When Principals Matter

[Lewkowski]

Principles only truly matter when abiding by them causes oneself harm or others harm beyond the benefit of abiding by those principals. If abiding by a principal is already advantageous to yourself or society then you would follow it. The rubber meets the road when abiding by a principal causes suffering.

Are you principled or do you approach things solely through the lens of self gain and utilitarianism?

A classic example is politics - would you do something vile, even downright evil and harmful to others? Despite a moral propensity not to do so if it led to electoral gains for the party you support that you felt would benefit society more in the long run than the people you harmed?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Like holding rallies in the midst of a pandemic you mean? Oh no, that's narcissism. You mean being a complete tool and voting for a politician who has no regard for anyone but himself, just because he belongs to the party you happen to support so you can go neener, neener, neener at members of the opposing party?

You wouldn't recognize principles when they paint themselves purple, danced on a harpsichord singing, "Those happy principles are here again".

Case in point

A 4-4 tie on the Court would be pretty awkward. To prevent a connotational crisis we must put someone on the court now!

Translation: neener, neener, neener.

[Timbuk2]

Principles only truly matter when abiding by them causes oneself harm or others harm beyond the benefit of abiding by those principals. If abiding by a principal is already advantageous to yourself or society then you would follow it. The rubber meets the road when abiding by a principal causes suffering.

Are you principled or do you approach things solely through the lens of self gain and utilitarianism?

A classic example is politics - would you do something vile, even downright evil and harmful to others? Despite a moral propensity not to do so if it led to electoral gains for the party you support that you felt would benefit society more in the long run than the people you harmed?

What?

Well I ... umm ...



What a completely peculiar notion.

[RandBlade]

Great example of principles (not principals) Ziggy there with the SCOTUS judge issue.

A great song and dance was made about the "principle" that eight months until the election was too close to the election to hold a confirmation hearing.

Now with the election counted in days (41 and counting down) not months we will see who has held on to those principles and who was merely a self-centred, self-interested arsehole.

[Steely Glint]

You're going to have to come up with your own weaselly justifications for why the appointing a justice to the SCOTUS 6 weeks before an election is suddenly good now, we aren't going to do it for you.

[wiggin]

You know, Steely, I actually don't think it's hard to justify why a SCOTUS justice should be appointed and confirmed in an election year. I do think that it shouldn't happen in a lame duck period and the timing is rather short before the election, but there's nothing in principle that shouldn't keep POTUS and the Senate from doing their constitutional duties, and having 9 justices on the court will be very helpful if this is a contested election.

The reason to oppose a replacement for RBG by Trump and McConnell is political, not principled - and IMO a very valid position. Republicans should certainly be punished for refusing to entertain the confirmation process for Garland, in both the ballot box and by Dem obstructionism with future appointments to the courts. But they're not wrong that vacancies should be filled irrespective of the election calendar, any more than Dems were wrong in 2016.

[Steely Glint]

I mean, why it's good to do it now when you had previously claimed that it was bad to do it. I mentioned in the other thread that this is something the GOP is constitutionally well within their rights to do it.

But, also, making senior judges political appointments when part of the role of those senior judges will be to determine the outcome of a contested election seems like a really bad idea. idk though.

[Timbuk2]

Thinking about it, the very notion of politicians appointing judges is fucked from the start really. How can a nation have a truly separate state and judiciary if the state chooses the most senior judges in the land?

The UK is much the same.

[RandBlade]

There must always be a way of choosing judges, how else do you expect it to be done? You can have directly elected judges but then they're politicians too.

The issue is how party political US judiciary has become.

[Steely Glint]

What you both said is true, but I can't think of another democracy where choosing judges is such a big political issue.

[Flixy]

There must always be a way of choosing judges, how else do you expect it to be done? You can have directly elected judges but then they're politicians too.

The issue is how party political US judiciary has become.

Over here judges are, as far as I know, selected by other judges. Which has a whole set of different downsides. I'm not sure what the best way is to be honest (though I do think directly elected judges would be worst).

The US system works as long as judges are not approached in such a partisan manner. And then it doesn't help that the US constitution is so vague and open for interpretation that judges essentially can interpret it in many ways. Which leads almost inherently to political tainted appointments.

[EyeKhan]

I mean, why it's good to do it now when you had previously claimed that it was bad to do it. I mentioned in the other thread that this is something the GOP is constitutionally well within their rights to do it.

But, also, making senior judges political appointments when part of the role of those senior judges will be to determine the outcome of a contested election seems like a really bad idea. idk though.

It was bad to do it in 2016 because the judge was chosen by Democrats. It's good to do it now because the judge is chosen by Republicans. That simple. And filling that seat while you're planning to contest the election is a really good idea, especially if you end up needing the Supreme Court to help you steal the election, as it was needed in Bush v Gore. There is only hypocrisy in the public posturing, the actual actions and justifications for them are consistent and practical.

[LittleFuzzy]

Thinking about it, the very notion of politicians appointing judges is fucked from the start really. How can a nation have a truly separate state and judiciary if the state chooses the most senior judges in the land?

The UK is much the same.

Well, the first thing that springs to mind is that the judiciary and state aren't separate and under the US framework they're not supposed to be. The judiciary is one of the three pillars of the federal state.

[GGT]

Principles only truly matter when abiding by them causes oneself harm or others harm beyond the benefit of abiding by those principals. If abiding by a principal is already advantageous to yourself or society then you would follow it. The rubber meets the road when abiding by a principal causes suffering.

Are you principled or do you approach things solely through the lens of self gain and utilitarianism?

Your question is flawed. You shouldn't take age-old ethical and moral dilemmas, give them black & white definitions (like principles "only truly matter" when weighed against harm to self or others), then ask *us* to apply context.

A classic example is politics - would you do something vile, even downright evil and harmful to others? Despite a moral propensity not to do so if it led to electoral gains for the party you support that you felt would benefit society more in the long run than the people you harmed?

But since you framed it that way....explain why so many of the Republican Party's "principles" turn out to be hypocrisies, or downright lies, but you vote for them anyway. Start with their "pro-life" agenda that's focused on embryos and womens' wombs, while de-valuing the lives of just about everyone else.

ps when it comes to another SCOTUS judge, they won't just have Roe v Wade to reconsider, but the ACA and protections for pre-existing conditions, expansion of Medicaid, and Medicare. Probably the death penalty, too.

[GGT]

Here's the better question, Lewk: what do YOU do when your "guiding principles" confronts a values conflict? Do you just bury your head in the sand and continue to pose as a Libertarian, even tho everything you say sounds like Fascism? Is it better to lie to yourself, or to the public, in order to get what you want? And what DO you want, exactly? Can you call yourself a Constitutionalist if what you *really* want looks more like a Christian Theocracy, or an Oligarchy, or even a Police State?

It's hard to talk about principles and still be consistent in a modern, changing, evolving world. Everyone seems to understands that except you (and the Republican Party under Trump) that wants power more than anything, even if it means governing by tyranny. Explain THAT, teacher troll.

[Lewkowski]

Like holding rallies in the midst of a pandemic you mean?

You didn't have to call out BLM like that!

[GGT]

Can't answer your own questions, teacher troll? Poor baby snowflake can't take the heat? haha

[Ziggy Stardust]

You didn't have to call out BLM like that!

Protesters not are the fucking useless president of the United States.

Seriously, it seems you yourself realise how morally bankrupt your position is. Just roll with it Lewk. Screw principles, vote Trump to try to make your team win. Don't worry about it.

[Aimless]

To address the subject of this thread, principals matter when you owe hundreds of millions to various entities and happen to be the leader of a country. You should definitely try to pay off those principals before putting yourself in a position where they can be used against you as leverage. This is also partly about principles, but a more important situation in which principles might matter is the law. Specifically, it is, in principle, good to not break the law by engaging in fraud—even though the fraud is increasing your wealth, and abiding by the law would see you become much less wealthy. People who say they believe in upholding the rule of law out of principle should not support fraudsters. If they do, they should be mocked and scorned for being unprincipled shitheads with no dignity.

To address the OP, its premise is flawed. One's principles may, for example, be to always serve one's own interests, in a form of ethical egoism. Under such a framework, given perfect knowledge, there will never be any conflict between one's principles and one's own interests. Nevertheless, we must be able to deal with those principles in any philosophical analysis, which your approach can't. The key indicator of a principled approach is that you choose to uphold specific principles, consistently, over time, even though you could've chosen other principles; whether or not this causes you harm is less relevant. Crucial to a principled approach is that one's principles be mutually consistent—otherwise, you might have to choose one principle over another, which would make you unprincipled (again, irrespective of harm or benefit).

To address the whiny subtext of the OP, lol, gfy