Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Culture Wars

If The City Planners Don’t Get You, PETA Will, or, Hands Off My Big Mac

by Clay Staggs

The Puritans (and modern day political conservatives too) have been accused of being deathly afraid that someone, somewhere was having fun. Today, undoubtedly, that distinction belongs to the political left.

I ran across a couple of stories today about food. PETA is unhappy with Al Gore for eating meat. Why pick on poor Al Gore, you might ask? Well, you see, PETA claims that the animal husbandry industry produces more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined. So, in their view, Gore is an eco-hypocrite because he’s not a vegetarian. They even plan to protest his next appearance in Denver.

Couple that with the LA city fathers, who want to place a moratorium on any new fast food restaurants opening in south central LA because there are just too darn many and it’s making the locals fat. Now, this could be fodder for lots of different rants - nanny-state bureaucrats, loss of economic freedom, etc. But I want to go in a different direction.

The PETA activists and liberal LA politicians would absolutely have a conniption fit if someone suggested that the government regulate any personal sexual conduct whatsoever. They are quite emphatic that in the sexual sphere, anything must go, and no one has any right whatsoever to say differently. So why would they care what anyone ate?

Personally, I lay all of this at the feet of relativism. The answer to my question is that, purely in the world of the hard political left, sex is not taboo, but a quarter pounder with cheese at Mickey D’s is just tacky. So, since they don’t like fast food, it should be banned. But wait, you may object, what about all the bad health consequences of those burgers and fries (or whatever carnivorous delicacy the Gores enjoy)? Well, what about the fact that STDs are virtually eliminated if everyone has only one sexual partner? I guess some public health problems are more equal than others, huh?

Really, if you think about it, moral relativism is doomed by its own self-contradiction. If all viewpoints are equally valid, and some think that private sexual conduct should be regulated, and some think that food consumption should be regulated, what, if anything, do we actually regulate?

Take another example: some cultures think honor killings are acceptable. Others don’t. So how is the moral relativist to reconcile this when it actually comes to either outlawing or allowing honor killing? There is a real world (much as relativism may want to deny this) and a given activity will either be legal or illegal, and there isn’t much gray to it. Relativism can’t cope with this reality.

Relativism is very much in vogue now intellectually, but, eventually, I think, it will fall of its own weight. And, who knows, maybe the thing that will get that started is when they come for your Whopper.