What Rises To The Top When The Mush Of Situational Ethics and Utility Becomes More Generally Accepted

Considering this post dealing with Donald Trump's blatant denial that he had said things that he is either on video or audio or twitter as having said led me to think about how many times secularists, atheists, anti-Christians, have declared in a pose of ersatz scrupulosity (or, as a statement of sciency  talk-show-guest-university- prof authorized "ethics") that morality is a product of "social consensus".  I've been through that any number of times, pointing out to many an atheist that if that is the case then their mewling and whining that Pew and Gallup say that people say they don't want to vote for atheists is irrational because if that's the case then the "social consensus" as they define it, declares atheists are not to be voted for.  You can extend that to any clearly depraved form of bigotry to any depth of violence.  If it had been the "social consensus" among Nazis that Jews were to be murdered, by that "ethicist" holding, then the Holocaust could not be scientifically held to be wrong because it was the social consensus*.  Adding on the add-on of the most muddle-headed form of that "utilitarianism" isn't much of a help in avoiding depravity.  

The horror of so many of us that we are entering a depraved age when truth, itself, is becoming meaningless exposes the fact that every value we place on the truth is a function of absolute morality which, if that absolute morality is replaced by "situational ethics" or the kind of holding that morality is a product of mere "social consensus" then those finding themselves in an age where that moral value given to the truth is disbelieved or ignored or rejected by a majority or something arriving at the unanimity that such dolts never understand is required to produce a consensus, would have no ground to complain about the value of the truth being jettisoned by such a society. 

*  I wonder how such a "situational ethics" "consensus" based "ethics" would have worked to convince those whose murderous, genocidal conquests produced the Mongolian empire that there was something wrong with what they were doing in what may be the greatest example of genocidal violence in human history.  It would certainly be useful to know more about the thinking of the Mongols than we seem to know, what effect their encounters with the Monotheistic religions and Buddhism had on them.  Or if they would have conquered Europe if a climate fluctuation hadn't stopped them.  If that's what did it. 

We have no less of a potential to reproduce what they did and far worse with modern science and technology and organization and transportation. I wouldn't be surprised if in the near or far future modern mass murderers follow on from Hitler and Stalin and Mao to outdo the the Mongols of the late medieval era.  The period of reemerging fascism we are in certainly makes that possibility more real instead of less. 

I wonder how they can possibly find, never mind explain how anything was wrong about American apartheid in the South, the general disenfranchisement of Women up till the 1920s, etc.  It was certainly not the general acceptance of such modern, sciency schemes that denied the existence of hard, durable and universal holdings of morality that led to that habitual way of thinking changing.  

It is not those whose concept of morality is built on a foundation of mush who change things for the better, when those foundations of more people are based on mush, you get someone like Trump rising like a sheen of scum as it sinks below the surface.