The Rhetoric of Evil

[carl_pwccaman]

I believe "Evil" is a very useful term. I think it is meaningful. It is within my own experience. There are a number of horrors that can be experienced personally, or vicariously, that are awful and hideous enough, that involve enough lack of character, depravity, conscienceless, gratuitous suffering, or sadistic cruelty, to warrant strong negative evaluation... evaluation stronger than simply 'bad' or 'unmeritorious' or 'unhealthy'...

Let me give some examples; consider the variety of responses:

Haditha Probe Finds False Reports -- soldiers misrepresented information, minimizing the reality of the horror.

Sex Offenders Sue for Playground Access -- ACLU challenges an ordinance that requires certain convicted sex offenders, including pedophiles and rapists, from passing within 1000 feet of playgrounds, etc., without being accompanied by another adult who is not a sex offender.

Congo President on Military Rapes: Unforgivable -- The rape and mutilation of women in the Congo, and the response of the Congo President, continuing concerns of Amnesty International.

On the one hand we have:

Soldiers tone down descriptions of what happened, to minimize war crimes.

Convicted rapists and pedophiles don't want to be inconvenienced by being considered untrustworthy around children.

A transitional President shows an appropriately shaken expression about what happened -- on his watch; he says he wishes to be the first elected president so he can correct the problem as a first priority.

On the other hand we have:

Officers who failed to scrutinize reports.

Wiley rhetoricians who choose to spend time and money disputing the protection of children in schools and playgrounds, in the name of civil liberties.

Amnesty International, cautious and concerned about a very difficult situation and trying to sort out facts about human rights violations, progress, etc.

What of Moral Politics?

Dereliction of duty will not serve as a model for Moral Politics.

Failing to consider the safety concerns of parents, safety of children from convicted sex offenders, will not serve as a model for Moral Politics.

Careful Scrutiny of principles, trying to get at facts, and evaluating realities, on the other hand, has merit.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other such groups, try to evaluate problems and give accurate information and send timely warnings about dangers. And there are great dangers.

Call them dangers, call them horrors, call them violations, I call them "Evil" -- there was a lot of Evil shown in photographs of US soldiers torturing Abu Ghraib prisoners, there was a lot of Evil shown as Musslims rioted over a cartoon, there was a lot of Evil when American soldier massacred civilians in Iraq, there was a lot of Evil when soldiers raped and mutilated women in the Congo.

But at least sound the warning. I am not afraid to call it a moral warning. Those who are afraid of the word Evil, seem to be playing with word-politics, the rhetoric of buzzwords and (the formerly) fashionable disdain for moral language. I'm concerned about the real dangers of politics. Those dangers include the manipulation of moral language. That does not negate the value of moral language, or the value of Moral Politics.

[greyl]

1. "Evil" has religious and supernatural connotations.

None of the examples you mention require a religious or supernatural perspective to discern that they don't work.

[carl_pwccaman]

4. Re: Evil implies supernatural? Seems like clear language to me

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=evil
Main Entry: 1evil
Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often and US also 'E-(")vil
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
- evil adverb, archaic
- evil·ly /-(l)E/ adverb
- evil·ness /-n&s/ noun

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=evil
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic
In an evil manner.

evil·ly adv.
evil·ness n.

Thesaurus from freedictionary site:
Noun 1. evilevil - morally objectionable behavior
wickedness, immorality, iniquity
evildoing, transgression - the act of transgressing; the violation of a law or a duty or moral principle; "the boy was punished for the transgressions of his father"
devilry, deviltry - wicked and cruel behavior
foul play - unfair or treacherous behavior (especially involving violence)
irreverence, violation - a disrespectful act
sexual immorality - the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions; "sexual immorality is the major reason for last year's record number of abortions"
2. evilevil - that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
bad, badness - that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency; "take the bad with the good"
Four Horsemen - (New Testament) the four evils that will come at the end of the world: conquest rides a white horse; war a red horse; famine a black horse; plague a pale horse
3. evil - the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
evilness
malevolency, malice, malevolence - the quality of threatening evil
malignance, malignancy, malignity - quality of being disposed to evil; intense ill will
balefulness, maleficence, mischief - the quality or nature of being harmful or evil
immorality - the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct; "the immorality of basing the defense of the West on the threat of mutual assured destruction"
worst - the greatest damage or wickedness of which one is capable; "the invaders did their worst"; "so pure of heart that his worst is another man's best"
nefariousness, vileness, wickedness - the quality of being wicked
reprehensibility - being reprehensible; worthy of and deserving reprehension or reproof
villainousness, villainy - the quality of evil by virtue of villainous behavior
perversity - deliberately deviating from what is good
wrongdoing, error - departure from what is ethically acceptable
vice, frailty - moral weakness
good, goodness - moral excellence or admirableness; "there is much good to be found in people"
Adj. 1. evilevil - morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
wicked
bad - having undesirable or negative qualities; "a bad report card"; "his sloppy appearance made a bad impression"; "a bad little boy"; "clothes in bad shape"; "a bad cut"; "bad luck"; "the news was very bad"; "the reviews were bad"; "the pay is bad"; "it was a bad light for reading"; "the movie was a bad choice"
immoral - violating principles of right and wrong
offensive - unpleasant or disgusting especially to the senses; "offensive odors"
wrong - contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
unrighteous - not righteous; "an unrighteous man"; "an unrighteous law"
wicked - morally bad in principle or practice
good - morally admirable
2. evilevil - having the nature of vice
depraved, vicious
wicked - morally bad in principle or practice
3. evil - tending to cause great harm
injurious, harmful
malign - evil or harmful in nature or influence; "prompted by malign motives"; "believed in witches and malign spirits"; "gave him a malign look"; "a malign lesion"
4. evil - having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
malefic, malign, malevolent
maleficent - harmful or evil in intent or effect

[greyl]

6. The connotation is evidenced by your quotes:

Middle English, from Old English
SINFUL, WICKED
ominous: evil omens.
wickedness
devilry, deviltry
irreverence
sexual immorality - the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions
Four Horsemen - (New Testament) the four evils that will come at the end of the world: conquest rides a white horse; war a red horse; famine a black horse; plague a pale horse

Like I said, "evil" has religious connotations, and it's unnecessary to use religion to discern between good and bad; what works and what does not.

[rock]

2. I like your phrasenation.

(kick)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. However, when we look at evil,

we must look at ourselves and ask why. Personally, my concept of reality is that we are all one being, a dynamic, evolving being, one in touch on subtle levels with every part of itself. That being said, the violation of another human being, hatred made violent, etc, etc-all that you call "evil" effects all of us in one form or another. On the most obvious level, you have reaction to the evil with the actions of those organizations you listed. On another level, you have people who question themselves as to why they have allowed such things to go on in this world-we see posts like that here at DU-how is it that something was done "in our name".

The thing that I think all well meaning people want is an end to evil-but how is this achieved? One step might be to rise above the effect/reaction that is so very common in people. This can be achieved by forgiveness-forgiveness of others for their acts, and forgiveness of self for one's perception of an act. This type of forgiveness is not equivalent to condoning an act, though. It is more of an attempt at understanding the reasons why such an act was done, feeling the emotions on all sides in the situation, and releasing those emotions. This is not an easy thing to do by any means, and the whole process is a lot more involved than I can explain here. But it is a necessary step. If we take it, we can change the world.

[Ron Green]

9. As always, ayeshahaqqiqa, you explain it so well.

Thanks again for posting.

:)

[carl_pwccaman]

5. Re: phrasenation and forgiveness

I do like my phrasenation, too, thanks :P

As for forgiveness, I'm glad it was considered important to deal with the feelings and experiences of all, and I'm glad that it was pointed out that it isn't the same as condoning anythihng, but I don't think the problem goes away as easily as many would like to think. Feeling and releasing emotions can help us to escape from reactions and various effects, but I don't think it solves the whole issue. It may give us some composure in the face of our reactions, and maybe some insight, though.

Issues of justice or of how to practically heal or protect children or prevent horrors, are different matters, involving their own complexities. Forgiveness does not prevent such horrors, for example, nor does it have much to do with stopping injustice. Political Morality can't be reduced to Forgiveness.

[Finder]

7. I don't believe in evil...

and try not to use it as an adjective. I do believe in ignorance, mental illness, greed and other things labeled as evil by some.

[Silent3]

11. I don't see "evil" as a thing to be believed in or not...

"Evil" is just a word, it evokes certain concepts, imagery, and feelings, and while people might argue over the exact use and meaning of the word, it can be a very powerfully useful and descriptive word.

Of course, if you're thinking of "evil" in the sense of some mystical, metaphysical primal force which is just "out there" in the universe, a force which is behind events and doings which are described as evil -- that concept is something that it makes sense to speak of in terms of belief and disbelief, and I for one disbelieve in that kind of conception of evil

[Odin2005]

8. There is no such thing as evil.

"Evil" people either have a mental condition and/or had bad influences (crap parents, bad role models, beleived crap like Nazi propaganda, etc.).

[carl_pwccaman]

10. Connotations Vs. Actuality

Regardless of disagreements people may have on metaphysics (and realizing that this is theology/religion debate), the concept 'very very horribly wrong, bad, and wicked' is easily translated into words that indicate sociopathy, severe lack of empathy, extreme narcissism, reckless disregard for others, etc.

Those other words may not be seen as having religious connotations, but they do convey very strong negative evaluations.

One point I'm making is that it is useful to have terms that express very stong condemnation, very strong negative evaluation.

Another point I'm making is that the term 'evil' has been used for centuries to mean everything from hideously awful stench to incredibly irresponsible and despotic behavior, lack of character, etc. All of those things are still meanings that secular people can understand and relate to.

I think the avoidance of the term 'evil' would be more workable if other words conveyed a similar sort of condemnation, disaproval, and strong negative evaluation. Other words don't seem to express this as clearly, when dealing with sadists, sociopaths, rapists, pedophiles, torturers, etc.

Hanna Arendt was able to speak of the banality of evil, and she made many points, got a lot of fruitful discussion going.

Today when people are unable to express the CONCEPT of evil, they really are making themselves morally irrelevant, in the eyes of many, many people... for good reason, I think. That's my challenge.

I'd prefer to support a candidate who clearly says that torture is evil, that what happened in Abu Ghraib is an evil far too great to pass un-noticed, an evil that could scar our country's moral fiber for life, that has to be taken seriously, by people who care about such things, people who care to make America a place where 'moral highground' and 'accountability' aren't just words to be thrown around.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. "Evil" only means it's against your moral code.

There are those who like to think that evil means something specific, but it really doesn't - it's a perjorative that is used by one moral rubric to slander those of another or contrary moral rubric.

This is what our legal system is set up for - to decide what we, as a society, will determine to be evil and thus punishable.

But there is no way to actually define evil.

That said, I think our current administration is, oft times, quite evidentally and obviously evil. So was Hitler, and so are a few others.

But most who are labeled evil are either working on a different, but still valid, ethical and moral system than I (or we); or have brain dysfunction that doesn't allow their moral compass to align with their society's moral compass.

So I toss the word "evil" around every now and again, but when I use it I know that I am using it from the perspective of a fairly liberal Christian theological stance that Jesus' commandments to love and respect and speak for the voiceless and stand for the oppressed and suffering are his paramount teachings. And I use the word "evil" quite knowingly knowing that I can never use that word in a universal, absolute sense - it is always molded and modified by own moral rubric, and there is no universal absolute to any sense of "good" or "evil".

[carl_pwccaman]

13. Call me Quaint but Torture is Evil, Pedophilia and Rape are Evil.

...There are those who like to think that evil means something specific, but it really doesn't - it's a perjorative that is used by one moral rubric to slander those of another or contrary moral rubric...

So do you think the 'moral rubric' of a pedophile is VALID?

Are sociopaths' views of ethics equally worth consideration?

Or can I rail agianst them?

If I rail agianst them, is it slander to use the harshest terms against them?

What about Nazis? Is it bad to use the harshest terms against Nazis?

...This is what our legal system is set up for - to decide what we, as a society, will determine to be evil and thus punishable...

But not everything that is illegal is quite like rape, torture, or pedophilia. Society says not wearing a seat-belt is illegal and punishable by fines, but that doesn't make it Evil to not wear a seat-belt.

And I as an individual, can determine something to be Evil, though society is derelict of its duty. If the majority says torture is legal, I still say it is Evil.

...But there is no way to actually define evil...

I just did: torture, rape, and pedophilia, are Evil.

You may argue for a different definition, or you may simply disagree, but I did offer a definition.

...That said, I think our current administration is, oft times, quite evidentally and obviously evil. So was Hitler, and so are a few others...

So it seems your point is that while we may agree, we can't necessarily prove to others that our labels or judgments are valid. I can't show a color-blind person certain colors, either, though. Those colors still exist.

...But most who are labeled evil are either working on a different, but still valid, ethical and moral system than I (or we); or have brain dysfunction that doesn't allow their moral compass to align with their society's moral compass...

Regardless, there are actual sociopaths who are so defective/lacking in empathy and conscience, a term like Evil does apply to them, in a way that other terms just aren't so expressive.

You may think your view demonstrates enlightenment, I think it demonstrates the opposite.

...So I toss the word "evil" around every now and again, but when I use it I know that I am using it from the perspective of a fairly liberal Christian theological stance...

So do you think liberal Christianity is wishy washy on Evil, or that Jesus was?

...it is always molded and modified by own moral rubric, and there is no universal absolute to any sense of "good" or "evil"...

But you said you were Christian.

I thought that liberal Christians understood that the most atrocious human rights violations on the planet were evil, for example, that greed/mammon was not good, that lack of love was ignorance, that a very real and good and loving God, SHOWED this to us.

I'm Gnostic myself. My understanding of Jesus is that he Knew some things, and that there are some things that Christians (including Liberal Christians) might Know... about THIS subject.

[Finder]

14. Interesting examples...

but flawed. Sociopaths have no ethics usually so there are none to consider valid or not. The brains of sociopaths are wired differently in many cases...

A pedophile is benign unless they act on their attraction by breaking the law. Since who we define as a pedophile is usually incorrect, there is no standard "moral rubric."

By Nazis did you mean those in the party or those who led the party or those who shared the ideals and carried them out?

Torture is another term that tends to be subjective. To some, sleep deprivation is defined as torture...using that example, every police dept that conducts interrogation would be labeled evil. If a parent of child victimized by a pedophile tortured that pedophile into confessing would you consider that parent "evil"?

Lastly rape is a terrible violent crime but...what about in the animal kingdom where rape is a survival tool?

What do you think should be done to end these things you call evil? For many, prayer and belief seems to be their solution. For others, establishing laws, medical and psychological therapy and/or containment makes more sense.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. I think you have misread a number of things I said

And I will point them out below.

ALL moral rubrics are valid. However, I will not agree with all of them, and will fight against some. To say that something is valid does not mean acceptance of it. More people need to learn this distinction.


Here's something you presented:

...This is what our legal system is set up for - to decide what we, as a society, will determine to be evil and thus punishable...

But not everything that is illegal is quite like rape, torture, or pedophilia. Society says not wearing a seat-belt is illegal and punishable by fines, but that doesn't make it Evil to not wear a seat-belt.

Here is one instance - I said that we determine what is evil and thus punishable; you say that I said that we decide what is punishable and then call it all evil. Of course not wearing a seat belt is not evil (in my rubric). Stupid, sure, but not evil. But, then again, if you're not wearing a seat belt and that causes you to fly out of your car and land on a baby stroller on the sidewalk and crush the baby to death, perhaps it WAS evil of you not to wear a seat belt. We do not call all illegal things evil; but we do call evil things (those that we as a society decide are evil) illegal. See, there's a logical difference.

And then this one:

...But there is no way to actually define evil...

I just did: torture, rape, and pedophilia, are Evil.

None of those are definitions; they are instances. Significant and huge difference. I'm saying that one cannot define evil in any absolute way because evil is always based on one's moral rubric. One can define evil for oneself; not for the entire universe. Also, you didn't define what you mean by torture, rape, or pedophilia. And I'm not just being sarcastic or obnoxious here: but we all define these differently. Is sleep deprivation torture? I would say so, but on the other hand, my job has sometimes required to me be up for far longer than I prefer - was that torture? Is it torture to assign homework that keeps a child up at night? Is it torture to ask a surgeon to work an extra shift because of an emergency? And of course there is raging debate in America today about what consitutes rape.

And here's this one:

...But most who are labeled evil are either working on a different, but still valid, ethical and moral system than I (or we); or have brain dysfunction that doesn't allow their moral compass to align with their society's moral compass...

Regardless, there are actual sociopaths who are so defective/lacking in empathy and conscience, a term like Evil does apply to them, in a way that other terms just aren't so expressive.

For sociopaths who are suffering from brain dysfunction, even your definition of evil should not apply: to say something is evil implies the person has a choice of choosing good. For those few whose brains are wired wrong, they have no choice or they simply have no concept of right or wrong. If there is no choice, there is no evil. The acts they do might be considered evil, and the person might very well be need to be put in prison or a mental institution, but the person is not evil: the person is sick.

And let's tackle this thing:

...So I toss the word "evil" around every now and again, but when I use it I know that I am using it from the perspective of a fairly liberal Christian theological stance...

So do you think liberal Christianity is wishy washy on Evil, or that Jesus was?

I'm not sure how you can read my words to imply that at all. I merely stated that when I call something evil, I know I am doing it from the perspective of my intepretation as a liberal Christian. There is nothing in that statement that implies wishy washiness, or that Jesus was wishy washy on it. :shrug:

And more misreading here:

...it is always molded and modified by own moral rubric, and there is no universal absolute to any sense of "good" or "evil"...

But you said you were Christian.

I thought that liberal Christians understood that the most atrocious human rights violations on the planet were evil, for example, that greed/mammon was not good, that lack of love was ignorance, that a very real and good and loving God, SHOWED this to us.

Yes, I did say I was Christian, and I am - and I agree that genocide is evil; that war is most times an act of evil; love of money is wrong (though I'd never say it was evil, even though it might lead to evil things); lack of love is wrong; and etc. BUT - I also know that I am saying that AS A CHRISTIAN, and that these are not universal absolutes, and not absolutes over all time, and that even other Christians might very well disagree with me. Some will argue that God has given us the absolute universal rubric for deciding morality and ethics, but anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind and heart will realize that this is not so; every "rule" God gave is, somewhere, broken in a faithful and okay way. Ethics are always situational, and the Bible is always up for interpretation - so it all depends on how one interprets it.

Some parts of the Bible imply that having slaves is okay; and these passages were used most atrociously and wrongly by Americans to prop up our system of slavery (which was nothing like slavery in the Bible). But the truth is, there are "rules" in the Bible for how to treat a slaver properly, so there is implicit in that the okayness of owning slaves. Personally, I think slave owning is wrong - even evil - even if they are treated with all the goodness and respect that the Bible requires.

Well, who's right? Parts of the Bible seem to say it's okay; other parts (esp. my reading of Jesus) say it isn't, but nowhere does Jesus explicitly say it's wrong. It's all interpretation, and interpretation that needs to be sensitive to the realities of the time in which it was written. Personally, I think Jesus' commandment to love our neighbor means that we can't own slaves; but then again, at that time, the life conditions were such that the best and safest route for continued existence for some people was to sell themselves into slavery. So who's to say what's evil?

[carl_pwccaman]

16. So there's no REAL argument against Gonzales

I'm sorry but your liberal Christianity sounds like Gonzales and Rumsfeld's agnostic justifications for abuses.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. uhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhh..............

yeah.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[bloom]

18. Evil

I think you are flushing some interesting ideas.

I can see where some people are coming from - that the term bothers people (if they associate the word with "sin" for instance) - but I also think that it's valid to expect that some actions will be considered evil, abhorrent, etc. - and that people to like to see that there is some agreement about what those actions are.

At least so far - the rape of a child is considered abhorrent. Though in a case that someone posted this week - it was noted that an appeals court in Canada reduced the sentence for a father who raped his 2 year old and filmed his crimes to make pornography. The appeals judges thought that this was NOT the worst it could have been - because the victim was not bound and gagged - so they reduced the sentence to 9 years.

I think most people would see this case as evil. It's hard to figure why judges would decide to be lenient.

"In rendering the original sentence in November, Judge Dominique Wilhelmy said she had enough evidence to declare the unrepentant pedophile a dangerous offender, which would have kept him behind bars indefinitely."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1327461


I think there are a lot of us who would prefer that people not go all wishy-washy in regards to people who commit certain acts. It seems like there are getting to be fewer and fewer things that people are absolute on. Before BushCo - it seemed like 99.99% of the people in the US would have said that torture is evil (or at least abhorrent) - and now quite a few defend it.

There is the problem of what society does with people who have committed what many consider to be evil acts. If someone does something considered evil, then it seems that the person is outside the boundaries of conventional society. When people are caught and condemned - they become more so. If the person is required to be imprisoned for life - society does not generally worry about the people. But for the ones who are brought back into society - what then? Our country does not seem to have the best system for dealing with that.

Like the example of the sex offender - society seems to be trying to come up with new rules to help people feel safe - but at the same time - there is the problem of the offenders rights. There seems to be the idea among many - that many of those people will be repeat offenders - many don't expect them to change or to stop themselves by the threat of prison. So then what?

And then the there is the "support the troops" thing. It seems like the idea is that we are not supposed to figure that anything "evil" is being done by any troops - or if it is - that the appropriate troops are punished. That seems like a lot of wishful thinking - but of course we don't know what most of the individual troops are doing - so we don't really know. We do expect that for the most part - the troops have been brainwashed into accepting killing. Society hopes that that brainwashing is limited to specific "enemies". Of course - when we see that some of the so-called enemies are not really enemies - what does that mean for the troops? Or for us.

I agree with your premise that it's the right-wingers who are being the most relativistic - and true to Orwellian form - they turn the tables and say that we are. There can also be a libertarian angle (of course many libertarians are conservative) - people being unwilling to put restrictions on others - because they don't want restrictions on themselves.

[carl_pwccaman]

19. So what to do! It is a dillema

To trumpet more morality, without using the right-wing's frame, is a clear enough concept.

But to put it into practice, people are afraid of moral terms, of terms like evil, afraid of how it will be used against them.

Yet there are dangerous people, reckless people, who seem conscienceless, who do horrible, horrible things. Not "gay marriage ew" kind of "horrible", not consenting spanking with light S&M, but rape horrible, torture horrible.

[bloom]

20. It seems to me

That I am a threat to some people around here because while I consider myself an atheist - I am also very concerned about morality - and how our society chooses to define it. Some people don't seem to be able to reconcile that.

I think it's really a problem that we have so many liberals (or libertarians who like liberal sites) that are running away from definitions of morality - because of relativism or because they associate morality with religion or authority or some other thing that they don't like.

And at the same time there are the right-wingers - inspired by Machiavelli &/or Rove/Luntz &/or Capitalism/Imperialism/Power trips/Entitlement, etc. who justify whatever immoral things that work in their favor. And who get sidetracked into false concerns about Gay Marriage and other things that don't affect them anyway.

Someone has a thread - I think it's the "God is Dead" thread - where the idea seems to be accepted that society has to go through a nihilism stage before people figure out how we should be living. I think it would be better to just skip that stage - and go right to something that makes more sense.