In a thought-provoking article, Amit Ghate argues for the importance of moral judgment and decisive action particularly when a person is of such vile and treasonous character. He suggests one should shun and ostracize extremely loathsome people as civilized society once did. Many have qualms about such actions believing that the modern notion of rights makes social ostracism obsolete.
The law, properly implemented, is neutral with regard to the content of speech no matter how odious and equally respective of rights of each individual regardless of the failings of character. It is limited to the protection of liberty and property, in a just society, while leaving the individual responsible for developing worthy character or sinking into personal depravity. Only when one steps beyond the line and violates another’s right to life, liberty and property – i.e. commit a crime – does the law step in.
With freedom comes moral responsibility. First of all, there is the responsibility for one’s own character. Rights protect the minimal moral percepts in a social context thereby insuring individual sovereignty. It leaves open the whole question of how one should lead one’s life and what kind of person is one to become.
Not only must one be concerned with one’s own character but one also has the responsibility to judge the character of others for the sake of one’s own well-being and the well-being of one’s family, friends, and community. This is where Ghate has a point. Today there is pressure to suspend moral judgment.
Ghate asks: why is Ward Churchill, instead of being shunned, invited everywhere to spew his anti-American propaganda and hate? Let’s add the example of Michael Moore. Here is unabashed
liar, who champions the terrorists that target and kill Iraqi civilians and our troops. Yet, during the Democratic Party convention, we see him sitting in the guest of honor box next to Jimmy Carter. Any suggestion that he be shunned results in charges of intolerance and censorship. This is nonsense, and Mr. Ghate does a good job exposing the absurdity of today’s promiscuity:
"All it takes is a society of individuals who value morality and who have the right to act in accordance with it. The Greeks had both. They valued honor and acting for the good above all else. And they had no government regulations to prevent them from honoring those whom they found noble nor from shunning those whom they found immoral. In today’s world both requirements for successfully ostracizing people are not only lacking, but even reversed. Consider that the subjectivists on the Left continuously cry that free speech means not just respecting a person’s right to voice his opinion, but actually respecting the opinion itself – no matter what its content (“everyone’s opinion is equally valid”). In so doing they don’t just deprecate morality, they actually eradicate it completely. For if every opinion is equally valid (which means that there is no truth), there can be no science aimed at discovering and defining the proper code of values necessary for man to succeed and prosper on earth – i.e. there can be no morality or ethics."
There is one man today that does have moral standards and won’t go along with the crowd. As everyone was turning yet another cheek to show their willing to forgive and forget, Rudy Giuliani stood alone. Jason Moaz’ recalls when Rudy kicked Arafat out of an invitation-only Lincoln Center affair of U.N. representatives ... to the shock of nearly everyone. Rudy was right.
Arafat, the “father of modern terrorism,” was rewarded with control of territory in the West Bank after the Oslo Accords by promising to reform. In the decade of his rule, he systematically trained a generation to embrace terrorism. The result of this process was the recent wave of suicide bombers. Arafat is proof that terrorism works (because of our appeasement.) And rewarding terrorism only encourages more. Character and culture are created over a long period of practice. Neither can be suddenly discarded with the rare exception of vast and utter defeat. Reform and redemption require a long period of thought and deeds before the cultivation of a new character or culture is achieved.
A healthy culture requires private citizens to cultivate incentives, values, moral stature, and honors appropriate to civilized society. It also requires the disincentives and condemnations – and in extreme cases, ostracism – when evil presents itself. Liberty is valuable if we use it wisely to do the right thing. Rudy suggests it can be done. Imagine if we all did it.
