The Predictable Result of Moral Relativism

It's a strange kind of "morality" that deems it worse to threaten a terrorist with a caterpillar (or even a waterboard) than to risk untold American lives in another terrorist attack.

Noemie Emery, writing in the Washington Examiner, points out what should be obvious:

Once upon a time, literate and intelligent people understood the difference between attack and defense, assault and pre-emption, and the use of force to conquer, destroy, enslave, or cause pain to large numbers of innocents; and the use of force deployed on aggressors to deflect or prevent the slaughter of thousands, to reverse an invasion, or to end a war others began. Once upon a time, they understood that presidents don’t have the luxury of indulging their qualms at the expense of their countrymen.

What we are seeing is the direct result of a generation where moral relativism has dominated our cultural debate. If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter -- and America has no particular claim to survival or safety, because, really, it's no better than any other country -- then where all the "torture moralists" stand makes entire, though twisted, sense.