Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 88

Thread: How Much Morality in Politics?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    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.
    No, I was pointing out that my initial post did have substantial comment as opposed to ad hominem.

    You refuse to do anything else.
    Not while I'm being lectured, no. I prefer to rebut the people who are lecturing me.

    Put him on goddamn ignore already. Except that vitiates your purpose on this site, to vent bile and vitriol.
    1) Nice vocabulary word
    2) What, is this a simplistic Hollywood plot, where you need to paint me as the evil force that needs to be opposed by all that are good and true? You read too many Dragonlances. What is the word you used to love to use? Ah yes. Demonize. You used to rage at me for demonizing people. Huh. How ironic.

  2. #32
    <mod hat>
    I tried to give this a chance to resolve itself. Clearly that isn't working.

    Consider the requests of numerous people in this thread to now be backed by a modhat. This derailment ends here, and this thread should now return to the topic that Minx, Lewk, lolli, Khen, Chaloobi, etc. wanted to discuss and were discussing before getting sidelined by this other junk.

    Also Tear, please stop shoehorning in jabs at Loki at every opportunity. He's not even here right now!

    Everybody else: Please keep in mind that this sword cuts both ways. Resist the urge to take any parting shots.
    </mod hat>
    Last edited by Wraith; 01-07-2011 at 10:05 PM.

  3. #33
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Not sure how the categorical imperative would easily resolve the conflicts posed in Lewk's examples either.
    Matters of morality are rarely easily resolved.

    But simply put: What happened if we made a general rule out of our "solutions" for the problems listed above?

    Take, for instance the (in my opinion) ludicrous argument about mandatory seatbelts. They save lives (in fact, without them airbags would become dangerous, even lethal in some cases), first responders don't have to scrape brains and bodyparts from the pavement and the loved ones are spared a funeral.
    On the flipside we have a "freedom" taken away, however, as I must point out: When you have to use a seatbelt you've already confined yourself to the inside of the car anyway, so I'm not quite sure which "freedom" this might be, since you're still free to stop the car and get out of said car at any time - in fact one might say a seatbelt imposes the same restriction on freedom as, for instance, the requirement to put gas in the tank.

    So, on the plus side we have a lot of advantages. On the minus side we have no real disadvantage.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  4. #34
    What I'm thinking is that even if some people stop wearing seatbelts society as a whole would continue to function fairly well. Some gains may be had from not paying to have police regularly and unguidedly hassle drivers all over the nation (conversely, having a lot of police go around trying to enforce this law may be a disadvantage due to the costs and due to the meddling).

    Didn't Kant say something about people being ends in themselves rather than being means to an end?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #35
    On the original subject of morality in politics, IMO that's a stupid basis for coming up with laws. If you can't come up with a better reason to outlaw something than "it doesn't seem right" then 1) you're not really imaginative, since post-hoc rationalization is usually quite easy and B) it shouldn't be outlawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    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
    That's actually the basis for the weird alliance between certain relgious and feminist groups. They both want it outlawed, but one for the reason Lewk stated and the other for the reason you did.

  6. #36
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    What I'm thinking is that even if some people stop wearing seatbelts society as a whole would continue to function fairly well. Some gains may be had from not paying to have police regularly and unguidedly hassle drivers all over the nation (conversely, having a lot of police go around trying to enforce this law may be a disadvantage due to the costs and due to the meddling).

    Didn't Kant say something about people being ends in themselves rather than being means to an end?
    I'd like to raise the point that, unless you do actually control such measures by the police, it won't become widespread behaviour. Case in point: Germany. People raised all kinds of objections (up to and including absolutely laughable ones like: "My bosom will become dented!"), the law only said: "Well, we'd like to see you wearing a seatbelt but won't actually do anything!" and the result was an abysmal rate of 5% of the car drivers wearing a seat belt.

    Then they introduced fines and now we're at 95%. Furthermore, if you stop mandating such issues, the percentage will drop. See the TBC vaccinations in Russia as another example for that phenomenon.

    Oh, and the argument "society as a whole would continue to function" would indeed make people the means to an end.
    Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 01-07-2011 at 10:20 PM.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    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).
    While I do agree, at least to a point, I still don't really think that it matters much to society about the basis of someone's morality - and it still doesn't change the fact that religion still shapes a large amount of what is considered moral and right - even among people who don't profess strong religious beliefs. The component of God (or Allah and Zeus, for that matter) doesn't have to be present for it to be the same basic idea. Most people share a belief that murder is wrong, even while lacking the ability to agree on what constitutes an unlawful killing. Everyone who is antiabortion isn't that way out of religious convictions, either - but the moral is the same whatever the person's justification is.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  8. #38
    Right! TWF as a nanny state....

  9. #39
    <mod hat>I think I've been too lenient in the past, and created the assumption that I was always going to allow parting shots or on last run at me/whoever to occur and not do anything about them. That was never my intent, and I apologize. A single point infraction has been awarded to help reinforce the fact that I'm serious about this. Don't worry, one point really isn't that bad and won't lead to anything serious if you're willing to work with me to keep them from accumulating.</mod hat>

    edit: For any latecomers curious, this is not why Tear was banned. I've moved that post over to thread discussion to avoid further thread derailment.
    Last edited by Wraith; 01-07-2011 at 11:20 PM.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    While I do agree, at least to a point, I still don't really think that it matters much to society about the basis of someone's morality - and it still doesn't change the fact that religion still shapes a large amount of what is considered moral and right - even among people who don't profess strong religious beliefs. The component of God (or Allah and Zeus, for that matter) doesn't have to be present for it to be the same basic idea. Most people share a belief that murder is wrong, even while lacking the ability to agree on what constitutes an unlawful killing. Everyone who is antiabortion isn't that way out of religious convictions, either - but the moral is the same whatever the person's justification is.
    Couldn't one assert that a lot of people who are doing the 'right thing' for secular reasons are just doing it for fear of legal or social repricussions? Khen's recent post on German seatbelt laws would seem to weakly reinforce this, and if it's true for any significant portion of society, then it only helps your point. After all, I'm sure there's people who believe in God who do things because it's the right thing to do, and not out of fear of hell.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Couldn't one assert that a lot of people who are doing the 'right thing' for secular reasons are just doing it for fear of legal or social repricussions? Khen's recent post on German seatbelt laws would seem to weakly reinforce this, and if it's true for any significant portion of society, then it only helps your point. After all, I'm sure there's people who believe in God who do things because it's the right thing to do, and not out of fear of hell.
    I think it would depend on which "right thing" we are talking about, but of course some people who believe in God do things for reasons other than fear for their immortal soul.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  12. #42
    The ironic thing? I took a look at this thread before all this spouted off, and thought to myself "this looks interesting, I'll have a read over it later". Wrong!
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  13. #43
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Couldn't one assert that a lot of people who are doing the 'right thing' for secular reasons are just doing it for fear of legal or social repricussions? Khen's recent post on German seatbelt laws would seem to weakly reinforce this, and if it's true for any significant portion of society, then it only helps your point. After all, I'm sure there's people who believe in God who do things because it's the right thing to do, and not out of fear of hell.
    Yes, but the question then becomes: Do those people actually need God to do the right thing?

    That's the problem I have with religious morals: They're founded by something other than "it's the right thing to do", they're grounded in "a man in the sky told me to".
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Yes, but the question then becomes: Do those people actually need God to do the right thing?
    Well, no, probably not.

    So we're splitting people into the two groups now of those who do the 'right thing' for fear of the consequences, and those who do it because it's the 'right thing', rather than splitting them strictly along religious lines?

  15. #45
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Well, no, probably not.

    So we're splitting people into the two groups now of those who do the 'right thing' for fear of the consequences, and those who do it because it's the 'right thing', rather than splitting them strictly along religious lines?
    I'd add "or because of expectance of a reward" to "fear of the consequences", but other than that, yes. Following that: Do people using religious morals predominantly fall into the former or the latter group or neither?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'd add "or because of expectance of a reward" to "fear of the consequences", but other than that, yes. Following that: Do people using religious morals predominantly fall into the former or the latter group or neither?
    I'm not sure that expecting a reward negates doing the right thing, though. I mean, take doing some sort of volunteer work - the good feeling you get is a reward, but you are still doing the right thing without any tangible benefit.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I'm not sure that expecting a reward negates doing the right thing, though. I mean, take doing some sort of volunteer work - the good feeling you get is a reward, but you are still doing the right thing without any tangible benefit.
    "Because" was the important word there, I think. If they're doing it for the reward, then they're probably not doing it for the right reasons though. You can think of it as "fear of the consequence of missing out on the reward", if it helps. They can do it for the right reasons and still get a reward, though.

    I'm going to have to admit to being a bit lost at this point. What does this have to do with morality's place in politics?

  18. #48
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I'm not sure that expecting a reward negates doing the right thing, though. I mean, take doing some sort of volunteer work - the good feeling you get is a reward, but you are still doing the right thing without any tangible benefit.
    If the good feeling is the prime motivator for doing good, then actually, yes, it would sort of nullify (not negate) it. Because, again, as soon as the good feeling ceases to exist...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    I'm going to have to admit to being a bit lost at this point. What does this have to do with morality's place in politics?
    Thread drift. And Lewk of course never followed up
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  19. #49
    I think our government shouldn't actively do immoral acts, but to passively let things happen, I don't think they need to meet everyone's strictest criteria of moral. While I think they should urge moral acts such as giving to the poor they shouldn't be forced to. I think in such cirumstances they should just attempt to maximize the wellbeing of our society. In all reality, any time you do one moral act (Stop a bunch of people from dying), you take away from other things you could be doing, due to our finite resources. So we can't cover them all.


    In short, we need to not do actively immoral acts; however, as far as what moral kindesses we do act upon it needs to be agreeable by society, it ought be urged upon by society, but it should be done with a foresight of efficiency to attempt to help people and society the most.

    I think people should agree to these terms before the fruit of their labor is spent on it; however, they should be encouraged via ads, and information to do the right thing, such as Universal Health Care. Whereas I would even argue it is right morally (thus you should encourage it but not coerce it), and it is well to do fiscally (due to the positive externalities) another reason we should encourage support for it.

  20. #50
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    The problem is, Leb: Your way does not work. Period.

    Urging people to do something without backing it up either with a reward or a punishment does not work for societies as a whole.

    Case in point: Seatbelts. The Germans were urged to use them. Almost none did.
    Case in point: Catalysators. They did not become widespread until the government both sponsored and mandated them.
    Case in point: TBC vaccination in Russia. As soon as the mandatory vaccinations ceased, TBC flared up again.

    There are countless examples where even simple and relatively uncomplicated measures don't become widespread until the government mandates it.

    Merely "urging" those measures will have a success on a timetable the same scale as the continental drift.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Also Tear, please stop shoehorning in jabs at Loki at every opportunity. He's not even here right now!
    You lie! And good job Lewk for starting an intelligent thread.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    "Because" was the important word there, I think. If they're doing it for the reward, then they're probably not doing it for the right reasons though. You can think of it as "fear of the consequence of missing out on the reward", if it helps. They can do it for the right reasons and still get a reward, though.

    I'm going to have to admit to being a bit lost at this point. What does this have to do with morality's place in politics?
    The reward is still there, though, and people know about it ahead of time, so how can you or they really know what the true motivation is. This has nothing to do with it that I know of, I still haven't decided what my opinion of morality in politics is entirely.

    I mean, I'd really much prefer it if the updated morality that keeps me being legally your equivalent stays in place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    If the good feeling is the prime motivator for doing good, then actually, yes, it would sort of nullify (not negate) it. Because, again, as soon as the good feeling ceases to exist...
    I don't think you can reasonably take away that sort of reward. Hell, some people get pleasure from being sanctimonious about their good works (even if they aren't appreciated by anyone else at all, I mean).
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You lie! And good job Lewk for starting an intelligent thread.
    It doesn't count as being here if you aren't participating. Filthy lurker.

    I'm glad you came back, even though I'm sure your fan club will be devastated that they have to get their pitchforks out again.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I think it would depend on which "right thing" we are talking about, but of course some people who believe in God do things for reasons other than fear for their immortal soul.
    The conflict is rooted in our tribal nature. We defend and encourage our 'group' whatever simply because that's what we do. Actually, its certainly a survival characteristic. When the group prospers, we're safer and can breed more successfully.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I mean, I'd really much prefer it if the updated morality that keeps me being legally your equivalent stays in place.
    One can come up with better arguments for why that should be the case than just 'it's good', though.

    For instance, providing women with the same economic opportunities as men has been unquestionably good for the nations that have allowed it, allowing for a better, wealthier society and a better standard of living for everyone present, not just women.

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    One can come up with better arguments for why that should be the case than just 'it's good', though.

    For instance, providing women with the same economic opportunities as men has been unquestionably good for the nations that have allowed it, allowing for a better, wealthier society and a better standard of living for everyone present, not just women.
    I have no objections to there being tangible benefits to doing the right thing, or additional reasons to do something than its morality.

    My big problem here is that I don't think it is necessarily possible to completely separate morality from everyday life, so of course morality is going to be a part of politics. Even if it's called something different, I think any healthy debate in an open society is going to have some basis in the moral beliefs of the people - either from the politicians or the voters.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    I have no objections to there being tangible benefits to doing the right thing, or additional reasons to do something than its morality.

    My big problem here is that I don't think it is necessarily possible to completely separate morality from everyday life,
    Sure, but it's in the everyday life, it shouldn't move out of there to politics. People should do what's morale to them in their own lives, not force it on everyone. What happens when people's ethics disagree? When someone thinks worshipping a God that isn't yours is the only ethical choice, for instance? Especially if it's a majority view, such as in the Middle East?

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Sure, but it's in the everyday life, it shouldn't move out of there to politics. People should do what's morale to them in their own lives, not force it on everyone. What happens when people's ethics disagree? When someone thinks worshipping a God that isn't yours is the only ethical choice, for instance? Especially if it's a majority view, such as in the Middle East?
    People's ethics disagree regularly. It's impossible for politics to exist in a vacuum, though - if laws don't reflect the society they are for, what do you think the results are? I can think of an example where peoples ethics disagree from here, even legalizing gay marriage as examples. The result is persecution and erosion of civil rights. It's still laws based on morality - in this case morality that I don't agree with. It will change, eventually. None of this changes the fact that the basis of many (if not all) laws come from some sort of moral and ethical place, even if there are multiple reasons to justify it that have no basis in morality.

    Where it gets interesting is, of course, when the morals and ethics of neighboring countries disagree.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    People's ethics disagree regularly. It's impossible for politics to exist in a vacuum, though - if laws don't reflect the society they are for, what do you think the results are? I can think of an example where peoples ethics disagree from here, even legalizing gay marriage as examples. The result is persecution and erosion of civil rights. It's still laws based on morality - in this case morality that I don't agree with. It will change, eventually. None of this changes the fact that the basis of many (if not all) laws come from some sort of moral and ethical place, even if there are multiple reasons to justify it that have no basis in morality.
    Doesn't that all point to a flaw in using morality as a basis for legal code? Wouldn't it be better if the system could allow for gay marriage, even if a large subset of the citizenship didn't like it and would not do it?

  29. #59
    Of course it would, in my opinion. And you wouldn't hear me objecting if it were forced, like desegregation was in the 60s. That doesn't change the fact that it would still be using morality in the legal code, though.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Doesn't that all point to a flaw in using morality as a basis for legal code? Wouldn't it be better if the system could allow for gay marriage, even if a large subset of the citizenship didn't like it and would not do it?
    What happens if 2/3 of the population are against gay marriage? Or even 9/10? Isn't having a society where the belief that people should have the right to marriage trumps the belief that political authority is ultimately derived from the people in itself a form of morality?
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •