wish to impose their views on others. We have been proceeding along this path for decades — public television has gotten very seedy (I don't watch it), billboards have ever-more graphic images, songs and speech on the radio are obscene, the internet is riddled with perversions, pornography is rampant, etc. This trend is accelerating.
The doctrine of "tolerance at all cost" results in a lowering of moral standards in the culture at-large. Without a moral guide such as that provided by conservative Christianity providing the moral standards of society, immorality will become the norm.
One day those who publicly protest against these immoral aspects of society will be accused of hate speech and punished, perhaps even euthanized.
In the Liberal Utopia the state will decide which forms of suffering trump over others. Examples:
Some aspects of Liberal Utopia which are not mainstream but are tolerated.