How Much Morality in Politics?

[Lewkowski]

So here is an open ended question (interpret it as you will).

How much morality should be in politics? How much should politicians urge voters and citizens to do the "right thing." Or purpose a plan/policy because it is the moral/ethical/right thing to do.

Here are several examples of morality play in politics.

1. "We should have a social safety because it is wrong to let people starve."

2. "We should regulate what children eat because it is wrong to allow children to become obese."

3. "We should mandate worship of God." (Insert Islamic/Christian/Jewish/other religion)

4. "We should stop the genocide in Darfur because genocide is evil."

5. "We should make guns illegal because they harm people."

6. "We should go after Saddam because he gassed/murdered a lot of people."

7. "We should outlaw prostitution because it is sinful."

8. "We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they are unfair and wrong."

9. "We should make abortion illegal because killing a baby in the womb in murder."

10. "We should make people wear seat belts because it saves lives."

All of these ideas/political viewpoints are based in morality. Now from an objective viewpoint someone's reason for their moral argument be it secular or theological should make no difference. If one person says we should have laws against prostitution because it is sinful (wrong) how is that different from someone who says we shouldn't let people go hungry in the streets because it is wrong? I ask this question because I suspect that many folks on the forum think religious morality based laws = bad. And yet at the same time they believe secular morality based laws are somehow different and more acceptable.

So how much morality should be in politics and do you see any difference between religious morality and secular morality?

[Aimless]

This thread is a pleasant surprise

I myself have no problems with morality and ethics in politics in principle. I am interested in having my own values supported!

One reason why I distinguish between religious and secular values is that gods and afterlives probably don't exist, whereas our fellow human beings (and the world/societies in which we all live) clearly do. Therefore I believe that our obligations towards real-world people and to the real world trumps those towards gods and afterlives. The rewards (for society) of focusing on the real world are also more real and of more immediate value (specifically thinking of your examples).

There are those who want laws against prostitution because they believe strongly (and possibly for good reasons) that prostitution hurts society or specific members of society in real ways. Rather than out of some belief that prostitution is sinful

[littlelolligagged]

Interesting thoughts, Lewk.

A great deal of secular morality is really based on religious morality. Even if the thought processes behind the beliefs (fear of hell vs. desire to do the right thing, for example) the end results are the same.

[Khendraja'aro]

Interesting thoughts, Lewk.

A great deal of secular morality is really based on religious morality. Even if the thought processes behind the beliefs (fear of hell vs. desire to do the right thing, for example) the end results are the same.

Not necessarily. See: Age of Enlightenment, Kant: Categorical Imperative.

If you do something out of fear it will have a different result than one done out of free will.

[EyeKhan]

So here is an open ended question (interpret it as you will).

How much morality should be in politics? How much should politicians urge voters and citizens to do the "right thing." Or purpose a plan/policy because it is the moral/ethical/right thing to do.

This is a great topic. As a side note, its interesting that you didn't add a very basic moral issue that plagues politics: honesty. Personally, I'd like to see a somewhat rigorous requirement for honesty in political speech.

You hit on the key point here that there's more than 1 kind of morality - secular and theological - and complicating the matter, many moral issues fall into both realms. But there's more to it than just that. When you ask the question how is feeding starving children fundamentally different from outlawing prostitution, with your eye on the secular vs. theological moral conundrum, the answer is in fact quite simple. Prostitution, were it legal and regulated, would be a matter of personal choice and not of life and death, two additional moral characteristics that get more specific than simply god/non-god. Children don't choose to starve and when they do starve, they can die or be afflicted with developmental disorders. However, when a woman takes up the oldest profession, in the context of legal prostitution, she's making a decision freely and the choice won't result in her death. The reason the former is unnacceptable and the latter allowable is rooted in these characteristics, not something to do with religous law.

Moving along, here are my thoughts on the topics you listed:

1. "We should have a social safety because it is wrong to let people starve."

Morally speaking, the above answers this one. There isn't that much difference, morally, in letting children starve vs. adults. There is, however, a more practical dimension to providing for the needy. Starving people that are forsaken by the rest of society have every incentive to attack and rob that society to get food. Desperation creates rebels and thieves and that's bad for everyone.

2. "We should regulate what children eat because it is wrong to allow children to become obese."

This one's good because there's the gluttony issue, a god rooted moral. There's also the quality of life issue - fat people, arguably, have a lower quality of life than fit people. There's also the free choice issue - children are easily exploited by crap food manufacturers and don't understand the health implications of eating bad food. And then there's the practical issue too - fat people are less healthy and put further pressure on the already strained health care system. Theoretically, thinner children in the long term means less overall health care expense.

3. "We should mandate worship of God." (Insert Islamic/Christian/Jewish/other religion)

This one's a no brainer. The argument's already been had, by the Founders themselves. Freedom of religion is no different than freedom from religion. The personal choice of your religous beliefs is something that should not be infringed by society in any form.

4. "We should stop the genocide in Darfur because genocide is evil."

Ugh. This is a tough one. The simple answer is yes, we should. The complex reality is that we may not be able to stop it. Or be willing to shoulder the burden of stopping it. And worse, our efforts to stop it might make matters worse. In this case, the US was already involved in 2 other wars, deeply in debt from all sorts of governmental mismanagement, got a bloody nose trying to do the same sort of thing in nearby Somalia.... Should it have been stopped. Absolutely. Should the US have stopped it? Not sure - why are we the designated world police force? Why not the UN? Could the US have stopped it? Probably, but the cost would have been high, in lives and cash and who knows what else. And the outcome would have been very unpredictable - it could have worsened the genocide, exposed many more innocents to war and carnage, and so on.

5. "We should make guns illegal because they harm people."

This is too simplisitic and you know it. I don't personally know anyone that would vote for this based on this logic. And I don't think its really a moral issue as stated.

6. "We should go after Saddam because he gassed/murdered a lot of people."

See 4 above. Its really the same set of issues.

8. "We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they are unfair and wrong."

There's moral reaons to outlaw racism, both religous and secular. There's practical reasons to outlaw racism. It benefits the country as a whole if all people have the same opportunities. Now, we know that economically that is not the case and righting that inequality entirely would cause far more harm than good, but making sure people don't lose opportunity because of ethnicity is a win-win. I don't see a down side and the up side is big.

9. "We should make abortion illegal because killing a baby in the womb in murder."

Very sticky issue, balancing the rights of a pregnant mom against those of an unborn child. Personally, while I find abortion to be repugnant, I fall on the side of the mom. It's inside her body, it ends up being her responsibility when its born, the burden of the situation is almost entirely on her shoulders, so let her decide what to do about it. No, its not fair to the dad that wants the child, but there's no good way to right that injustice. In the end, while the fetus is a living human-to-be, its not the same thing as a human being. Its more about potential and its quite literally less than human. And there's very practical reasons to allow people with unwanted and inconvenient pregancies to terminate them.

10. "We should make people wear seat belts because it saves lives."

I don't see this as a moral issue at all. On the one hand, this infringes freedom, but on the other hand, the results of car accidents are far worse when people don't belt up. That means higher costs to the medical system and higher costs in terms of dead people who are now not providing for their families and leaving their former employers without a valuable employee, and the like...

So how much morality should be in politics and do you see any difference between religious morality and secular morality?

I would say a lot of morality should be in politics. But it should be the right kind of morality. Honesty and integrity, of course. Concern and help for those who can't take care of themselves. Concern and regard for preserving personal freedom. Concern and regard for maintaining the nations critical systems on which everyone depends, like the health care system, like the economy, and so on. Things like mandating everyone express certain beliefs based on a religion have no place in government.

[']['ear]

So here is an open ended question (interpret it as you will).

How much morality should be in politics? How much should politicians urge voters and citizens to do the "right thing." Or purpose a plan/policy because it is the moral/ethical/right thing to do.

Here are several examples of morality play in politics.

1. "We should have a social safety because it is wrong to let people starve."

2. "We should regulate what children eat because it is wrong to allow children to become obese."

3. "We should mandate worship of God." (Insert Islamic/Christian/Jewish/other religion)

4. "We should stop the genocide in Darfur because genocide is evil."

5. "We should make guns illegal because they harm people."

6. "We should go after Saddam because he gassed/murdered a lot of people."

7. "We should outlaw prostitution because it is sinful."

8. "We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they are unfair and wrong."

9. "We should make abortion illegal because killing a baby in the womb in murder."

10. "We should make people wear seat belts because it saves lives."

All of these ideas/political viewpoints are based in morality. Now from an objective viewpoint someone's reason for their moral argument be it secular or theological should make no difference. If one person says we should have laws against prostitution because it is sinful (wrong) how is that different from someone who says we shouldn't let people go hungry in the streets because it is wrong? I ask this question because I suspect that many folks on the forum think religious morality based laws = bad. And yet at the same time they believe secular morality based laws are somehow different and more acceptable.

So how much morality should be in politics and do you see any difference between religious morality and secular morality?

Failure to define terms ("morality"), failure to apply them evenly (where is the "we should not allow government to dictate to people" entry?), misrepresentation of some of the positions ("We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they are unfair and wrong" should be "We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they prevent a subset of our population from fully accessing their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.").

This thread is a pleasant surprise

Oh ffs, don't be so naive. He's been censured so much and harmed his own agenda so much that he's abandoning the "librulz are stoopid" approach and going for the Loki-esque leading and distorted questions approach of shoving through an agenda. Praise him for finally joining the world of adults, but let's not go overboard; he still being a manipulative git, just more subtle.

[EyeKhan]

Regardless of his intentions, its still an intersting topic.

[Aimless]

Oh ffs, don't be so naive. He's been censured so much and harmed his own agenda so much that he's abandoning the "librulz are stoopid" approach and going for the Loki-esque leading and distorted questions approach of shoving through an agenda. Praise him for finally joining the world of adults, but let's not go overboard; he still being a manipulative git, just more subtle.

I meant that it's nice to have an interesting new discussion-topic on the front page, especially one that may challenge my own views. For the record you'd make a horrible teacher or parent chillax already, try to move on, try to be constructive, it'll do your blood a lot of good. PS. your every objection is Lokiesque. Note how none of those insurmountable problems you highlight are preventing Lolli, Chacha and myself from participating in this discussion.

[']['ear]

I meant that it's nice to have an interesting new discussion-topic on the front page,

Yes, your sporadic parade of insipid threads highlights this priority that you have.

especially one that may challenge my own views.

I'd have been much more open to it had it been honestly presented without spin.

For the record you'd make a horrible teacher or parent

I what way? I should not teach critical thinking and skepticism?

chillax already, try to move on, try to be constructive, it'll do your blood a lot of good.

You mean don't be naive and clueless?

PS. your every objection is Lokiesque.

Really? In what way?

Note how none of those insurmountable problems you highlight are preventing Lolli, Chacha and myself from participating in this discussion.

Perhaps they are more willing to participate in Lewk's partisan games.

[Aimless]

Yes, your sporadic parade of insipid threads highlights this priority that you have.

I challenge you to demonstrate that you've contributed anything of net value to this forum in the past few months (but in another thread please, there's no need for you to add THIS thread to the long list of threads you've destroyed).

I'd have been much more open to it had it been honestly presented without spin.

No offense but you see spin and insults and evil everywhere, and this psychiatric problem of yours is severely harming my ability to enjoy these forums.

I what way? I should not teach critical thinking and skepticism?

You should prioritise the promotion of constructive and interesting discussions over your chip-laden shoulders. It costs you nothing to turn the other cheek, and this has nothing to do with you "teaching critical thinking and skepticism". But while we're on that topic, if your difficult child or your troublesome student does something seemingly good for once then by all means slap the shit out of him like the model instructor you clearly are meanwhile I an Khen will encourage the use of praise over punishment whenever possible

You see where I am coming from?

You mean don't be naive and clueless?

I mean don't see unnecessary clues.

Really? In what way?

Wholeheartedly uncharitable interpretation of every aspect of his post that gives no-one any way to move forward in the discussion in a good way. That's old-school Loki.

Perhaps they are more willing to participate in Lewk's partisan games.

Perhaps they're interested in the subject.

[Khendraja'aro]

I still think that Lewk's approach is deeply flawed, inasmuch as he ignores the basis of secular laws (i.e. Kant et al.). Without mentioning those, we can't have a useful discussion about the difference between religious and secular morals/ethics.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

[Aimless]

PS. let's just agree to not befoul this thread with an unnecessary fracas kthx. there is room in the cloud for all of us, or at least 250 GB/month of us.

[littlelolligagged]

Not necessarily. See: Age of Enlightenment, Kant: Categorical Imperative.

If you do something out of fear it will have a different result than one done out of free will.

So, just as a really loose and lame example (first one that popped into my head)

If I don't steal cars because I'm afraid of being caught or punished (or, of course, going to hell) does it lead to an end result that is different from my not stealing cars because I respect other people's property?

At any rate, care to expand that a little bit? I see what I think you are trying to say, but I'm not sure it entirely applies. I'll wait to respond until you either expand or tell me to fuck off, though.

[']['ear]

I challenge you to demonstrate that you've contributed anything of net value to this forum in the past few months (but in another thread please, there's no need for you to add THIS thread to the long list of threads you've destroyed).

No offense but you see spin and insults and evil everywhere,

Perhaps because a large number of forum members use it, Lewk way foremost amongst them

and this psychiatric problem of yours is severely harming my ability to enjoy these forums.

Given that your ability to enjoy these forums is apparently based on a pollyannish naivete regarding a forum member who has never to date started a thread that didn't serve his extremist agenda, I find myself not caring too much. My enjoyment is derived from exercising critical thinking faculties. Which of us wins? Or must we both co-exist?

You should prioritise the promotion of constructive and interesting discussions over your chip-laden shoulders.

I'm prioritising critical thinking skills; the opening post was clearly Lewk opening a new salvo against "people who don't think like him." If say, catgrrl, posted exactly the same opening post, I'd gently suggest that perhaps there were some flaws in the logic, but all-in-all it was a great post topic. Then again, she'd be highly unlikely to try to manipulate the debate like Lewk did. She'd post probably one or two examples that were objectively summarized. Really, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but if Lewk is shockingly turning over a new leaf after that time, at least he could do so in a way that didn't smell like manipulation.

It costs you nothing to turn the other cheek,

And I have no more right to be cynical than you do to gush?

and this has nothing to do with you "teaching critical thinking and skepticism".

Sure it does. I'm equally cynical and skeptical on almost every topic. Hell, I've trashed Chaloobi for pie-in-the-sky scientific optimism, even though I'm a great lover of science fiction (well, as long as it is well written )

You see where I am coming from?

I'm saying I'd like to see the same thread started without the spin. Dread does this too (though seems to have dropped it) by using histrionic thread titles that create uneven ground for the start of the debate. I criticized Dread for that a couple of times as well.

But I actually DO see where you are coming from. If this were the first time I'd seen a thread like this from Lewk, I'd have abstained, then later jumped in the conversation. Sadly, I've seen the Jekyll/Hyde shift before.

If a werewolf has tried to bite you before, you don't blithely stick out your hand.

Wholeheartedly uncharitable interpretation of every aspect of his post that gives no-one any way to move forward in the discussion in a good way.

Really, what the hell stopped you from debating it? My post made it utterly impossible for you to discuss this? My plan was to toss out that obvious criticism then jump in when the discussion took an interesting turn. but you needed to moralize and preach at my to satisfy your own judgments, thus fulfilling your own prophecy. YOUR problem, not mine.

Besides, is it your habit to engage in arguments with those having "psychiatric problems?" Do you argue with Kathaksung?

At least be consistent in your arguments. If you consider me to have a psychiatric problem, then your arguing with me is at best kind of clueless, and at worst cruel. No?

That's old-school Loki.

Huh, I never noticed him graduating.

Perhaps they're interested in the subject.

Bully! More power to them. Nonetheless, somebody identifying the taint in something is not a bad contribution to any fledgling discussion. Which I think addresses your first point in post #10.

[littlelolligagged]

Tear, is this really necessary? Do you think we're all so stupid we can't see what's in front of us, and we all need you to enlighten us? Is it not possible that possible that more could be gotten from accepting the OP and having a discussion from there, regardless of Lewk's motives?


Could you please just let this one go? Pretty please?

[Khendraja'aro]

So, just as a really loose and lame example (first one that popped into my head)

If I don't steal cars because I'm afraid of being caught or punished (or, of course, going to hell) does it lead to an end result that is different from my not stealing cars because I respect other people's property?

At any rate, care to expand that a little bit? I see what I think you are trying to say, but I'm not sure it entirely applies. I'll wait to respond until you either expand or tell me to fuck off, though.

What I was thinking about was not so much the immediate result - which in both cases would indeed be the same. But the processes leading up to said effect and subsequent long-term results. Your car example, for instance, would mean that as soon as I remove the fear of being caught, the probability of the car being stolen rises massively. Whereas respect for other people's property means that you won't steal the car no matter how opportune it would be.

Effectively, I'm talking about motivation and the old extrinsic vs. intrinsic juxtaposition. Which means that as long as your source of motivation is created externally, you'll run the risk that as soon as you remove that source, you'll also lose the motivation of the individual to refrain from doing something respectively fulfill his obligations. And you only need to lose your belief in God to remove that particular motivation.

Or, to use Kant, it would go against the Second Maxim - "The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end."
In this case, for your religious person fearing hellfire, helping the other person would only be the means to avoid hellfire and thus not be right.

Strangely enough, that case is also brought up in the New Testament where it is said that good deeds should be done for the sake of good deeds - and not because you expect some kind of reward (or lack of punishment).

[Aimless]

I think turning the other cheek/showing a willingness to move forward would do a lot of good in politics. The endless destructive fighting kills people and destroys worlds. If only people weren't so willing to conflate being a crazy asshole towards their enemies with being "realistic", "intelligent", "strong", etc.



I must say I'm not sure I understand what you mean with your remark about the categorical imperative, Khen! Esp. the consequences of basing a decision on fear vs. basing it on feelgoods (apart from the dangers of having a whole society's wellbeing be contingent on whether or not enough people fear prison-rape strongly enough ).

Not sure how the categorical imperative would easily resolve the conflicts posed in Lewk's examples either.

EDIT: Oops, too slow... lemme get back to you.

[']['ear]

Tear, is this really necessary? Do you think we're all so stupid we can't see what's in front of us, and we all need you to enlighten us? Is it not possible that possible that more could be gotten from accepting the OP and having a discussion from there, regardless of Lewk's motives?


Could you please just let this one go? Pretty please?

Hey, I made what I still consider a reasonable response to the opening post. Aimless wanted to say his piece, and I'm going to respond. As far as I'm concerned I was done when I saw that Aimless was done. So why did you feel the need to step in? Have I broken any rules?

[EyeKhan]

Is it not possible that possible that more could be gotten from accepting the OP and having a discussion from there, regardless of Lewk's motives?

Grammar aside, I second this thought.

[EyeKhan]

Hey, I made what I still consider a reasonable response to the opening post. Aimless wanted to say his piece, and I'm going to respond. As far as I'm concerned I was done when I saw that Aimless was done. So why did you feel the need to step in? Have I broken any rules?

Can you comment on the subject matter of the OP, Lewk's machinations aside? Maybe elaborate on how the concept of morality expressed was inadequate or on what level the government ought to be a moral entity and where you think the limits to that should be? Or something completely different?

[LittleFuzzy]

This is too simplisitic and you know it. I don't personally know anyone that would vote for this based on this logic. And I don't think its really a moral issue as stated.

I don't know if it's a moral issue, as you say, but it is pretty much what the issue comes down to. It's the fundamental problem with guns and why we might want to regulate or ban them.

[']['ear]

Can you comment on the subject matter of the OP, Lewk's machinations aside?

Sure!

Failure to define terms ("morality"), failure to apply them evenly (where is the "we should not allow government to dictate to people" entry?), misrepresentation of some of the positions ("We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they are unfair and wrong" should be "We should make illegal discrimination and racist actions because they prevent a subset of our population from fully accessing their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.").

[EyeKhan]

I don't know if it's a moral issue, as you say, but it is pretty much what the issue comes down to. It's the fundamental problem with guns and why we might want to regulate or ban them.

As worded its a blanket statement including everyone and all guns and afaik nobody's talking about banning all guns for all people. The actual issue is about regulating who can buy what kind of guns and what the process should be in order to prevent crimes of passion and/or madness, criminals from re-arming fresh out of prison, someone from re-selling guns on the street, and so on. The way Lewk words it here does not represent the issue even remotely honestly.

[EyeKhan]

Sure!

But you're just pointing out what a poor job he did wording the OP. You know that's not what I meant.

[']['ear]

As worded its a blanket statement including everyone and all guns and afaik nobody's talking about banning all guns for all people. The actual issue is about regulating who can buy what kind of guns and what the process should be in order to prevent crimes of passion and/or madness, criminals from re-arming fresh out of prison, someone from re-selling guns on the street, and so on. The way Lewk words it here does not represent the issue even remotely honestly.

Ahem. Well.

But you're just pointing out what a poor job he did wording the OP. You know that's not what I meant.

Sure. But I refuse to play ball with somebody when they're just dicking around trying to manipulate us. If Lewk has turned over a new leaf, more power to him and I'll gladly eat crow. But parsimony says not, and why should I give him the benefit of the doubt first go-around?

[Crowheart]

Why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
Costs you nothing, and you can claim the moral high-ground later if nothing changes.
(which is worth a lot of points for people that keep score)

And don't eat Crow.
He don't like it.

[']['ear]

Why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

After seven years of nothing but? There's a point at which that becomes not generous, but idiotic.

Costs you nothing, and you can claim the moral high-ground later if nothing changes.

Who cares?

And don't eat Crow.
He don't like it.

Heh, I'm going to guess you like it from somebody.

I wonder where the "eat crow" phrase comes from? Ah.

[Illusions]

To be completely honest and off topic I'd rather have a thread that Lewk started with bias, that the rest of us discuss and better without said bias, than an entire thread of you ragging on Lewk and telling us to ignore the thread...

[']['ear]

1) I thought my initial response was reasonable.
2) I should ignore all responses to me?

[LittleFuzzy]

1) I thought my initial response was reasonable.
2) I should ignore all responses to me?

You told Minx that you were only going on and on here because we kept challenging you. But when Choobs just asked you to address the idea of the original post, you just started up on this second round of ragging Lewk. You refuse to do anything else. Put him on goddamn ignore already. Except that vitiates your purpose on this site, to vent bile and vitriol.