By any metric, Americans today live in one of the most free societies that has ever existed. Property rights are secure, freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution, and we have the right to bear arms. For better or worse, we can live our lives in the manner we see fit. While government regulation might cripple some innovation it is nothing compared to the tyranny that billions of people currently live under.
In the midst of all this freedom, however, Americans are apt to forget what is good. When someone says something objectionable we frequently shrug and say “well it’s a free country and they have a right to say what they want to.” Such a reaction, while often correct, can obscure the fact that we should have standards. The existence of freedom does not in any way diminish the existence of an objective good. And it is towards this objective good that we should orient ourselves. It is typically conservatives who recognize this fact and act accordingly.
Governor Ron Desantis, for example, banned LGTBQ books that included pornographic content from schools. Perhaps the creators of these books should be allowed to publish what they want, but a good society protects its children and recognizes that those who create such content should be shamed. They might have a right to say what they want, but they have no right to be given an audience.
Mainstream liberals, by contrast, typically react with fury towards any attempt to enforce standards. Despite the fact that every book Desantis has “banned” can be purchased by anyone in the country, the press has slandered his initiative as a so-called “book ban.” They see Desantis as an enemy of freedom. In reality, he is an opponent of moral relativism.
Indeed, the dangers of moral relativism were put on full display when the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn repeatedly refused to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews. If I had to guess, I would say that these three women are not actually rabid anti-semites. Rather, their embrace of tolerance made them unable to distinguish between right and wrong.
Of course, when it comes to protecting conservative speech they have no problem with suppression. But they suppress conservative speech in the name of tolerance. Because conservatives have standards (such as the idea that men cannot be women) elite liberals are eager to silence them in the name of inclusion. Thus, suppressing conservatives is not an aberration from their ideology but a fulfillment of it.
Yesterday, Iowa also experienced a case of destructive moral relativism when a judge blocked a law keeping sexually explicit books out of classrooms from kindergarten to sixth grade. Judge Stephen Locher referred to the law as “puritanical.” Again, I doubt that Judge Locher is an actual pervert who distributes sexually explicit content to twelve year olds. But his liberal ideology prevents him from acknowledging that such an action is evil. Because he has made tolerance his religion, he does not have the intellectual capacity to condemn evil.
The terrible people who want to introduce pornographic content to children, destroy Israel, and take away free speech are undoubtedly a minority in this country. The real danger comes from self-avowed liberals who allow these people a platform in the name of tolerance. While it may be unAmerican to take away certain freedoms, imposing standards is essential to the maintenance of a free and virtuous life. Those who forget this risk falling into the evils of moral relativism.
