A story ran on the internet last week about Amazon.com offering for sale an eBook called The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct.
Amazon originally defended the decision to sell the book claiming they weren’t into censorship: “Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable…”
Later, as the outrage of its customers mounted, Amazon relented and decided the prudent–or profitable–thing to do was to engage in censorship.
Amazon’s dilemma is typical of so many post-moderns who believe no one is competent to morally judge any conduct. But what is that based upon?
It’s not based on instinct or conscience because neither suggests such an imperative; in fact they suggest the opposite. Both repeatedly make moral judgments about ourselves and others.
Amazon assumes man is morally incompetent to say, “This is right and this is wrong” about anything. And if that is the case, how do they know it is wrong for them to engage in censorship?
If you don’t affirm anything, you must accept everything, and this is the problem at Amazon. Because they apparently endorse no ethos, they are unable to make a judgment call about any moral issue, and that does make them moral incompetents. GS