Does my position hold together?

Two readers, including Laura Wood, are disappointed in my comments on Cain because they think I am joining the left in approving sexual immorality and using sophistry to justify it.

- end of initial entry -

Kathlene M. writes:

If some conservatives and independents are rejecting Herman Cain primarily on moral terms for a private and an alleged incident which was never fully carried out, then to be consistent, they must also reject Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich on moral terms for more egregious deeds. Romney must be rejected for his past and private support for homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts and for his support for abortion, and Gingrich must be rejected for his multiple marriages and adulteries. Furthermore, if we’re going to reject people based on past immoral actions and even inactions, proven or not, then not one candidate is sinless and has no chance for forgiveness and all must be disqualified. If a candidate shows consistent moral lack of character over time (like a Bill Clinton) and no remorse, then yes that should disqualify him or her. But to condemn someone for an alleged act that wasn’t even consummated from 15 years ago? I’m withholding judgment until and unless there are facts and patterns that appear.

Meanwhile, the moral rot of our culture continues unabated and with widespread acceptance, while our President continues his liberal agenda of destruction.

LA replies:

Thank you for this. One thing you’re bringing out is that our society lacks any articulated moral code. Some acts are treated as condemnable and disqualifying, others are not, and there’s no coherent reasoning process explaining why. So as a society we veer crazily from one issue to the next, and in practice it all seems to boil down to what Socrates’ interlocutors told him: that justice is helping your friends and hurting your enemies.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 08, 2011 11:40 AM | Send