Moral Hypocrisy: Why Some Lost Lives are News and Others Aren’t

Moral Hypocrisy: Why Some Lost Lives are News and Others Aren’t

 
Consistency is an essential aspect to any person’s beliefs, any code of morality. If you do not care to be consistent with your moral code, what does it really mean? It means that you are convincing yourself that a moral code is the reason you believe something when really you don’t want to give up your opinion.

Moral consistency is something forgotten by many people. For example, a lot of people believe that a certain act is immoral, but they don’t see it as immoral when a completely different person commits the same act.

In the same vein as this inconsistency, the value of human life is something constantly warped and manipulated; the perception of all people vulnerable to propaganda is warped by media and any means possible, to make people feel for the deaths of certain people, completely disregarding other deaths.
In the mind of a supporter of the Iraq war, the death of a US solider is very sad. In that same mind, the deaths of about 3200 people does not make them feel a lot of sadness. It’s obviously all relative, and personally I think if you have not witnessed or to some personal extent experienced death all around you like the people of Pakistan, you have absolutely no way of truly feeling for them or knowing what it’s like. Even people aware of the tragedies in Pakistan truly can’t fathom what it feels like unless they lived it.

In the minds of people who support the police in America or have family members that are police, the death of a cop is a very sad thing. In the same people’s minds, the death of completely innocent and unarmed people at the hands of the police aren’t very sad. Not only is it because of the basic principle of human nature that true empathy can’t exist without firsthand experience, but obviously because of the bias that people have.

To name a few of the endless examples, a few weeks before the odd Charlie Hebdo incident a US air strike killed roughly 50 civilians in Syria. Americans manipulated into fear and ‘empathy’ by the mainstream media remained completely ignorant to these incidents, and I’m sure they would not feel very empathetic if they were informed of this.

Also recently, Boko Haram killed literally thousands of people in Nigeria in one of the worst massacres in history, and war supporting Americans didn’t see a thing because there is no one convincing them to care. What about people who die in American ghettoes? They are forgotten too. However, they are not forgotten if they are killed outside of the ghetto. If it occurs in a rich neighborhood, it just happens to break national news.

When a solider dies, war supporters mourn. When a cop dies, police supporters mourn. When an innocent man is killed by police, the people sick of police killing innocent people with impunity mourn and the supporters of the police do not.

Every person with an opinion must recognize that their moral standards are only as accurate as the collage of information that forms the foundation of their perception.
It’s all relative; the purpose of this article is to use logic to show you that using a tragedy as a moral pretext for wars of aggression, advancement of the police state, or any corrupt agenda is a completely illogical and inconsistent ‘moral pretext’ because to do that, you’d have to ignore all the other recent deaths and tragedies you don’t care about .

That’s the very underlying concept behind a false flag operation. There was a tragic event, then the government claimed they had to do something about it and fearful people consent to the agenda. Most people don’t know of every instance of mass death, every moral catastrophe that took place within the same time-frame as a particular catastrophe that you perceive to be the most important one.
In other words, the pretext for many actions of governments now and throughout history is tragedy, and the moral code the government claims to be following to avenge that tragedy is always inconsistent.

For a government to wage war or pursue an agenda based on one tragedy or loss of life, they have to do so while ignoring all other losses of life. That inconsistency is some solid evidence for it being an illogical, dysfunctional code of morality.

So, I present this information to you so that you can use this as a logical cornerstone when debating people who support wars of aggression. This information is for those who believe that the enemies fought in war are actually a larger threat to human life than other threats that are completely ignored by government. The truth is, there are basically always worse threats to your actual freedom and safety. It needs not even be said that the enemies pursued in US wars of aggression have proven to be virtually zero threat to the American people compared to every other danger we face as a people.
I’m sure a lot of the people reading this are already fully aware, redundantly aware of the inconsistencies in the logic and moral codes of people susceptible to propaganda.

On that note, please share this with those people on the border between awareness and illusion, the people who really still need to hear the logic of opposition to war so that they can be relieved of the cognitive dissonance they may have been plagued with. Please share this with as many people as possible.

Cassius Methyl