以道德進行鬥爭的手法

【Comment】Former DPP Chairperson Shih Ming-deh questioned DPP leader Tsai Ying-wen’s sexual orientation yesterday and “accused” her for not publicizing it in name of morality.  He insisted that a politician’s sexual orientation, as with his or her property, should be examined by the public.However, it was typical pre-modern-age political struggle to accuse rivals in the name of morality.  That should not be allowed today.  Now, privacy including personal sexual orientation is protected by laws.  Yet the publicizing of government officials’ property is essential to the prevention and investigation of possible corruption in the government.  Privacy and property are totally different!  Why Shih should fail to tell the difference between the two?We have to beware of one important thing behind the report.  Some people seems to be trying to haul Taiwan backward to pre-modern era from 21th century, in the name of culture or morality or something alike after Ma's taking his office.  The Minister of Education asked students to recite literate Chinese classics and behave "properly".  Doesn't it just the reflection of Ma's ideology?  (English revised)

施明德跳出來批評個人隱私的「報導本身」，不值得一提。
值得注意的是，這是一種習慣性與文化性的「道德指控」──幾乎與當年指控王金平是黑金是相同手法。近日民進黨內部的「狼狗相咬」，不但是來自外部的 影響，也是固定手法的不斷重演。
道德指控，沒有也不必要建立「可受公評的是非標準」，一切可任意為之，是前近代社會的政治鬥爭手法。現代政治，基於rule of law（法治主義），不是morale（道德）、也不是rule by law（法條主義）。
這又與近幾年來台灣社會一股返祖、反智，要將台灣拉回前近代的力量（如文言文復興、中華文化基本教材必修、批評畢業典禮玩過頭等）互為呼應。不違法的隱私權，才現代與進步的文明概念。
而財產公布，並不是基於「隱私權的可窺視性」，而是基於「防止貪瀆的公益」。
事件背後的力量，不是施明德願意理解的。
很好奇，「紅十字會理事」洪秀柱等人怎麼看？