JS Mill's error, and Pelosi and Michelle Obama's banalities

The true character of Mill’s error is  clear. 

It did not lie in his assigning a political significance to a philosophical disagreement. 

It lay rather in his supposing that the political or ideological significance of a particular philosophical theory attaches to that theory as such, and not to that theory as it is advanced in specific social and political circumstances. 

It is in and from particular contexts that theories gain ideological power.

To understand this is a necessary preliminary to recognising how what is substantially one and the same philosophical debate may in different situations have quite different social and political significance.

ergo: Think of all those dopy American politicians (Pelosi/Harris/Booker and the jaw dropping banalities of Michelle Obama) boning on about morality as if it was a constant rather than what it is - culturally relative.

Such 'personalities; with their  exclusive appeal to inner experience - you might call them 'Emersonian Transcendentalists' disregard in a cavalier fashion the the historical element in religion/morality

They believe and the dopy uneducated media don't challenge them
that just by mouthing something it warrants theistic type conclusions.

They Pelsoi et al argue with  systematic insistence that the higher 'morality must be vindicated, yet the 'moral' argument can  only be vindicated  an appeal to rational argument based upon evidence