Modern philosophy lacks a coherent explanation for the nature of morality. There are roughly three kinds of response to this predicament: the religious, the objective, and the anti-objective.

The religious response is intellectually indefensible, but in some of its more evolved forms contains considerable moral wisdom. The objective approach shares with the religious approach a commitment to the existence of an objective right and wrong, but freely admits that the philosophical justification for this commitment remains to be elucidated. The anti-objective approach is founded on the denial of the existence of an objective right and wrong; and on looking instead to procedural mechanisms for developing a consensus about moral values.

The most notable feature of this anti-objective approach is that its adherents hate their pro-objective opponents, more than they hate outright doers of evil. That is how they come to be systematic apologists for evil -- time and again they conclude that their enemy's enemy is their friend.

This is the underlying explanation for the political morality of a great swath of Western intellectuals, including most academics. We need a succinct descriptive term in order to facilitate discussion of this widespread and culturally malign mentality, of which Dominique de Villepin is such a shining paragon.

In the service of this cause, Villepin deserves all the recognition we can give him.