Situational Ethics

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Human lives in Iraq are now longer and more enjoyable. Fewer innocent people have died than if Saddam had remained in power. Measuring by your new yardstick, the war, which you post some leftism about nearly every day, is moral.

Precisely.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by kingjames04
Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not equivalent with claiming the lesser evil is actually good.

Why not?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Socialism has consistently failed in providing either freedom or prosperity. I don't know if you value either of those. Your yardstick of human life judges leftism poorly.

America is the most free and most prosperous nation and has enabled an era of world trade that has enriched every nation. Our way is better, by any verifiable measure.

I believe in moderation. The USA is not entirely a free-market Capitalist nation. There are several governmental "socialistic" programs that redistribute some wealth from people to people: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. In a purely capitalistic society, though charity may help some people, some people would practically be starving, sick, and dying in the streets. Yet, a purely socialistic society punishes success and conditions people to be dependent on "handouts".

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Situational, but not relative. Moral absolutism is the result of a belief in an absolute and supreme moral authority, i.e. a supreme being. The morality that results is one which does not take the consequences to this human life, in this world into account. The moral payoff lies in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife. Within this context, so long as one acts in the name of one's favorite deity, any attrocity can be condoned.

When we look at our morals and values in terms of their consequences to this life...in this world, we rapidly see what is useful and beneficial, and what is useless and harmful. That which leads to the harm of oneself, others or both is useless and harmful...It is, therefore, to be discarded. With human life as the yardstick by which the consequences of our morals and values are measured, we arrive at a truly human, and humane, morality.

Not all moral absolutists believe morality is a result of a supreme being. It is also a misnomer to say that consequences to this human life are ot taken into account. They are, in fact, the very definition for some absolutists. What is NOT taken into consideration is that sometimes you have to do an immoral thing or, in essence, culpability. Stealing to feed your family is still immoral- it may be necessary, but it's still immoral. As for the afterlife, that's not always a component of moral absolutism.

Immanual Kant clearly comes to mind as a moral absolutist who neither worshiped a deity nor advocated morality on one's behalf.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I believe in moderation. The USA is not entirely a free-market Capitalist nation. There are several governmental "socialistic" programs that redistribute some wealth from people to people: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. In a purely capitalistic society, though charity may help some people, some people would practically be starving, sick, and dying in the streets. Yet, a purely socialistic society punishes success and conditions people to be dependent on "handouts".

I would take a page from Ayn Rand on this one. She would say capitalism forces people to use there brains to survive. Every creature in this world has evolved a part of itself that allowes it to survive. That part for humans is our brain. You can call it harsh evolution if you like, but in a truly free market society only the smartest will survive, which I can't really disagree wtih. Capitalism rewards the use of your brain. Socialism does not.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I believe in moderation. The USA is not entirely a free-market Capitalist nation. There are several governmental "socialistic" programs that redistribute some wealth from people to people: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. In a purely capitalistic society, though charity may help some people, some people would practically be starving, sick, and dying in the streets. Yet, a purely socialistic society punishes success and conditions people to be dependent on "handouts".

Spoken like a socialist heretic.

The original "capitalist" system DID have a work or starve situation. The side issue was that churches gave freely to those in NEED as Christianity teaches. Those who were lazy enough to try to be leeches got nothing. That isn't a faulty system.

The fault was when people decided they wanted security instead of liberty. This is the socialism mentality. They wanted a parent instead of a government. Now government would give and tie the hands of churches. At the same time, the cost now got covered by a TAX instead of willing donation based on surplus and accountability of budget.

Government created a big socialist machine fueld by socialist "victim" and leech mentality which created the situation we are in today. -ALL of which can be accounted for by straying from Biblical principals.

-But being the knowledgable one about how christianity is portrayed, and what would make it better, you know that, right?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Spoken like a socialist heretic.

The original "capitalist" system DID have a work or starve situation. The side issue was that churches gave freely to those in NEED as Christianity teaches. Those who were lazy enough to try to be leeches got nothing. That isn't a faulty system.

The fault was when people decided they wanted security instead of liberty. This is the socialism mentality. They wanted a parent instead of a government. Now government would give and tie the hands of churches. At the same time, the cost now got covered by a TAX instead of willing donation based on surplus and accountability of budget.

Government created a big socialist machine fueld by socialist "victim" and leech mentality which created the situation we are in today. -ALL of which can be accounted for by straying from Biblical principals.

-But being the knowledgable one about how christianity is portrayed, and what would make it better, you know that, right?

I imagine that you never read a book by Charles Dickins or even glanced at "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. No. It was not always the case that those who were willing to work hard but in need were cared for. Children were practically labor slaves in some of the most dangerous of circumstances. Thankfully we have at least some form of government imposed safety net. Still, I am not in favor of pure socialism. I believe in moderation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I believe in moderation. The USA is not entirely a free-market Capitalist nation. There are several governmental "socialistic" programs that redistribute some wealth from people to people: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. In a purely capitalistic society, though charity may help some people, some people would practically be starving, sick, and dying in the streets. Yet, a purely socialistic society punishes success and conditions people to be dependent on "handouts".

Good for you, fencesitter.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Good for you, fencesitter.

Fencesitter - One who takes a position of neutrality or indecision, as in a controversial matter.

The term is not entirely appropriate. I am not indecisive. It is just that I don't believe in total capitalism or total socialism. There should be some government programs to help those willing to work but have fallen on "hard times".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I believe in moderation. The USA is not entirely a free-market Capitalist nation. There are several governmental "socialistic" programs that redistribute some wealth from people to people: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc. In a purely capitalistic society, though charity may help some people, some people would practically be starving, sick, and dying in the streets. Yet, a purely socialistic society punishes success and conditions people to be dependent on "handouts".

Matty, just the other day you were mr. pure capitalism, without government even certifying doctors or drugs. You have no core. Or else your belief system is evolving, which is it? Or do you just react to personalities on the board that make you jealous with whatever you can think of at the time?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I imagine that you never read a book by Charles Dickins or even glanced at "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. No. It was not always the case that those who were willing to work hard but in need were cared for. Children were practically labor slaves in some of the most dangerous of circumstances. Thankfully we have at least some form of government imposed safety net. Still, I am not in favor of pure socialism. I believe in moderation.

Safety net?

You ARE a socialist, then.

In addition, this "net" AGAIN, is not required. You simply PREFER it.

-And like all good socialists, it is for the welfare of "the children".

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Matty, just the other day you were mr. pure capitalism, without government even certifying doctors or drugs. You have no core. Or else your belief system is evolving, which is it? Or do you just react to personalities on the board that make you jealous with whatever you can think of at the time?

There are distinctions. I don't believe in minimum wage laws. I don't believe in licensing. Yet I do believe in there being a safety net to help those who fall on hard times.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by mattskramer
There are distinctions. I don't believe in minimum age laws. I don't believe in licensing. Yet I do believe in there being a safety net to help those who fall on hard times.

Ok. I see now. Thanks for clarifying. It seems a little contradictory, but what the hey. I'm sure I have some contradictory stuff.

You know, matty, I like you, that's why you get all the special attention!

 

[kingjames04]

Originally posted by Bern80
Why not?

Well, because choosing the lesser of two evils inherently recognizes that niether is good.

One simply will cause less damage than the other.

By any moral absolute niether is good, by relativism to one another, one is less evil.