It’s interesting that moral relativism is acceptable for conservative loons – but only when it allows them to defend human rights abuses by the pillar of freedom. The concept of a higher standard does not apply. The notion that there are moral absolutes do not apply. Torture by the United States of America is acceptable because it’s not as bad as the torture done by Saddam Hussein and it’s not as bad as beheading people or flying planes into buildings. And besides, the United States saves the worst torture for the really nasty people.
Here’s an alternative view: for a country to refer to its President as “the leader of the free world”, it should show leadership, particularly in relation to freedom. It should not show contempt for the rule of law. It should not violate the most fundamental principles of treating one’s enemies decently, principles that were codified in response to the worst atrocities of the past century. It should act in a way that is consistent with the principles it argues the dark places of the world need to embrace.
And if it fails in holding to these standards, nobody should be foolish enough to defend it by claiming that there are worse places in the world.
