Let us assume for the sake of argument that a person has made a statement that can be construed as morally wrong.
(You will notice that I have purposely not given an example of such a statement. This is because I wish to discuss how such a statement is dealt with and not to criticise or discuss the merits of what such a statement may be.)
There are two ways a society can deal with a thought that is contentious. There is no middle ground; both ideas are anathema to each other. These ways are;-
1) A culture of self appraisal
The culture debates the pros and cons of an argument and decides whether it is justified.
2) A state defined consensus of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’.
This could be a justified universal idea such as a law which prevents harm to others or merely a socially accepted ‘truth’.
Again, you will notice that there is no ‘middle ground’ between these ideas.
However, you will also notice that in the second idea, there is no space for leverage, discussion or argument.
It is wrong because it is.
As you can see, a reliance on the second way of dealing with the contentious statement can lead to a dissolution of personal freedom in the way the the first option does not. This is political correctness in action.
I will give an example.
First person: ‘All war is wrong!’
Second person: ‘But the country next door has always been our friend and is asking for help to overthrow the evil dictator who has assumed control of it! Surely war is something we should consider?’
First person: ‘You can’t say that you advocate war! This is politically incorrect! You are a dangerous dissenter and you must be silenced!’
Now, in the example of the universally accepted truth such as the prevention of harm to others, the second idea – the state defined consensus of what is right and what is wrong is certainly a good thing – however, as we have seen, with an incomparable subject such as a political discussion it is quite catastrophic to personal freedom.
The essential difference in the way this issue is being dealt with is an issue of power. In a culture of self appraisal, this power is given to everyone. In the culture of state defined ethics, this power is given to the state.
From now on, I will refer to the culture of state defined ethics as ‘political correctness’.
As we have seen in the example I gave earlier, political correctness does not allow for discussion. In this example, it was not ‘politically correct’ for the second person to suggest that the war may be justified, and so the discussion was stopped dead. The issue of the war was not even addressed.
Political correctness is a philosophical descendant of ‘critical theory’. Critical theory is a deliberately formulated way of discrediting political dissent that can be traced back to Marxism. The basic sentiment behind it is that if you make it ‘wrong’ for people to say something, you halt all discussion.
‘Critical theory’ and ‘political correctness’ are in direct contradiction to the idea of a culture of self self appraisal.
Let us imagine that a culture has submitted the power of ‘political correctness’ to a state.
Is the state always right?
This is the flaw in political correctness.
In the state of Nazi Germany, it was considered ‘politically correct’ to discriminate against jews, which is very wrong.
I will give another example.
Let us assume that an assertation is made that access rights to children of divorce are generally abused by women.
This may be politically incorrect. But is it right?
This is why the MRM is against the idea of political correctness and instead encourages self appraisal. Without political correctness, this argument is free to stand on its own merits and be assessed instead of being instantly dismissed.
Feminists often use this political correctness as a means of stopping these issues even being addressed. Before the argument is even considered, the person making it may be discredited as a ‘misogynist’.
Amazingly, in making this view available and supporting a plea for a rejection of political correctness in favour of a culture of open self appraisal, the person making it is accused of unspoken hateful sentiment!
As you can see in this hypothetical example, political correctness does not even have to make sense! Consider how differently this argument may progress if it was released to a culture that practises self appraisal. It may be considered a fallacy – but at least it would be considered!
The power to decide what is ‘correct’ belongs with society.