What Would You Do to Achieve Heaven?
If you believe that heaven is attainable, what will you do to attain it? If you believe that heaven is attainable not just for yourself, but for all of mankind (if not for every member), then what will you do to attain it? Wouldn’t you think that you have a moral obligation to make sure that heaven is attained? Even if you have to use unsavory means?
Herein lies the problem with utopian thinking. If you really, truly believe that an ideal world can be attained, then it makes no sense to argue that one shouldn’t do what one must to attain it.
Understanding this, you can begin to understand the actions of pretty much every fanatic on earth, be they religious or secular, whether they believe heaven to be otherworldly or realizable on earth. It would be evil to prevent anyone from reaching heaven, so it is vital to eliminate those who would stand in the way of any paths to heaven.
The Inquisition was necessary to eliminate those who, working with Satan, would prevent anyone from reaching heaven. The Stalinist purges were necessary to eliminate those who, working with evil capitalists, would prevent anyone from reaching the Marxist heaven of communism. And now we see the rise of the Social Justice Warriors, today’s inquisitors, seeking to eliminate those who would prevent them from reaching their postmodern progressive utopia. They declare language violence so they can justify true violence in order to achieve their ends. And the ends are all that matter.
This is a natural outcome of the idea that the only thing that matters in morals is that one has good intentions. Outcomes don’t matter, so long as you have good intentions. This may seem to contradict what I just noted above, but we will soon see that it gets us there naturally.
Let us say that your goal is to create greater equality. According to the morality of good intentions, no matter what you do, even if the outcomes are the opposite of your goals, so long as you had good intentions, you engaged in good actions. But what happens when, no matter what you do, you always get bad outcomes? Does it mean that you are wrong about your means? People aren’t prone to admit they are wrong, so the “better” option, at least for their ego, is to find someone to blame. Once you have someone to blame, you are on the way to “othering” those people. Many groups come pre-packaged, whether they be the Jews for the Right or Capitalists for the Left (when they Left discover that many Capitalists are Jews, they also tend to become quite anti-Semitic as well). For the Left, the Right are the natural opponents, and for the Right it is of course the Left. And both hate the liberals, who oppose both groups’ illiberal world views.
Once you have your sinners in place, those who are in the way of getting to heaven, then it becomes sensible to target them for extermination to ensure heaven is in fact achieved.
We can then understand the SJW’s opposition to free speech. If people are free to say things that will prevent us from reaching heaven, then we will not get to heaven. Heaven is the most important goal one could possibly have. Thus, we have to stop people from saying anything that will prevent us from getting to heaven. And that means opposing the means of their saying those things — freedom of speech.
And political speech, while the first to go, won’t be the last. Art will be up for censorship, and the idea of “cultural appropriation” is precisely the means of censorship among SJW’s. There is nothing like illiberalism to make people understand how important the arts are. Illiberal world views more than any other have always understood the power of the arts — that’s why they universally censor.
Whether your heaven is a theistic heaven, Marxism, the global caliphate, or achieving social justice, if you believe in one to such a degree that you believe anything should be done to achieve it and anything should be done to prevent anyone from preventing others from getting there, then violence is going to be in your repertoire of permitted actions. And that’s exactly what we are seeing on the rise.
The equation of speech with violence by the SJW’s is just a way to create a psychological comfort zone for initiating violence. If speech is violence, then reacting violently to speech is merely self-defense. And everyone agrees that self-defense is permissible.
The end result of all this will be an escalation of violence. The Right will speak; the Left will initiate violence; the Right will respond with more violence; etc. But violence is all illiberalism (Left or Right) has ever had, for reality has never ceded to its unrealistic, and ultimately inhuman and inhumane, world view.