Liberal Logic, Or Lack Thereof

As a Catholic, and therefore a social conservative, I find flaws in virtually every argument that I hear from the secular left. The intellectual culprit behind this is the cornerstone of modern Liberalism: Relativism. Relativism is essentially the belief that there is no such thing as absolute Truth; or in other words, what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me. There are numerous falsehoods within this mindset. Firstly, Relativism is self-contradictory. If I say, “There is no such thing as absolute truth,” well, that statement itself is an absolute truth and therefore self-refuting. So, what you are actually saying is, “there is no truth, except my truth.” Which isn’t a valid argument – unless you’re three years old.

Another serious objection to Relativism is found in the very nature of Truth. Truth, by definition, is exclusive and eternal. This concept of ‘my truth vs. your truth’ is irrational. Just like in Highlander, ‘there can be only one’ truth, and I promise you that it doesn’t care about your feelings. For instance, if I asked two people what the answer to three plus two is, and one of them says “five,” while the other says “Abraham Lincoln,” it’s illogical to say, “they are both right, they are just living out their ‘own’ truth.” They’re not both right, because truth is exclusive. One of them has spoken the truth, and the other one is a moron.

I could go on for days about the logical fallacies of Relativism, but that’s not what this article is about. These first two paragraphs simply serve to demonstrate how the underlying foundation of modern liberalism is inherently flawed. This will help you to understand how it is, that so many of the arguments we hear from the secular left are completely irrational. I have chosen the top three (for the sake of brevity) and I will spend this post demonstrating why they are totally illogical.

1.   “I believe that abortion is wrong, and I would never get one. But I can’t tell other people what to do with their bodies.”

This argument is commonly used as a last-ditch effort, made by a reeling liberal, after getting completely pummeled in a debate about abortion. Unable to justify abortion in its own right, they have pulled the intellectual equivalent of jumping out of the plane (without a parachute). If this argument were true, then by the very nature of Truth, it would have to be true in all circumstances – so let’s try it on for size. “I believe murder is wrong, but I can’t tell others what to do with their bodies… I believe people should drive the speed limit, but I can’t tell others what to do with their vehicles… I believe that wearing clothes in public is a good thing, but…” I’ll stop there, because the list could go on (literally) forever. And therein lies the problem. If this particular liberal argument were true, then it would be impossible to pass any laws, not just abortion laws. Because at the end of the day, every law ever passed limits, in some way, what other people can do with their bodies.

2.   “A person can be biologically male but identify ‘psychologically’ as a female.” (And vice versa).

This is an argument that has similar repercussions to the previous one. If this statement is true, then there is literally no limit to where we can take it. For instance, if I made the assertion that I am actually Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated, there would be just as much evidence to corroborate that claim as there would be to support the claim that I am a ‘psychological female’ in a man’s body. The underlying problem is that this argument is based in feelings, and not facts. Male and Female are determined by your 23^rd chromosome pair (the sex chromosome); if you have an XX combination you are female and if you have an XY pair then you are male. People are best equipped to thrive, when their psychology matches up with reality. Your sex chromosome is a reality, and people are infinitely better off if their psychological status aligns with that reality. No matter how many people I convince to refer to me as “General Bonaparte,” I will never truly be satisfied, because my damaged psyche is out of alignment with reality. Attempting to skew reality to align with a form of psychological trauma will only ever lead to suffering and confusion for everyone involved.

3.   “If you don’t condone someone’s actions, then you are prejudiced against them as a person.”

This line of thinking is generally associated with (but not exclusive to) same sex unions. As a Catholic, I believe that acting upon same sex attraction is a sin, but simply experiencing an attraction towards the same sex is not sinful in and of itself. In the same way, a heterosexual, married man, might be tempted to have an affair. Simply feeling tempted, is not a sin (so long as he doesn’t dwell upon the thought). The second that he acts upon that temptation however, he has crossed over the line into sin. I have loved ones who drink too much, friends who do drugs, cheat on their spouses, cheat on their taxes – you name it. I love them all, while at the same time disagreeing with their sinful actions. In the same way, we can objectively declare abortion and same sex unions to be sinful, without hating the people who carry out these actions. Blurring the line between opposing actions and opposing people, is just a form of labeling. Taping your opponents mouth shut with a label is just a subtle form of oppression.

Truth is eternal, and exclusive. What is true will still be true, even if there is no one left who believes it. What is false, will continue to be false, no matter how many people become tangled in the falsehood. The finality and absolute nature of Truth can be intimidating at first glance, but it shouldn’t be. Human flourishing can only manifest fully, when we align our psyche with reality. As a wise man once said, “The Truth will set you free.”