Is it more important to be morally right than factually correct? Yes, this is a question that has become relevant in recent years. We see many politicians and celebrities speaking more from the heart than from logically considered reasoning. And many people think that they are simply lying about both big and small issues.
We can take the Black Lives Matter movement as an example, which was revived in connection with Floyd’s death, where there were suspicions that the police had used excessive force with racist motives. The activists caused a great deal of disorder, burning buildings and making streets and squares unsafe. Perhaps they were morally right – police officers should not use excessive force against citizens – but the trial had not been decided at that time, and even if the police were guilty, the activists’ reaction was excessive and cost other people their lives, health and millions in property damage.
Another example. The entire migration debate is permeated by a similar morality, where the overarching idea of helping people in need trumps the rights, security and culture of the indigenous population. In these contexts, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that we rarely talk about real refugees nowadays, but rather about people with refugee-like reasons, and not about individual cases, but about mass migration. Despite this, the overarching moral right to help people in need remains, while our own societies are decaying both materially and culturally.
The climate debate is also based on similar premises, where the concept of global warming has been replaced by climate change. Nowadays, all kinds of changes in weather systems can be attributed to human influence. But we must not forget that the carbon dioxide theory is just that, a theory, and it is difficult to prove it accurately based on the Earth’s complex atmospheric, geological and astronomical systems. Nevertheless, environmental and climate activists are perceived as morally superior. They often override important issues with predetermined answers and frighten citizens with gross exaggerations, where they have been proven wrong time and time again. The debate becomes very one-sided and distances itself from actual science.
One might also suspect that powerful forces are controlling and manipulating our emotions. Helping someone in need is an important Christian and universal human trait that many value highly. Perhaps it is one of the few moral axioms that remain in the post-Christian societies of Western Europe? The same applies to concepts such as fair and equal treatment and protecting nature. All of this is important to us. Even if the concepts have degenerated over the years. And we should ask ourselves whether this development is being directed to promote certain political or economic forces? Of course, there are people who benefit from all these changes and who are happy to drive the development forward.
Let us return to the question of whether it is more important to be morally right than factually right. I belong to those who believe that there is an overarching morality. Not everything is permitted; some things are set in stone. Most people have a moral compass that rejects murder, violence, threats, theft, etc., but also cannibalism, paedophilia, incest, usury, lying and deceit.
In addition, it is also important to base one’s reasoning on facts. If migrants are responsible for the majority of crimes in a country, then the first reaction should not be to hide or downplay the figures, or to try to change who is considered to be the indigenous population, etc. No, something should be done about the actual problem.
One could argue that without being right on the issue, one cannot really be morally right either. Morality often rests on factual issues, where a general consensus has been developed – often through religion – over thousands of years. And now, from the 20th century onwards, a handful of modernists have decided that all laws and conventions can be broken, and that we can turn our existence upside down. Often for their own amusement, and because it is profitable.
