Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #21
"
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."
Who have I quoted? A liberal/progressive or a conservative?
Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record, Sept 16, 1981
This is a pretty 'meaty' post.
I like it because it allows both of us to present a defensible position, and you have focused like a laser on this one aspect of the debate.
Your point, it seems, is the Progressive stance that there are no time-honored, moral truths. You subscribe to the view that all cultures, all viewpoints are equally valid. That you have fallen under the spell of postmodernism and multiculturalism. The search for truth is surpassed by it all depends on your perspective'.
Am I correct as far as your thinking?
Now for mine.
Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. One example of such a truth is that the individual has a higher value than the state. Another is that humans are neither perfect nor perfectible by government policy or law. Therefore, the need for checks and balances and the separation of power.
Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of do what you can get away with. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.
Now, the Senator Goldwater quote that you have included to support your position, it is only applicable if I were insisting on you behaving as I do, as I believe, but that is not the case.
Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.
The only attempt at 'force' is the one we both use on this board: debate.
The Goldwater quote is an example of real life, not an abstraction. Consider:
Judaism --- A moral life is one that complies with the Law (ten commandments) and is responsive to the will of God.
Buddhism --- The summum bonum is the attainment of nirvana, the transcendence of earthly desires and suffering and the cycle of being and becoming.
Christianity --- The moral life embodies Christ's teachings, with emphasis on charity, meekness, poverty, the golden rule, and faith in God.
Plato: Moral truth exists; the ground of all moral knowledge is a transcendental world of changeless Forms of which the Good is the highest archetype. The best, most virtuous life is lived by philosophers, whose deepest passion is to purify the soul and to know the Truth.
Aristotle: The good is that "for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house..." Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Temperance is the hallmark of the good life, and the wisest people avoid extremes.
Epicureanism: The criterion of all good is pleasure. A moral action is that which produces the greatest pleasure; an immoral action one producing pain.
Taken from: ethics views
So it seems your first point is an accurate description of my sense of ethics. Are there "immutable laws' or moral actions, such as murder, robbery, slander and libel, theft (of all kinds), etc.? Yet, is there not for each such action a possible & reasonable explanation or justification for the act?
Consider, Bush ordered the murder of the sons of Saddam Hussein. He ordered the bombing of their place of residence, killing both of the sons of Saddam, and possibly others who worked in the home as caretakers. Possibly too residents of the neighborhood where they resided.
Was the president's action immoral?
I suggest that the liberal paradigm, that which describes (or did when I was in college) the works of Rousseau, Locke, Mill, and even Hobbs look at the human being as an individual no longer in "the state of nature" and the chains they wear today are a self-imposed as a product of the social contract.
(my apology for such a late response, I have a cold, sore throat and feel crappy)