Moral Issues and Political Solutions

[alan1]

A large part of politics these days is that many politicians seem to think they can fix moral problems with political solutions. Additionally, many people seem to think that those politicians can do exactly that.
I disagree. You cannot solve a moral problem with political solutions.

Now that I’ve said that, I must point out that people differ on what the moral problems/issues are. Since they differ on agreement to the problems, they obviously would then differ on the solution. I’ll mention a few in this post, but would welcome others to include their own thoughts on other issues.

Moral Dilemma 1: Abortion/Unwanted Pregnancy
Some people don’t think abortion is immoral and some do. If unwanted pregnancies could be 100% avoided then this issue would disappear. The root of wanting or needing an abortion lies in a pregnancy that was unintended (maybe not always, but in general, that is the situation). I posit that part of the moral issue is actually getting pregnant when one doesn’t want a child at that moment in time. That could be caused by failure to take appropriate preventive measures (potentially moral or immoral), failure of birth control (generally not immoral), or on occasion something as horrid as rape (definitely a moral issue on the part of the rapist).
I don’t think any politician can come up with a political solution to fix all of the above regardless of the morals of him/herself or his/her potential constituents.

Moral Dilemma 2: Welfare
Some people think it is moral to support those in need and others do not. Part of that is a disagreement on what constitutes need. Most of us would probably agree that somebody that is mentally incapable of caring for themself is in need. The question arises when one is both mentally and physically capable. As of yet, nobody has figured out a way to keep people out of poverty, but poverty is the root issue. If you look at the last 40 years, the percentage of people in poverty has been fairly constant. There are people that have struggled and used welfare as a safety net for a short period of time, then bounced back. There are people that have struggled and never bounced back and spend much of their life using welfare. How does a moral person determine when welfare should end for a mentally and physically competent person?
A politician can’t determine that moral decision for me or you with a political solution.

Moral Dilemma 3: War
This one is a bit different than the previous 2 dilemmas. I truly believe that the vast preponderance of people would choose to avoid war if they possibly could. When do your morals find a justifiable cause for war? I think just about everybody has their breaking point where they would agree to the nation declaring war. But with that also comes morals about what one finds as acceptable action in the war. How brutal will our side be? What do we consider to be an acceptable level of collateral damage? Are our losses of people and property more or less important than winning/ending the war?
Politicians can’t determine that for you nor I, but that is one decision where most of us have acquiesced to them.

There are many more issues that one side or the other claim morals on that I haven’t addressed in this post. I welcome others to add their thoughts.

 

[alan1]

No thoughts from others?
Did I not flame enough to get a response?

 

[Avatar4321]

I completely agree. We have certain problems in our society because we lack morality, not because we lack government or laws. We can't fix the people with outside mechanisms, we need to heal the people from the inside.

 

[occupied]

No thoughts from others?
Did I not flame enough to get a response?

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground, I would like to know why fiscal conservatives have no problem switching to being social conservatives after gaining office, that's the answer I am interested in.

 

[California Girl]

Sorry Mountain. Didn't see your thread until now.

To me, abortion is not a political issue at all. I'm pro-life, but I don't have the right to force that opinion on others. Much as it pains me, and it really does, it's not a federal issue.

On welfare, I doubt that many conservatives would deny the need for some support for our most vulnerable.... I certainly have no issue with that. The real issue, to me, is that an overly generous or overly supportive welfare program actually does more harm than good. It damages those it is designed to help... there is decade upon decade of research on it. The EU countries - those who have had traditionally far more generous welfare programs than ours - that research clears shows significant damage done to society by those programs.

War: Meh, that's a huge one. I hear a lot of people very proudly say 'I am anti-war' and I laugh at the total lunacy of the claim. No one is 'pro-war'. But sometimes it is a necessary evil. Think how very different our world would be if our great grandparents, grandparents or even our forefathers had made such moronic, meaningless statements.

 

[California Girl]

I completely agree. We have certain problems in our society because we lack morality, not because we lack government or laws. We can't fix the people with outside mechanisms, we need to heal the people from the inside.

Actually, people need to fix themselves... if they have the courage to see that. 'We' have no right to fix them.

 

[alan1]

No thoughts from others?
Did I not flame enough to get a response?

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground, I would like to know why fiscal conservatives have no problem switching to being social conservatives after gaining office, that's the answer I am interested in.

Thanks for making a blanket accusation.

 

[occupied]

No thoughts from others?
Did I not flame enough to get a response?

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground, I would like to know why fiscal conservatives have no problem switching to being social conservatives after gaining office, that's the answer I am interested in.

Thanks for making a blanket accusation.

No thanks for not making an attempt to answer my question as to why all these fiscal tea party candidates threw their support behind a record number of abortion restriction bills last year.

As to my "blanket statement", I challenge you to find a single conservative who does not think that their politics are morally superior.

 

[alan1]

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground, I would like to know why fiscal conservatives have no problem switching to being social conservatives after gaining office, that's the answer I am interested in.

Thanks for making a blanket accusation.

No thanks for not making an attempt to answer my question as to why all these fiscal tea party candidates threw their support behind a record number of abortion restriction bills last year.

There is no question mark at the end of anything you've written in this thread, thus no question from you for me to respond to.
You made a blanket accusation after I asked for thoughts in the OP, now I know your thoughts.

 

[alan1]

Sorry Mountain. Didn't see your thread until now.

To me, abortion is not a political issue at all. I'm pro-life, but I don't have the right to force that opinion on others. Much as it pains me, and it really does, it's not a federal issue.

On welfare, I doubt that many conservatives would deny the need for some support for our most vulnerable.... I certainly have no issue with that. The real issue, to me, is that an overly generous or overly supportive welfare program actually does more harm than good. It damages those it is designed to help... there is decade upon decade of research on it. The EU countries - those who have had traditionally far more generous welfare programs than ours - that research clears shows significant damage done to society by those programs.

War: Meh, that's a huge one. I hear a lot of people very proudly say 'I am anti-war' and I laugh at the total lunacy of the claim. No one is 'pro-war'. But sometimes it is a necessary evil. Think how very different our world would be if our great grandparents, grandparents or even our forefathers had made such moronic, meaningless statements.

Hehe, I thought maybe you'd toss another moral issue out there that politics can't answer.

 

[occupied]

Thanks for making a blanket accusation.

No thanks for not making an attempt to answer my question as to why all these fiscal tea party candidates threw their support behind a record number of abortion restriction bills last year.

There is no question mark at the end of anything you've written in this thread, thus no question from you for me to respond to.
You made a blanket accusation after I asked for thoughts in the OP, now I know your thoughts.

Oh well, another joins the ignore list. Don't want to talk? Fine by me.

 

[Avatar4321]

I completely agree. We have certain problems in our society because we lack morality, not because we lack government or laws. We can't fix the people with outside mechanisms, we need to heal the people from the inside.

Actually, people need to fix themselves... if they have the courage to see that. 'We' have no right to fix them.

I dont think we have the right to. I think we have an obligation to. We have a responsibility to do everything we can, short of violence, to persuade people to fix themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

No thanks for not making an attempt to answer my question as to why all these fiscal tea party candidates threw their support behind a record number of abortion restriction bills last year.

There is no question mark at the end of anything you've written in this thread, thus no question from you for me to respond to.
You made a blanket accusation after I asked for thoughts in the OP, now I know your thoughts.

Oh well, another joins the ignore list. Don't want to talk? Fine by me.

If you want talk, it helps if you make an attempt to.

 

[alan1]

No thanks for not making an attempt to answer my question as to why all these fiscal tea party candidates threw their support behind a record number of abortion restriction bills last year.

There is no question mark at the end of anything you've written in this thread, thus no question from you for me to respond to.
You made a blanket accusation after I asked for thoughts in the OP, now I know your thoughts.

Oh well, another joins the ignore list. Don't want to talk? Fine by me.

I do want to talk.
I get frustrated by people that make blanket statements such as this,

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground

Please put me on ignore since that is the (piss poor) quality of your conversation.

 

[occupied]

There is no question mark at the end of anything you've written in this thread, thus no question from you for me to respond to.
You made a blanket accusation after I asked for thoughts in the OP, now I know your thoughts.

Oh well, another joins the ignore list. Don't want to talk? Fine by me.

I do want to talk.
I get frustrated by people that make blanket statements such as this,

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground

Please put me on ignore since that is the (piss poor) quality of your conversation.

I do not think it is the least bit inaccurate, conservative politics are built on moral arguments, if you find that to be wrong then perhaps you can explain why???????????????(enough question marks for you??????)

 

[alan1]

Oh well, another joins the ignore list. Don't want to talk? Fine by me.

I do want to talk.
I get frustrated by people that make blanket statements such as this,

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground

Please put me on ignore since that is the (piss poor) quality of your conversation.

I do not think it is the least bit inaccurate, conservative politics are built on moral arguments, if you find that to be wrong then perhaps you can explain why???????????????(enough question marks for you??????)

And here I thought you put me on ignore.

Go back and read the OP. I said you cannot solve a moral problem with political solutions. You seem to think that only conservatives play the morals game.
Do you think it's moral to allow a woman choice over her body?
Do you think it's moral to prevent children from starving?

 

[Wiseacre]

How does one resolve a moral issue like abortion, either you believe life begins at conception or you believe it starts at birth. There's no middle ground, an abortion is essentially murder or it isn't. Can't have a political solution to that. All you can do is what we've already done, which is to prevent paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars. Nobody is satisifed, the problem gets kicked down the road.

An issue like welfare on the other hand is a question of degree. I think most people agree that those who cannot fend for themselves due to physical or mental incapacity need to be cared for. Most of us would not object to helping those who need it temporarily to get back on their feet after a natural calamity or economic recession, but the question becomes who deserves what and for how long. Part of the issue is also how to deal with the problem (fed gov't vs state&local) and also how to pay for it. That's not really a question of morality. Maybe the morality comes into play when you start talking about people who could work but don't want to.

 

[Coyote]

Oh well, another joins the ignore list. Don't want to talk? Fine by me.

I do want to talk.
I get frustrated by people that make blanket statements such as this,

Conservatives think they own the moral high ground

Please put me on ignore since that is the (piss poor) quality of your conversation.

I do not think it is the least bit inaccurate, conservative politics are built on moral arguments, if you find that to be wrong then perhaps you can explain why???????????????(enough question marks for you??????)

Aren't all politics? What do you think were the underpinning of FDR's New Deal?

Most politics are built around a few core moral principles.

To get back to the OP though - can moral problems be solved by political solutions?

Maybe not solved, but they can be improved.

For example legalizing birth control opened up a whole new world for women. For the first time they were freed from the threat of unwanted pregnancies and had control over their reproduction. It led to a decrease though not an end to, unwanted and abandoned children. Birth control was illegal because it was regarded as immoral.

Welfare is a more complicated issue. Political solutions created a safety net wherein even our poorest are still not as bad off as the turn of the century tenemant dwellers or the rural poverty of the 1930's Appalachia. Children seldom die of preventable diseases or malnutrition. Is poverty eradicated? No and it I doubt it ever will be. Is it improved? Yes - the level of poverty is not as low as it once was.

 

[alan1]

How does one resolve a moral issue like abortion, either you believe life begins at conception or you believe it starts at birth. There's no middle ground, an abortion is essentially murder or it isn't. Can't have a political solution to that. All you can do is what we've already done, which is to prevent paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars. Nobody is satisifed, the problem gets kicked down the road.

Your first sentence is not always true. There are some (myself included) that believe life (or personhood) begins somewhere in between conception and birth. For some it might be the onset of brainwaves, for others it might be the ability to survive outside the womb prior to full gestation. It's not that absolute for many people. You are right, it has been kicked down the road, no political solution will be satisfactory to everybody.

An issue like welfare on the other hand is a question of degree. I think most people agree that those who cannot fend for themselves due to physical or mental incapacity need to be cared for. Most of us would not object to helping those who need it temporarily to get back on their feet after a natural calamity or economic recession, but the question becomes who deserves what and for how long. Part of the issue is also how to deal with the problem (fed gov't vs state&local) and also how to pay for it. That's not really a question of morality. Maybe the morality comes into play when you start talking about people who could work but don't want to.

You and I are probably pretty close to agreement of this issue. This one also keeps getting kicked down the road because political solutions cannot address the social issue, which I do think is partly differing morals.

 

[alan1]

Aren't all politics? What do you think were the underpinning of FDR's New Deal?

Most politics are built around a few core moral principles.

To get back to the OP though - can moral problems be solved by political solutions?

Maybe not solved, but they can be improved.

For example legalizing birth control opened up a whole new world for women. For the first time they were freed from the threat of unwanted pregnancies and had control over their reproduction. It led to a decrease though not an end to, unwanted and abandoned children. Birth control was illegal because it was regarded as immoral.

I do find it interesting that despite the available pre-conception birth control options available, we still have so many abortions. You and I have had many debates on abortion over the years. Some friendly, some contentious, my favorite was the time we both argued from the opposite standpoint that we respectively hold on the issue. I don't want to argue abortion, this thread is more about how I don't think there are political solutions to the morals that one holds.

Welfare is a more complicated issue. Political solutions created a safety net wherein even our poorest are still not as bad off as the turn of the century tenemant dwellers or the rural poverty of the 1930's Appalachia. Children seldom die of preventable diseases or malnutrition. Is poverty eradicated? No and it I doubt it ever will be. Is it improved? Yes - the level of poverty is not as low as it once was.

I agree with you, it definitely is more complicated. LBJ's war on poverty enjoyed some positive success in the early years. The past 40 years, poverty in the US has maintained a pretty consistent rate between 11 and 14 percent. That's only a 3 point swing over 40 years despite all the political solutions that have been employed over that time frame. I don't think the next political solution will change it much.