posted
One of the issues that divides our society at the moment is the question of morality. It seems that half our country cares very much about the classic ideals of "good" and "evil" while the other half shies away from such quaint, outdated notions. "Whose definition of good and evil do you use?" they ask. "The Christians'? The Muslims'? Whose?"
This division was brought into the forefront of our political discourse right after the most recent presidential election. Exit polls showed that, to Bush voters, "moral issues" were the most important factor in their decision. Democrats got all stirred up about the implication that a Republican vote was somehow "more moral" than a Democratic vote. "Providing for the poor is a moral issue! Fighting greedy capitalists is a moral issue!"
And I'm not really here to debate that. I mean, yes, everything is a moral issue. But I doubt you can pitch an economic or health plan in moral terms and really get anyone's attention. For some reason, Americans have a hard time considering an issue to be "moral" when it involves money. Take that as you will.
The observation I'm actually trying to get to, though, is this. Conservatives get "moral" votes, in part, because they still speak in terms of right and wrong, good and evil — esoteric ideas that depend heavily on religious philosophies that they share with their constituents.
On the other hand, I've noted that liberals, here and elsewhere, don't typically use those words at all. Instead of appealing to moral or religious authority, they adopt a few different approaches.
(1) Doing it my way will result in fewer deaths, or less discomfort.
(2) My way is healthier.
(3) Why shouldn't it be my way? I'm not hurting anyone.
Number (1) is a favorite during abortion debates. "If you outlaw abortion, then tens of thousands of teenage mothers will die each year from back-alley abortions." Or during drug law debates. "If we legalize drugs, all those innocent marijuana dealers can stay out of prison and make room for the real bad guys." Or during debates about sexual mores. "Your kids will have sex anyway, but our way, at least they'll have condoms."
Number (2) appeals to modern psychology to determine whether a certain feeling or behavior is "healthy" or "unhealthy". For example, it is unhealthy to be sexually repressed. It is healthy to experiment with sexual orientation as a teenager. Children who suffer corporal punishment are rendered unhealthy. Children raised in daycare or without a father end up perfectly healthy. Statements like this replace any declarations of "right" or "wrong" in certain discussions.
Number (3) appeals to the American ideal of freedom, and works by forcing the opposition to appeal to their own religious convictions, which, in many circles, automatically invalidates their opinion. For example, from a recent debate here on Hatrack, "If someone wants to walk down the street naked, why should that be against the law? He/she isn't hurting anyone, and it's only our silly Puritanical culture that says it's wrong."
So, finally, here's the observation I'm actually making. These three appeals (and others like them) are not actually substantially different from conservative appeals to "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil". All of them, at some level, assert a completely arbitrary statement of value that cannot be proven or established, but that can only be agreed to by choice.
For instance, the "my way results in fewer deaths" argument asserts the following value:
Preserving human life (or in some cases, comfort) is more important than any other relevant consideration.
This arbitrary value is attractive at first. After all, no one wants to be dead. But in truth, most people adhere to a personal moral code that, at some point or another, encourages them to value something higher than the preservation of their own lives. Many people would risk their lives to protect their homes or their children or their community. Most American religious systems encourage people to value their morals more than their lives — the idea being that a short life lived well results in greater human happiness than a long life ill-spent.
When it comes down to specific debates, people who hold such belief systems are unpersuaded by the "we'll save lives" argument because to them, survival isn't worth living with blood on your hands.
And in the lighter debates that are more about comfort than survival, many of these same people believe that discomfort is a vital part of self-improvement. People should reap negative consequences for certain actions, because if they did not, then those actions would become increasingly common at an exponential rate. And (possibly more importantly) the individual might not ever learn to make better choices, and could continue to perpetuate their, and others', misery.
Another example. The concept of "healthy" versus "unhealthy" asserts a wide range of arbitrary values. How exactly is it that we determine human mental health? How does it feel to be a healthy human, versus an unhealthy human? Does it feel different? Can it be "felt" at all? Or only observed and codified? And by whom?
I remember a debate on Hatrack a while ago about a man who voluntarily allowed himself to be chopped up and eaten alive as part of an intense sexual experience. Roughly half of the participants in the debate considered his desire to be eaten "unhealthy" and the other half considered it within the bounds of human "normalcy" and thought that there was nothing wrong with the man's decision.
That discussion highlighted the great weakness of the "health" versus "unhealth" appeal. In truth, it is even more arbitrary than "right" versus "wrong". Someone is mentally healthy if we choose to recognize their thought and decision patterns as normal and acceptable. They are unhealthy if we do not. In that particular debate, the latter group adopted the arbitrary definition that:
It is healthy to pursue whatever sexual desires you might feel, short of hurting another person. A desire to die is also healthy, and should not be treated or prevented.
According to whom? According to the people who say so. Nothing more.
Lastly, the third appeal involves a very simple, arbitrary assertion:
Individuals should be free to behave how they wish in public. This desire for free expression trumps the desire not to experience it. Arbitrary cultural taboos have no value compared to this important consideration.
This is the value asserted by some smokers, who feel that their right to smoke should always outweigh someone else's desire not to smell it. Yet the entire idea that human behavior should be largely limit-free, and that in any disagreement over such an issue, the problem lies with the observer and not with the perpetrator, is an arbitrary value that disagrees with many people's personal moral compasses, which lead them instead to feel that human interactions should be governed by an arbitrary layer of polite behavior that cushions potentially abrasive conflicts of interest.
What is the point of all this? The point is that while certain groups use words other than "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil", nevertheless, the debate has not changed. It is still entirely about arbitrary human values which must be determined and agreed upon by our society. Couching "good" and "evil" in different terms does not make them more scientific or less arbitrary. It only obfuscates the issue.
What many people also do not seem to understand is that many of the words they have chosen to use with positive connotations (eg, "healthy", "free") actually reflect ideas that are synonymous with other folks' definitions of "wrong" and "evil" (eg, "expressing your inner desires without restraint", "doing whatever you want, without consideration for others").
When people who still use the old-fashioned words hear that the Democratic party is planning to make themselves seem more "moral" by pitching their existing strategy with new terms, perhaps you can see why the attempt falls flat. Changing the words does not change the debate. None of us have moved beyond the arbitrary concept of "good" and "evil". Some of us have a different lexicon, but the debate is still the same — we simply disagree about which set of arbitrary values we ought to accept.
I just wanted to be sure we all realized that we're on an equal footing here.
[ February 13, 2005, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exit polls showed that, to Bush voters, "moral issues" were the most important factor in their decision.
I don't know if that's right. I'm actually pretty sure it's not and that terrorism and Iraq tied with moral values at 22%, but that there is so much cross-over that if we lumped "defense" as one catagory, defense would be the overwhelming winner.
quote:So, finally, here's the observation I'm actually making. These three appeals (and others like them) are not actually substantially different from conservative appeals to "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil". All of them, at some level, assert a completely arbitrary statement of value that cannot be proven or established, but that can only be agreed to by choice...Some of us have a different lexicon, but the debate is still the same — we simply disagree about which set of arbitrary values we ought to accept.
It doesn't seem that my values are arbitrary, unless you think that my aversion to rape is a matter of fancy. For the most part, my sense of propriety is a function of thought most adequately described Kant's Groundwork with other reasonable intuitions. Maybe your values are arbitrary, but that's you. Then again, I don't have a problem saying that some people are living diseased lives as a result of thoughtlessness and poor decisions.
Some views are properly controversial, but calling them seems arbitrary degrades the issue. Actually, calling them arbitrary is a judgment that opens the way for empiricism and cybernetics. It's like saying that there is only an arbitrary difference between four organisms sitting around a sphere and a family dinner, or between marriage and mating, and it seems to me that that's an impoverished view of beings.
posted
This example might fit your concerns, Geoff. An associate of mine is a registered Democrat, but a very devout Methodist. She voted for Bush because of Kerry's pro-choice stance on abortion. Otherwise, she agreed with nearly everything Kerry was campaigning for. However, her moral stance on pro-life issues nullified any chance of a vote for Kerry and trumped her political views...
posted
Irami, I think there are a few aspects of my position that I didn't properly get across.
First, my main issue here is not that all human judgment is arbitrary, and therefore faulty, but rather that if we have determined that ONE set of human judgments (good and evil, right and wrong) can be considered arbitrary, then it is worth noting that the competing judgments (healthy and unhealthy, why not if it doesn't hurt anyone) are just as arbitrary. It would be silly and unfair to give one set of judgments the upper hand just because they use more modern terminology.
Second, it is actually pretty easy to assemble a list of things that are valuable to humans, and face no disagreement from anyone. Humans want long lives, prosperity, self-determination, pleasure, fulfilling relationships, freedom from conflict, etc. Preferably, we'd like all of them at once, and for no cost.
But disagreements arise when these values come into conflict with one another — when we must decide, as a society, whether safety is more important than freedom, or whether one life is more important to preserve than another, or whether self-determination is more important than freedom from conflict. We can't actually have all of them at once, so we must make judgment calls.
The value judgments that I labeled as "arbitrary" are the ones that attempt to adjudicate between two or more different values that people hold dear. Each of these values, alone, is pretty self-evidently important, and you can trace its importance right down to the most basic, unassailable human needs. But when you watch different people prioritizing different values over one another in different situations, and when you watch some of the resulting debates (such as the one about the German guy who wanted to be eaten alive), the word "arbitrary" seems to be the only one that applies.
Which brings me to my third point. When I use the word "arbitrary" in this context, I don't actually mean to suggest that these decisions are made completely at random, based on a whim or the roll of a die. What I mean is that they are decided on the basis of factors OTHER than logic or empirical evidence. Such a nebulous ideal as "the right thing for a human to do" is impossible to completely nail down to a hard, scientific foundation, and because of that, to some degree or another, unprovable human judgment must enter into the equation. Such judgments are, by their nature, arbitrary.
posted
I would certainly agree with you on the fundamentally arbitrary nature of judgment claims, Dog. At least at a very deep level.
On the other hand, there are more and less rich theories of "good" and "evil" -- more and less developed, more and less relevant, more and less rigorous.
[Edit: I'm not saying any particular group has a lock on any particular sort of theory, BTW. I am saying that one can have a basis for ranking moral systems that -- although itself also arbitrary at some very deep level -- is more substantive than just "I like it." Just as I can distinguish between a well-written, crafted short story by OSC and one that was dashed off by a high school freshman with an assignment due in 5 minutes. Arbitrarily? Yes, at some level. But more substantive than just that.]
quote: I mean, yes, everything is a moral issue. But I doubt you can pitch an economic or health plan in moral terms and really get anyone's attention. For some reason, Americans have a hard time considering an issue to be "moral" when it involves money. Take that as you will.
I won’t. Considering how much more the Bible, both Old and New Testaments has to say about money than about sex, I find this statement to be religiously untenable. Poverty, housing, employment, war, crime, caring for the environment, human rights, etc are not only moral issues they are religious issues and this claim can not be dismissed as democrats getting “stirred up” by a political challenge.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Just as an aside -- Dana, did you know my spouse holds you in the highest regard? We were discussing this the other day as per a thread on GreNME. He always looks forward to your posts, and he has most high standards for such things. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The complicating factor is that when analyzing a policy, there are moral and amoral considerations: 1) the amoral analysis of the expected results, both intended and unintended - this is often highly disputed; 2) the moral worth of the intended results; 3) the moral acceptability of the unintended results; and 4) the moral acceptability of the means used to achieve the results. This is further complicated by the fact that 2 can influence the analysis of 3 and 4.
Most public policy dispute is about 1 - whether because there is genuine disagreement about the policy's results, or because someone is modifying the expected results in order to marshall arguments for 2 and 3.
Problems arise when people aren't clear on which aspect of the analysis they are discussing. But there can be no meaningful discussion of public policy without an amoral and moral component to the discussion. Often 2 will sort itself out quickly - most people believe it is a moral good to have a society in which people do not randomly shoot each other. But even in those cases, morality is still in play via 3 and 4.
I can't think of a single issue where the moral and amoral questions aren't in dispute by a large percentage of the population.
Edit: In other words, to actually address the topic, there is no replacement for "good" and "evil." People who are trying to suggest replacements are merely hiding their use of the concepts behind other words.
posted
Geoff, I think you've mischaracterized several of those moral arguments. I think the simple way to boil down your post is this: religious conservatives continue to appeal to a single higher moral authority, whereas true liberals do not presume this shared value and therefore seek consensus on multiple value statements.
This is, I submit, a powerful advantage of the liberal mindset.
Consider that the statement "why not if it doesn't hurt anyone" is actually the basis of most modern law. As dismissive as you are of the concept, the simple fact is that perceived harm is indeed the key to legislation and taboo. The difference, of course, is that some forms of harm are not provable. For example, it is not possible to prove that premarital sex, sodomy, or taking the Lord's name in vain are inherently harmful to the individual or to society; however, societies have throughout history believed this to be the case, and illegitimized those behaviors based on this arbitrary belief. Contrast this with, say, the growing taboo against public smoking, largely driven by conclusive proof that second-hand smoke is physically harmful.
"We can't actually have all of them at once, so we must make judgment calls."
This is absolutely true. Sartre complained about it at length. But suggesting the conservative approach -- to insist that one set of arbitrary standards is superior to another, and to brook no conversation or compromise on that issue -- is hardly an improvement. And, yes, Biblical standards of morality are completely arbitrary.
------
Dag, I disagree also with your assessment, unless you mean to say that "evil" in its purest form means "harmful." I know many people who would not concede to the concept of "evil," but would oppose a policy based on perceived harm. And yet many conservatives seem unwilling to equate the two concepts, leaving me inclined to believe that there IS both a perceived and functional distinction.
posted
There is much I would like to discuss here, especially about what I see as the misrepresentation of Liberal ideals by conservative pundits. Right now I don't have time, so I'll be back.
One thing I can comment on is your argument against #3.
quote: Preserving human life (or in some cases, comfort) is more important than any other relevant consideration.
is an assumption, that you follow with the argument that a short virtuous life is prefered to a long life of worthlessness.
I agree that I would rather give my life for a worthy cause than to live long in an immoral life.
However, I do not think it is within my power to condemn others to a short virtuous life for a cause I believe is worth while.
It is the argument of the terrorist and the meglomaniac to say, "My cause is right and worth the lives of those I kill."
While it is noble and right to give your life for your ideals on abortion, it is a bit egotistical to say that the lives of those young girls killed by back alley abortionists is worth your ideals.
(Side note, I am not arguing that more or fewer lives would be lost by illegalizing abortion. That is an entirely different debate. I am just using Dog's example to demonstrate what I see as a flaw in his arugment.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I disagree also with your assessment, unless you mean to say that "evil" in its purest form means "harmful." I know many people who would not concede to the concept of "evil," but would oppose a policy based on perceived harm. And yet many conservatives seem unwilling to equate the two concepts, leaving me inclined to believe that there IS both a perceived and functional distinction.
The opposition to a policy based on "perceived harm" requires two levels of moral judgment: 1) the definition of harm must take a concept of morality into account. 2) the moral precept that policies that cause "harm" should be opposed.
Dagonee
Edit: The statement "'evil' in its purest form means 'harmful' is merely pushing the level of analysis one step removed; it's merely the substitution of one ill-defined term for another.
quote:While it is noble and right to give your life for your ideals on abortion, it is a bit egotistical to say that the lives of those young girls killed by back alley abortionists is worth your ideals
Such an assessment requires ignoring the element of choice involved, as well. So before using the word "egotistical," we'd have to start throwing around the word "responsible" as well.
posted
Geoff, I think your choice of examples, and the suggested reasoning behind them are really you just projecting a jaundiced viewpoint.
I think it might stem from you seeming to assume that the conservatives really ARE the ones who care about real "morality" whereas progressives or liberals care about "something else" that can't be called morals or ethics.
From my viewpoint, I think there's a more subtle divide. I think Conservatives care more about being consistent and look for a set of rules that are going to hold true for everyone. From that perspective, certainly, every departure from "the rules" can seem like a violation of socially agreed upon morals or ethics.
For most of the liberals I know, it isn't that morals and ethics are secondary considerations, but that point of view and personal experience are important in figuring out what the moral, just and ethical thing is in every situation.
It's probably the root of the reason why to most liberals, Conservative arguments always seem simplistic and even jingoistic. We believe the complexities are more important and that individual circumstances should be considered. It harms consistency in application of rules, but may, it is hoped, mean that justice is achieved more frequently.
Of course, I understand that from a more Conservative viewpoint, my application of the rules may certainly seem like encouraging immorality and rule breaking. Hence it begins to look immoral ipso facto.
My assertions that I care a great deal about running a moral society fall on deaf ears beyond the point where I assert that consistency is not necessary or the most important factor.
At least...that's my experience and the current conclusion I've reached.
quote:I am saying that one can have a basis for ranking moral systems that -- although itself also arbitrary at some very deep level -- is more substantive than just "I like it." Just as I can distinguish between a well-written, crafted short story by OSC and one that was dashed off by a high school freshman with an assignment due in 5 minutes. Arbitrarily? Yes, at some level. But more substantive than just that.
That's as appropriate an analogy as I've heard, I only disagree in that CT thinks that at the bottom is a matter of taste, and I think that there is a reason, at the very bottom, for the difference between the story dashed off and the other story. The other story is truer to the duties of a story, that is, it situates man within the totality of beings, thereby revealing the moral law and disclosing his destiny, complete with all of the contradictions and excesses. The story can do this without regard to the author's intentions. The story dashed off, on the other hand, does not fulfill these duties.
There is a difference between choosing from taste and deciding from thinking about being. The first is every bit as subjective as you describe, the second is rooted in understanding what the thing is and that is not influenced in the least by taste.
quote: A desire to die is also healthy, and should not be treated or prevented.
Dog,
you're on my territory here. Go away!
Seriously, though, this is an oversimplification of the case being made by "progressives" on assisted suicide and euthanasia. See, they're still horrified by the idea of suicides in relatively young and healthy people - so people like that who want to commit suicide have a "mental illness." Plenty of treatment and prevention advocated, even when its objected to by the young suicidal person.
The statement about wanting to die "being healthy" only applies to the special case of old, ill and disabled people. For now, anyway. The Netherlands does seem to be slowly drifting into a nondiscriminatory mode, but it's still mostly old, ill and disabled people who get the "help" there - and it's the physician's call as to whether they get that "help" or not.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Strictly speaking, if someone really wants to die, who are we to tell them they're wrong? I think it's a cursed stupid desire, but there's no law against being stupid. But surely the right to decide over your own life, and whether it is worth living or not, is truly fundamental?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
that's a nice soundbite, but the only "assistance" on the table is for the target populations I've identified. The group I'm with even filed a brief that stated assisted suicide is something that should be available to everyone who wants it or no one - what's on the table is discrimination, pure and simple.
If it's such a fundamental right, why not offer assistance to everyone? Most suicide attempts fail. Why guarantee success to just that lucky group of old, ill and disabled people?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed you are correct, that is what I was proposing. Why shouldn't we help teenagers who want to die?
Actually, for teenagers it seems to me a valid argument may be made about ages of consent. So, let's say at 21 you are given the right to die, including assistance, if you so choose.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, for teenagers it seems to me a valid argument may be made about ages of consent. So, let's say at 21 you are given the right to die, including assistance, if you so choose.
You can say it, but it has no connection to real legislative advocacy anywhere in the U.S. - or anywhere in the world that I'm aware of. (with the caveat that the Netherlands might be creeping in that direction, but until they divest physicians of their "gatekeeper" function, it's still really about physician autonomy.)
Like I said, though, that has no real connection to "right to die" advocacy in the real world.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't claim it did. I was proposing a philosophical idea, not propounding a political point. (Yay for alliteration!)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be interesting, in a very morbid way, to see a lawsuit by someone in Oregon wishing to avail themselves of medical assistance for suicide when they meet none of the qualifying standards.
As it stands now, wanting to die without a disability or terminal disease is taken almost as prima facia proof that one is incompetent to decide. The flip side is that wanting to die with a disability or terminal disease is seen as a "rational" choice. It's a small step from being "a" rational choice to "the" rational choice.
posted
If the disability presupposes that a person cannot achieve their reasonable goals, the pursuit of which confers a sense of dignity, I think that's an issue.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, how does one determine that the disability itself prevents one from determining one's goals?
In that one simple statement, you've made a sweeping value judgment about disability and the lives of people who have them.
How do you justify singling out disability among other factors? Poverty? Race? Gender?
Or a criminal record, for that matter?
A good case could be made that Andrea Yates has ruined her life beyond repair - but few people would advocate assistance in her suicide. True, some would want to prevent her because they want her to live with the knowledge of what she did for as long as possible. But others just feel it would add to the tragedy.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's an issue. One of those properly controversial issues that doesn't give itself to easy answers.
With Yates, the people who want to make her live out of punishment are petty. There is something sick about that, and it has to do with the fact that those people are using her life as a means to their vindication. It's not respecting her as an individual. The question as to whether her life is ruined by her own action is more complex.
posted
I repeat - lots of people can't meet their goals, reasonable or not. If you single out a single group - one that faces oppression, is often considered a burden or a drain on society - it's just discrimination.
Sorry - maybe I'm being unfair. Your first post indicated you thought this was, if not an easy issue, at least an obvious one. Maybe that's an unfair interpretation based on your second post.
Dunno - the idea that it's more reasonable to kill yourself if you're disabled is a deeply embedded one. It's not thought out rationally, just one of those things picked up via osmosis in the general cultural "white noise." Not really a product of rational analysis but often resistant to rational challenge.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I repeat - lots of people can't meet their goals, reasonable or not. If you single out a single group - one that faces oppression, is often considered a burden or a drain on society - it's just discrimination.
I don't know if it's an issue of meeting their goals as much as reasonably pursuing their goals.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect this is going unsaid, rather than being forgotten, but one of the reasons the desire to commit suicide is not more generally aided is that it tends to pass. Many people who are suffering experience the urge to die and "get it over with"--but for most of those who recover and many of those who don't, they change their minds. They then look back and think, "How foolish I would have been to kill myself. That was an irrational desire."
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't know if irrational is the right word, maybe infelicitous or inappropriate or just plain sad, but I think that fully rational people can want to kill themselves as a result of unfortunate situations. It's kind of like the cookie example, where the right action was at the same time the wrong action, and unlucky circumstances result in an unfortunate event.
posted
Someone pointed out that the examples I chose skew so heavily against the liberal view that I seem to be saying that "liberals are amoral and conservatives are just fine". This isn't actually what I believe, and I've actually been thinking a bit about the fact that, although in my personal life I consider myself to be a moderate, and react both well and badly to both sides, the issues that actually inspire me to post on Hatrack usually skew anti-liberal.
Not pro-conservative, really. Just anti-liberal
I'm starting to wonder why that is. Perhaps because I belong to an overwhelmingly conservative culture, I would feel somehow ... disloyal? ... to air my complaints about such things in public. It might feel as though I were betraying something, though I'm not sure what, since there isn't actually any official political stance involved in my religion or culture. There's an informal assumption that most Mormons are conservative Republicans, but since I openly disagree with "most Mormons" about R-rated movies, caffeine, lay expansion of the canon, and other arcane doctrinal issues, it's strange that I don't often air my disagreements on political issues.
Perhaps the fact that a ... er ... close member of my family has come down hard on the conservative side with a very public opinion on just about every topic makes me hesitant about starting something, too
I don't know. Either way, yes, this largely semantic issue is a gripe I've had with liberals, in particular, lately. But don't take this to mean that I think they're the only one with problems
dkw, very early in the thread, you attempted to disagree with me on whether or not economic issues could be pitched as moral issues. But I think we're talking past each other. I DO think they ARE moral issues. My comment stated that, for some reason, Americans seem to compartmentalize "money issues" away from "moral issues" and it is very difficult to get them to see the latter as the former.
In fact the quickest way to derail and demolish a moral issue is to turn it into a money issue, as many pundits have learned. Once you point out that someone is profiting, in some way, from an issue, they instantly become the badguy, regardless of the moral question involved ... and if both sides are profiting, Americans get positively nihilistic
So I guess in a sense that money is the ultimate moral issue, but it is so overwhelming in its scope that it gets a category of its own
PS: Does it drive anyone else crazy when TV and radio personalities refer to "political pundANTs"?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another guess. Maybe I get annoyed at liberals more often because there are so many here, so I read more of their opinions, and with a larger pool of people to draw from, the crazy ones shwo up more frequently ... while the conservative side on Hatrack is most prominently represented by one guy who is unusually fairminded and well-spoken about his positions.
[ February 13, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
You call yourself moderate so much. I just don't know what's going on when you do that. Are you trying to convince yourself? I don't know if calling yourself an anything does anything except tell people where you see yourself, but it does not have any bearing on what you say or how you are perceived. Unless, of course, if you were horribly self-deluded, in which case it would highlight that you were deluded and again, that would still not inform anyone's opinion on your stand.
Fundamentally, we are going to part right here:
quote: It is still entirely about arbitrary human values which must be determined and agreed upon by our society.
In my blood, I don't have democratic tendencies. I vote. I like elections. I think democracy, as we conceive it, is a degradation of humanity. Whether people agree is usually completely independent of whether they are right or wrong or inappropriate or appropriate about anything important. While agreement does make things easier, I'm not one of those people who believe that ease alone is something that adults should seek. Majority rule and even consensus properly break down about issues that matte. The idea that accounting for everyone's mere preference is ever the right way to decide a non-trivial action is absurd.
There is no virtue in simply getting everyone to agree, there is a dignity in getting people to think, and if the result is deep, considered disagreement, it's worth fifty of the cheap agreements and horse trades that we approve of today.
Edit:
As far as money and morality goes, I think your dad put it pretty well when he said:
"And I find it extremely discomfiting that, really to a shocking degree, love of money has pervaded Mormon society. It's something that as a people we have great cause to repent of. I think it will lead to our condemnation in the eyes of God. When I talk that way, there are some people who are extremely troubled because they think I'm saying that they're wicked. And they're correct -- I am."
They belong together, where some people believe that politics exists for the sake of money, I'm pretty sure that money exists for the sake of politics.
quote: while the conservative side on Hatrack is most prominently represented by one guy who is unusually fairminded and well-spoken about his positions.
While we're certainly blessed in that regard nowadays, it's worth noting that this has absolutely not been the case historically. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, you're correct that a moral value is not made RIGHT just because people agree to it. However, it also will not WORK unless people accept it, somehow or another. That's why we have these debates — to try and persuade other people to accept our vision of right and wrong, because it is the only way, ultimately, that our vision of society will ever come to pass.
I'm pretty sure I'm a moderate because whenever I listen to conservative talk radio, I have a hard time going ten minutes without screaming, "Shut up, you RETARD!!" (And then immediately apologizing to the mentally-disabled community.) The only guy I actually appreciate who plays on my local station here is Alan Colmes, a moderate Democrat, if you can figure that out.
I also get really annoyed at Fox News for their blatant bias. While the conservatives that I know (like my father, for instance) usually feel like they're watching Fox News for a refreshing dose of truth.
So, I don't know. I'm definitely to the right of most of the more vocal Hatrack members, but when I go somewhere filled with right-wingers, I feel positively left. Maybe I've just got a good BS detector.
[ February 14, 2005, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I want to point out, Geoff, that the necessary implication of this statement is that the more vocal liberals -- and conservatives -- on this site are full of B.S.
I'd disagree. Certainly, there's at least one B.S. liberal for every B.S. conservative; we could match Thor up against Bean Counter, for example. But none of the really vocal liberals, even the ones that're way left of my own position -- like, say, Paul, Sara, or Aja -- are really all that full of crap. They're able to articulate the reasons behind their positions without savaging the other side of the aisle, and that's really about the most we can ask of political discussion nowadays. *wry laugh*
There's a tendency to assume that because you fall between one of two extremes that you must be right. (I do it myself sometimes, to my chagrin.) But on some issues that's like saying that because a fire is either burning or not that it's more likely to be in a weird semi-burning state. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it comes down to specific debates, people who hold such belief systems are unpersuaded by the "we'll save lives" argument because to them, survival isn't worth living with blood on your hands.
At least in regards to the abortion debate, there's blood on their hands either way. It's just a question of whose blood: an innocent child or an irresponsible almost-parent. Or, looked at another way, a nearly inanimate collection of cells or an obviously living, breathing, feeling human being. You can look at it however you like, but saying that it "isn't worth living with blood on your hands" is a pretty gross oversimplification.
quote:This is the value asserted by some smokers, who feel that their right to smoke should always outweigh someone else's desire not to smell it.
While this is true, the reason for smoking bans in public places is not non-smokers' comfort. That secondhand smoke is hazardous to health is about as well-established as things get. So the whole "it doesn't hurt anybody else" argument is not valid.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I have a deadline today so I regret I can't read all the thread right now but the title evokes something I have been thinking about the past few days- I did read Dog's initial post.)
I subscribe to M. Scott Peck's attempt at a clinical definition of evil, which is when a person believes the cannot do wrong. At that point they freeze their moral compass. In a sense, Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit were evil because they had no concept of what it would mean to examine the morality of their actions.
I have been arguing a bit with the Jehovah's Witnesses over Adam's mental capacity prior to the fall and what is meant in the bible by his "eyes being opened". They don't believe any organic change came over Adam, but that he simply realized it was possible to sin. We also disagree on what is meant by "knowing right and wrong" (I take it to mean moral judgement, they take it to mean the ability to declare one's own moral law.) Anyway, mainly we agree to disagree on it because in the end, it isn't that important to me that they don't believe Adam will be resurrected.
Something else I've been thinking about is something Tom said about righties and lefties having different personalities (wingedness, not handedness). What I came up with is that righties believe in an external standard that people can be taught to adhere to. Lefties believe behavior emanates from the nature of a being, either their soul or if they aren't a believing sort, the complexity of their genes and experience.
What illustrates this for me is our attitudes toward incarceration. Righties believe that the existence of strict prison sentences and possibly capital punishment should serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. Whereas lefties... well, it would be hard to say what they think since I'm not one anymore. But the idea of prison as a treatment for a problem rather than punishment seems to be a lot of it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, there are different degrees of "full of crap" I do have a general sense that the more extreme a person's political stance, the more likely they are to be wrong. It's not a guarantee by any means, but in order to fuel the passion of extremity, a person must at some point start ignoring or dismissing some valid concerns on the other side of their issue, which in my mind renders them less capable of viewing the issue fairly and intelligently.
Again, I don't rely on this like it's some kind of scientific axiom or anything. But it does seem to generally hold up against experience.
As far as the whole "being in the middle = being right" issue goes, there are lots and lots of different ways to be moderate on a given issue. Being in the middle could mean you're fairminded and unwilling to get railroaded by people with an agenda. It could also mean that you're uninformed and unwilling to make a decision (though again, moderation in such an instance is better than blind extremity). But it doesn't always mean the same thing.
For one example, being "moderate" on abortion could mean that you favor a ban on the basis that potential human life has intrinsic value, but believe that certain cases supersede that value, and should be permitted on a limited basis.
But it could also mean that you oppose abortion on personal moral grounds, but don't feel it should be legislated against, and fight to prevent a ban, while agreeing with people who seek to restrict the more extreme cases, such as partial-birth abortion.
Those two "moderates" would still vehemently disagree with one another (and naturally, some extremists would find either of them "too left" or "too right"). So being moderate means they're thinking for themselves and not adopting a party line ... but it doesn't instantly mean that they're correct.
quote:You can look at it however you like, but saying that it "isn't worth living with blood on your hands" is a pretty gross oversimplification.
saxon, I wasn't trying to actually debate that issue, and you're right, it is an oversimplification. My point I wanted to make, though, was: The fact that a particular value sounds universal doesn't mean it can't be superceded by another value that is more important to many people. So while we might be able to agree that human life (for instance) has value, it is still arbitrary (read: up to us as individuals) how we determine which values to put ahead of others in any given instance. So saying "More people will die" doesn't instantly trump "This act is morally evil" or "People are responsible for the consequences of their choices". Saying that it does simply proposes a new arbitrary system of moral values that is no more valid than any other. It doesn't supercede the old ones, as some people seem to believe.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:While this is true, the reason for smoking bans in public places is not non-smokers' comfort. That secondhand smoke is hazardous to health is about as well-established as things get.
That is how it was justified, but in the opinion of many smoking proponents, the science behind the secondhand smoke issue is faulty and fueled primarily by fear and PR work, and it really does come down to comfort.
Personally, I think it's a non-issue. I think the bans are valid for the same reason that littering, public nudity, disturbing the peace, and pissing on a street corner are all against the law. I think any human society has a right to enforce some minimum environmental standards in public areas by preventing some individuals from performing acts that actively degrade the environment for everyone else. Secondhand smoke doesn't have to kill people for it to be wrong, in my opinion. All it has to do is cause headaches, excite asthma attacks, or make people cough, and it should at least be considered a candidate for banning.
Obviously, this attitude could be taken to a ridiculous extreme, which is why individual issues like this need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. But I think public smoking, in particular, has proven to be sufficiently obnoxious, and enough of its perpetrators have been shown to be unwilling to bend to the needs of those around them, that laws like this serve a valuable purpose, regardless of the issue of whether it kills people.
But note what secondhand smoke opponents had to do in order to make their arguments convincing. The issue of public politeness and decency has been largely dismissed by our public discourse. The only way you can get anything done these days is to claim that you are saving lives. It's like all the other values have disappeared.
Which is strange to me. After all, we all die eventually anyway, and exactly when and how is largely unpredictable for each individual. A general attempt to lengthen human lives at the expense of other considerations seems like it needs more justification than it receives. I would think that improving the quality of life might sometimes be prioritized above increasing the length of it.
But I suppose that nothing else works quite as well as the fear of death to get people behind your cause. "I don't want to die! Sign me up! I don't care what else I'm losing!" Liberals, feel free to apply this to the Patriot Act so that we can all agree and be happy Conservatives, apply it to Global Warming.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only way you can get anything done these days is to claim that you are saving lives. It's like all the other values have disappeared.
You're sort of arguing against yourself here. If it really is the case that the only way to pass a ban is to claim that you are saving lives then other values, like individualism and self-determination, must be working to oppose the ban.
quote:the opinion of many smoking proponents, the science behind the secondhand smoke issue is faulty and fueled primarily by fear and PR work
I'd never heard this before. Does anyone know of any pro-smoking resources that try to refute the dangers of secondhand smoke? Sounds like it would make interesting reading.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The issue of public politeness and decency has been largely dismissed by our public discourse."
And yet the core of the PC movement, for example, is an appeal to public politeness: to doing unto others as they'd like you to do.
It is precisely because we have attempted to legislate politeness that many people are deliberately and consciously rude, resenting what they feel are infringements on their freedoms: "I have a right to smoke where I like, little lady, and they can't ever take that away from me." It's a position that a smoker would have been unlikely to take thirty years ago, precisely because they didn't think their status as a smoker was threatened. By legislating in response, we force the issue to a head -- for good and ill.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a couple of things I find... amusing? about this whole debate. First, any definition of good and evil is by definition human-centered and arbitrary (unless, of course, you believe in a god who's defined good and evil, and even then I'd point you in the direction of the Euthyphro). As a result, all moral systems are constructed frameworks that cannot be judged in moral terms (whose would you use?), but in logical terms. And of course, the issue with insisting on using logic to evaluate moral systems is that doing so begs the question of why. Why logic? Who says logic is a good tool for evaluating the usefulness of a moral system (because we've already said we can't evaluate the "goodness" of one)? We might just as easily use the universality of the components of such a system, or their historical prevalence, or any other arbitrary means.
What I'm trying to get at is the impossibility of denying ANY moral system without recourse to another one, which of course requires you judge before judging (not terribly helpful).
Another thing I find interesting is the insistence of people who on the surface agree with me on demanding that as a result, all moral systems be given equal respect. Why? How does that follow from the absence of a cosmic moral order? Because it sounds suspiciously like a moral judgment to say that all belief systems are worthy of respect, that each person has a right to define good and evil as she sees fit. Insisting upon individual morality is a contradiction, as it is itself a moral pronouncement made from within a moral framework, and is, as a result, completely incoherent.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB, I agree to an extent, but I also believe that people of all beliefs should be respected (until they prove otherwise), and sometimes one looks like the other.
posted
"Another thing I find interesting is the insistence of people who on the surface agree with me on demanding that as a result, all moral systems be given equal respect"
Well, at least from my perspective (and on the surface I agree with you, but as we've discovered, down at the bottom there are disagrements), I can't KNOW that teh moral system I've constructed does what its supposed to, and I can't know that someone else's doesn't do what I think a personal moral code should do. So, I'll respect other people by allowing them to live out their lives by their own moral code, as long as they don't mess up someone else's life in the process. But that doesn't mean I'll respect the moral code they live by, or believe that it is a good one.
Example of how this works. I believe that drinking enough alchohol to feel any effect of it is morally wrong. But i know other people don't believe this, and if I insisted they live by my moral code, it would be infringing upon their ability to choose their own life, as most of the time, they do not screw up someone else's life by drinking. So I respect their right to drink, in moderation (I don't respect anyone's right to get drunk anywhere other then their own home), but personally believe that their moral code is flawed.
Its a question of toleration vs endorsement vs persectution. I tolerate people with other moral codes, but I don't endorse them, nor do I attempt to stamp them out (unless proven necessary. For example, a moral code that allows rape cannot be even tolerated from the perspective of a society).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
