## Tuesday, May 9, 2017

### The 3 Laws of Moral Equivalence

Perhaps the most ubiquitous and oft-stated logical fallacies I hear from our friends on the left are moral equivalence arguments. Those viewpoints drive me up the wall for reasons I ranted about in The Uselessness of the Neutrals, which probably wasn't the best title given the presumption that the moral equivocators are in fact neutral. On this blog I sometimes deconstruct liberal counter-arguments to show how they could be applied to any argument made. For example, in a recent post on r/K political theory I showed how the author's argument was essentially that, because r-types are naturally in conflict with K-types, then there can't be any r-types at all! It is of course a flawed argument (it assumes support of conflicts and avoidance of conflicts are mutually exclusive), and these kinds of super arguments are always flawed. There must be some logical principle that there is no such thing as an omnipotent argument. In case it hasn't been described, let's do so here.

The Omnipotent Argument Theorem

Let $V$ be a viewpoint in some domain of discussion. Let $A$ be the set of arguments that supports $V$, and $C$ the set of arguments that counters $V$. Let the notation $\neg a$ indicate that the argument $a$ is false. Thus if a counterargument $c$ invalidates argument $a$ it can be notated as $c \implies \neg a$.
$\nexists c \in C \mbox{ such that } \forall a \in A, c \implies \neg a$
It might seem silly to go throught the trouble of writing out all the math notation, but writing it down it such a manner can be illuminating. It is quite apparent that the theorem can easily be disproven by a simple counterexample. For instance, I might have a viewpoint that the oven is 450°, my sole argument being that the display reads 450°. However the counterargument stating that the oven reads ten degrees high would invalidate all arguments in favor of my position. So we haven't proven that it's not possible for the existence of omnipotent arguments in more complex subjects. It's a matter we'll have to pick up later on a slow news day so that we can get to the point of this post.

### Laws of Motion

Our laws will parody the 3 Laws of Motion.
1. An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an external force. An object in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted on by an external force.
2. F=ma
3. For every force there is an equal an opposite force.

### First Law of Moral Equivalence

A moral equivocator will tend to stay at rest unless motivated by The Narrative. A moral equivocator in action will tend to stay in action unless they run afoul of The Narrative.
Application of moral equivalency is more of a tactic than a philosophy. I don't doubt that people believe in universal equality, but they never apply the principle unless it benefits them. I've experienced this myself because I like to argue with liberals on the town newpaper's facebook page. In response to an article that the local university was stepping up some diversity office to fight campus injustics, I bemoaned that it was sad to see SJW-culture showing up in town. Of the three lefties that responded to me, all 3 made sure to note that I am white and male. Apparently some are more equal to speak on certain subjects than others.

As an exercise keep an eye out, for the next month, of examples where liberals invoke their cherished beliefs of universal equality even though it would tend work against their benefit. I predit you won't encounter any.

### Second Law

$F= \neg F$
This should appear to be something of a tautology in a discussion on logic, since we're always deconstructing opposing arguments towards something like $F= \neg F$ to demonstrate logical absurdity. Yet for moral equivocators $F= \neg F$ is often their primary argument. Where are told to celebrate diversity. Diversity implies difference. Yet we're told that the diverse cultures are all morally equivalent. So things that aren't equal are actually equal. $F= \neg F$. Except for the case of white culture of course, which is always oppressive. When it comes to positive attributes of a culture, we can't say we are any better than anyone else. We all have equal value. Thus, $F= F$. But in considering the negative attributes of a culture there is no culture nearly so evil as the West. Thus, $F > F$. The only thing consistent in this is logical absurdity, and hatred of the West.

### Third Law

For each argument I don't like, there exists an equal and opposite argument I do like.
If, in a forum including numerous liberals, one makes any critique of a liberal, one will invariably encounter a response of the type: well so does the other side. If you point out that a politician is corrupt or ignorant, and they happen to be a Democrat, you will be reminded that there is a Republican equally as corrupt or ignorant. If you call out media absurdity, you will be reminded that conservative media is equally absurd. And so on. It is impossible to make any argument to their detriment because in the leftist mindest there is always an equal and opposite arguments that applies to the other side. The don't even specify most of the time, but merely speak in abstracts. If argument $a$ harms the left, then by the Third Law there must exist argument $b$ that cancels it out. They often won't even attempt to make the argument; only assure us that it exists.

The truly sinister aspect of this is that it does not allow us to point out evil or unethical behavior where it exists, because the point is always moot since it is assumed to be countered. Now it's not that conservative partisans never engage in the same behavior; the difference is that this viewpoint is invariably displayed by those on the left.

This is the ultimate example of an omnipotent argument, which earlier I was unable to disprove the existence of. There is no argument in the world that could possibly put the left at a disadvantage, because there always exists a mirror counterargument. It doesn't go both ways, of course. Arguments that damage the right are unassailable, but that is more of a partisan bias, and not what we're interested in here, where there is a perception of the world that one faction can never be morally superior to another since the universe is assumed to hold some perfect counterargument.

I encourage you to pay attention to the 3 Laws of Moral Equivalence in your own (hopefully limited) interactions with the far left. We will revisit the notion of ominpotent arguments in a later post.