Political Correctness Must Tend to Tyranny

A Politically Correct Regime has an inbuilt tendency, seen in our own country, to creep towards full-on authoritarianism. That is because the equality of outcomes for which it searches is unattainable, except by dint of reducing populations to the status of slaves or dehumanised, empty shells.

PC is founded on Nothingness

What is being addressed here are the moral foundations of Political Correctness which lead to this oppression. Because Political Correctness is fundamentally  a moral system. When it speaks of the need for ‘equality,’ of ‘social justice,’ of ‘fairness,’ of the ‘wrongness’ of ‘oppression,’ etc, it is articulating moral positions.

The question immediately arises: On what is this morality based?  Where do the politically correct concepts of ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’ etc come from?  Why is it necessary to be ‘equal’ at all costs’? Why shouldn’t one group, however its members define themselves, ‘oppress’ another in the terms used by PC, if it has the inclination and ability to do so? In other words, what is the origin of the  ‘ought’ in ‘we ought to be Politically Correct’ ?

Political Correctness is Self-Refuting

The devastating answer seems to be that, if one takes Political Correctnesses at its own valuation when it says that there is no reality other than the reality we construct for ourselves and all such realities are then equal - the idea which is the root of multiculturalism and all the other manifestations of ‘Equality’ as defined by Political Correctness - then there is no ‘ought ‘ about Political Correctness. The ethics of Political Correctness also come from nowhere. They too are merely a human construct with no foundation in anything.  P.C. concepts of ‘Equality,’ Social ‘Fairness,’ ‘Justice’ etc. are merely a set of preferences of a particular group which it imposes because it has the power to do so. By its own logic Political Correctness has no right to set itself up as having any intrinsic moral force or of being superior to anything.

Political Correctness can be based on Human Worth and Reason ?

                                                                                    Immanuel Kant

A supporter of Political Correctness might then take the tack that ‘It is not necessary to show that it has any foundation other than Reason.  Political Correctness approaches Immanuel Kant’s ideal of ethics based on Reason, which in turn is founded on an appreciation of intrinsic Human Worth, more closely than any other system.’

Immanuel Kant and Human Worth

Putting side then the argument that if all our ideas are mental constructs, these must include the notion of  'Human Worth' and indeed 'Reason ' itself (that would be too easy), here is what Kant had to say about Human Beings and their Worth:-

‘These, therefore, are not merely subjective ends whose existence has a worth for us as an effect of our action, but objective ends, that is, things whose existence is an end in itself; an end moreover for which no other can be substituted, which they should subserve merely as means, for otherwise nothing whatever would possess absolute worth; but if all worth were conditioned and therefore contingent, then there would be no supreme practical principle of reason whatever. (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,)

This appears to be Kant’s argument:

• Something must have absolute worth
• If man does not have absolute worth, then nothing has absolute worth.
• Therefore, man has absolute worth.

But why must something have absolute worth? Reliance on Reason fails because Reason alone cannot answer this question. In fact, Kant's moral system looked elsewhere for its guarantee: to the Divine.  He remarked, ''Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.” That is the origin of his assumption that something must have absolute worth and his argument that it must be Man.  So the Politically Correct cannot rely on Reason/Human Worth as a foundation for their ideology. We're back to no justification for Political Correctness.

(Incidentally, the fact  that Reason can show nothing intrinsic about the worth of Human Beings means that that the secular understanding of ‘Human Rights,’ so–called, is based on nothing whatsoever).

It Taps into Human Nature?

‘Ah!’ Our by now somewhat desperate supporter of Political Correctness might say, ‘but even if Political Correctness is a free –floating system like the others, it should nevertheless be supported over the others because it taps into the intuitive human need for fairness and justice more satisfactorily than they do. And since it is intuitive, we need not rely on Reason, or anything else.’

Morality is not Necessarily merely the Imposition of Power Elites

But hang on, putting aside the easily refuted  assertion that Political Correctness is ‘fairer’ than other systems, doesn’t the assumption that normal human beings ‘intuit’ such things as fairness and justice simply imply that ethical systems are not necessarily constructed out of nothing by power elites for self-serving purposes, which is pretty much the neo-Marxist, Politically Correct position ?

‘Well yes, I suppose it does….’

Universally Occurring Wells of Morality Point to an Objective Standard

And if again normal human beings do have these universally occurring  ethical wells, does this not  deny the Politically Correct  position that there can be  no absolute standard  by which  one set of ethics may be judged against another? Doesn’t this then mean that one culture or one set of actions on the part of an individual can be morally superior to another as judged against these common ethical impulses and so the basis of unfettered individualism and multiculturalism is false?

‘Yeeeesss. If you put it like that it certainly seems to……’

The Knowledge of Good and Evil

But consider this. A man (or woman) may have conflicting natural feelings, the products of our evolution as social animals, which he /she may choose to ignore. For example, the need to save a drowning person on the one hand and the need to get himself or herself out of danger on the other. Where does the knowledge come from that tells that individual that there is an overriding imperative, a sense of ‘ought,’ to try to save the drowning person regardless of increased danger to himself and his genes?

In other words, what is the ultimate origin of our knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? It was this knowledge which for example quite recently condemned two Community Officers who failed to attempt to rescue a child drowning in a Pond, claiming that they hadn’t received the necessary training.

‘Umm…Well, if there is such a knowledge, it’s probably just our Christian culture kicking in…..?’

But that just begs the question. Where did Christianity get it from and why is there widespread recognition that Christianity brings truth in this regard much more clearly than any other religion or philosophy?  A recognition which helps to explain the historic growth of this religion and its world-historical influence?

Baffling, but it Works?

‘But,’ our Politically Correct interlocutor might go on, by now almost at his wits’ end and desperate to avoid the apparently inevitable  conclusion of the origin of our moral knowledge since this would be the end of all further argument in favour of Political Correctness, ‘even if Political Correctness as an ethical system has by its own logic no more intrinsic worth than the ethical systems which it claims are inventions and  ‘oppressive’ etc;  even if it cannot rely on Reason and intrinsic Human Worth to justify itself; even if it  denies itself again and again when it claims validation by intuition, shouldn’t it still be supported? Because by getting rid of ‘privileges’ of family, race, sexuality, religion and culture it produces a society which simply works better than those which are constructed with a recognition of these things in that it is more conducive to human flourishing?’

No it Doesn’t

If we accept that human flourishing is a valid criterion by which to judge whether or not one course of action is to preferred over another, the truth as we are seeing all around us is that that is exactly what Political Correctness doesn’t encourage.  By a host of measurable indicators, it is a disaster to the well-working of our society and the flourishing of its people, as visitors to this site are well aware. In 1940 the leftist writer George Orwell wrote that, ‘The gentleness of English Civilisation is its most marked characteristic.’ Thanks in large measure to the malign effects of what we now call Political Correctness, no such claim could possibly be made about the amoral, atomised, violent, selfish and  racially religiously and culturally divided place that is Britain today.

‘What Works’  is an attempt at mere practicality with no sense of ultimate, inescapable obligation about it, relying only on social pressure. But if Political Correctness dictates that everyone is entitled to their own 'lifestyle choice' while others are enjoined not to be'judgmental,' such pressure vanishes.  This is especially the case when  Political Correctness claims that anti-social behaviour is the result of 'social injustice' in those who are 'naturally good' rather than plain wickedness.

That is why, with  'What Works' as applied by Political Correctness, people feel little need to conduct themselves in what once would have been considered a moral fashion, if they can get away with it. The attitude that the only wrong is to be found out, which panders to Man's inclination to evil, is tending to corrupt social relations in Britain at every level and in every respect. It is seen at the very top of our society in the MPs' expenses scandal and reaches down to thugs on sink estates.  It is bringing about  the end in this country of what was most civilised about it: its emphasis on decency and ideas of personal honour. Guilt has been banished to be replaced, not with shame, but increasingly with shamelessness.

Political Correctness: A Lie and the Father of Lies 

Politically Correct secularism is responsible for the moral decline and social disintegration of this country. It is the underpinning of the multiculturalism and multiracialism which has so much heightened these trends.

It has brought these things about because it is a lie. It falsely claims a moral standing and impartiality to which it is not entitled.  

And because it is a lie it does not work.