Never mind, I found the rest of the transcript of that episode. There’s more, but I think this is the meat of his point.
Morality is what it is. Virtue is what it is. And you either are or you aren’t. And the left doesn’t like that so they’ve obscured the lines and the definitions. And the definition now is moral is whatever you can get somebody to do with you, consent. You can do anything. If you could get the dog to consent with you, if you can get the horse to consent, we got no problem with it. And they don’t! So morality has been boiled down to consent, is my point, and it’s true.
So it’s said here, “If morality is relative to each individual – a purely subjective experience – by what standard are they judging Trump? Obviously, in such a secular climate, there can’t even be a ‘standard.’ Why should anyone listen to people who out of one side of their mouths declare the death of objective moral standards yet out of the other condemn someone for violating objective moral standards?”
Because, you see, morality is not subjective. “Human beings possess the capacity for rationality and objectivity. We’re able to distinguish what’s good and what’s bad,” and we know it. We know right from wrong. We know good from bad. We know what we should do and what we shouldn’t do and the left wants to not feel guilt when they engage in what you shouldn’t do. And the way to get there is to simply erase the concept of objective morality. There isn’t any. You don’t get to define it. Nobody else does. You get to define your own. And therefore you can’t criticize.
Well, in this atmosphere, how does anybody dare preach to Donald Trump? When we have spent the last 25 or 30 years obliterating the moral code, when we have blown virtue to smithereens, who are you phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ rollers all of a sudden now sitting in judgment of Donald Trump?
Okay, you had it, Rush, and then you lost it.
First of all: by “consent,” we mean “meaningful consent.” Meaningful consent can only occur when there isn’t a power imbalance. There is a power imbalance between an adult and a teenager, so there can’t be consent there. There is a power imbalance between a human and an animal, so there can’t be consent there. Teacher and student, employer and employee, superior officer and subordinate. When one person holds power over the other, even if consent can be obtained, it isn’t meaningful consent, as the power imbalance means that the risk of coercion is too high to trust that consent.
Second: No, we aren’t disagreeing with the statement that “Human beings possess the capacity for rationality and objectivity. We’re able to distinguish what’s good and what’s bad.” We’re just disagreeing on the specifics. An act is bad in that:
- By carelessness, recklessness, or intent
- It causes harm to a person
- Who did not consent to the risk of that harm
- Either because of lack of knowledge of the risks, or because they were coerced into that action anyway.
That’s really what it boils down to. It’s not right to harm someone else, or even to carelessly risk harming someone, unless they know about, and consent to, the risk or the harm.
So no, we don’t disclaim the idea that there is an objective “right” and “wrong,” just that there is an objective “right way” and “wrong way” to have consensual sex.
And though most humans are hypocrites in one way or another, we aren’t hypocrites for judging Trump. We can disagree about which shades of grey are black, and which are white, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t agree that some are clearly brighter than others.
Yes, there are deeds that are “objectively good.” Full stop.
Yes, there are deeds that are “objectively bad.” Full stop.
Yes, if there is consent from all involved parties (and any parties that the involved parties are likewise involved with), then we believe that meaningful consent is the only thing that matters in a sexual relationship. Full stop.
But no, no, NO, the fact that we don’t believe that consensual sex is “objectively bad” doesn’t mean that we lose the right to call some other deed bad.
We believe in right and wrong, Rush. We just don’t believe the line falls exactly where you do, and that kind of difference of opinion does not negate our duty to tell Trump, and those who consider voting for Trump, that he’s on the wrong side of that line.
