simplex et multiplex, Morality and WMDs

"Conservatives think the world is simple whereas Liberals know that it is complicated."

This line of stupidity passes for political wisdom on the Left. It is easy to see why Liberals think this way. The Left allows for no simplicity in thought at all. Every situation is unique and must be understood from it existential totality -- no abstraction, generalizing or analogy allowed. (Of course, they violate this idea all the time, but when pressed on any issue they usually end up here anyway.) This is especially true concerning moral problems. They find the idea that an individual can and must be judged by some standard. They argue instead for relativism. Ay condemnation or punishment of one by another is arbitrary. Many accept that society must exercise some level authority over constituents, but assert that this authority is arbitrary or merely conventional -- the "social contract."

The truth is that Conservatives believe that the world is both simple and complex. Unlike Liberals, conservatives have no problem sorting this out. There is simplicity, indeed certainty, in logic. Given premises, conclusions follow simply and with certainty. OF course, the premises might be flawed and this can get complicated. Examining the premises requires a new argument which itself will have premises and conclusions. This can appear quite complicated and can make one think that there is no real answer -- relativism is just around the corner, no? Human development is this struggle to find conclusions and premises.

For example, Slavery used to be common to all men. Paleo-man had this syllogism: that guy from across the river is not one of my tribe; only guys from my tribe have moral value; therefore, that guys from across the river has no moral value and may be enslaved. Simple. But, once human society adapted to agriculture and left behind its nomadic, tribal ways, it began to rethink this idea: that guy from across the river, though not from my tribe, is part of our society; all members of our society have moral value; therefore, that guy from across the river, though not from tribe, has moral value. In this way, the premises are examined and changed. There is both difficulty and confusion in this process, but there is also certainty. Our founding fathers knew this well. They knew that their premisesforced them to admit that slavery was evil. This was simple. But, they also knew that the world in complicated and that making this simple idea a reality was complicated. In the end, the United States worked this problem out. Without the clarity of simple morality there would have been no conviction. Without conviction Washington would not have freed his own slaves, setting an important example; Lincoln would not have sent thousands to die to free all the slaves. Simple and complex.

The Left lacks the conviction of simple truths and is, thus, terrified and sometimes paralyzed by the complexity. This is obvious when they try to figure out how nations should interact. Specifically, I am thinking of Iraq and the WMDs. It is patently true that Iraq both had them and had a plan to continue to develop them. [See this excellent compilation of news stories attesting to this http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq-WMD.htm ] Further, it is obvious that the UN had proved itself incapable of doing anything about it. The UN and the Left both lacked the simplicity of moral conviction and were paralyzed by the complexity of the issue. I want to believe that all except pacifists would agree that IF Iraq were a threat, then we were justified in acting. But, in reality, I think that many on the left can not accept that conclusion and so turn to arguing that the premise is wrong. Since they never find certainty (indeed it seems that they deny its possibility) they are left in chaos. The only thing they can do is appeal to some super authority in which they have placed vague and arbitrary "justice." Good for them, but those of us who are not so confused and paralyzed see the moral truth and must act.

The Left, in fact must deny and work against any conclusion from the right since its existence threatens their epistemology. This is why they continue to deny the facts while they say loudly "there were no WMDs." Of course there were; it is just that understanding this is complex. The Washington Post had another article today putting this in question.

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery bythe Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

If Leftists were not so dangerous to the liberty of mankind they would be funny.