Who should rule test?

[RetiredGySgt]

Read the question again. It says " Are ALL values ....."

ALL of them, and the answer is some values are set and even if some group thinks otherwise that doesn't change the fact.

 

[Diuretic]

AB is right - all values are relative, they're only human inventions in any case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

AB is right - all values are relative, they're only human inventions in any case.

LOL, to Humans, which I hope we all are, the fact they are only human is irrelevant to any discussion. Perhaps if your a tree, human ideas and constraints do not matter.

Some Values are simply NOT relative. Murder is not relative, cannabilism is not relative, no matter Larkinn's claim otherwise, Rape is not relative, no matter what group thinks it is. There are others as well.

Unless your now going to argue that murder is ok if the majority do it, or Rape is ok if the majority think so. Some Values exist regardless of popular opinion or majority opinion.

Of course I am sure a certain person will be along shortly to twist what is said and try to claim otherwise.

 

[Diuretic]

LOL, to Humans, which I hope we all are, the fact they are only human is irrelevant to any discussion. Perhaps if your a tree, human ideas and constraints do not matter.

Some Values are simply NOT relative. Murder is not relative, cannabilism is not relative, no matter Larkinn's claim otherwise, Rape is not relative, no matter what group thinks it is. There are others as well.

Unless your now going to argue that murder is ok if the majority do it, or Rape is ok if the majority think so. Some Values exist regardless of popular opinion or majority opinion.

Of course I am sure a certain person will be along shortly to twist what is said and try to claim otherwise.

Here I am but don't call me Chubby Checker

Murder is a value judgement in itself. The very term "murder" has legal origins, good old fashioned "killin'" ain't murder. But I fear I may be entering a semantic debate which isn't helpful. Let me say this though - there is nothing innately wrong with one human killing another. The prohibitions that humans put on one human killing another are value judgements and are therefore relative.

Same for cannibalism. Of itself it's not innately wrong. Personally I could give it a miss. But it does happen -

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910506,00.html

Even the famous English case of the cabin boy who was killed and eaten elicited some sympathy from the general public R v Dudley and Stephens.


So, I'll stick my neck out and say that all values are relative.

 

[Gunny]

Hyperbole? Lt Bush to his soldiers, 'we go this way.'
Soldiers to Lt. Bush, 'but sir that a quagmire!'
next scene, soldiers stuck in quagmire.
Bush to soldiers, ' gotta go, have political work in Alabama, cya.'

Take the test and stop whining.

ps I and those others, whomever they may be, may like Bush just fine, good guy to have around, just not presidential material.

How about you stop whining about Bush instead? He's as good or better as any other Presidential material currently on the roster, and NO Democrat even comes close.

You want to talk leadership? When you come whining to me with a problem ... bring your proposed solution along with you.

 

[Diuretic]

If it comes to that, Bush is a dick. You should be embarrassed by him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's true, but values are still relative.
Our values aren't the same of, say, socialist values. Or jihadist values.

That's true... but that also doesnt mean that their version of "good" is good.

If you want to engage in moral realtivism, that's fine -- but you'll eventually find yourself havng no leg to stand on when you try to argue that the Nazi-era genocide asgainst the Jews was 'wrong'.

 

[Diuretic]

All morals are relative.

 

[AllieBaba]

All morals are relative.

Of course they are. I happen to like mine, but I certainly don't want somebody like Jillian or one of the Clintons (heaven forbid, if they ever are allowed that sort of power) to determine what is right and wrong.

Because I don't trust their judgment. Freedom is being able to live to your own values, provided those values don't hurt other people or their property.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All morals are relative.

Of course they are.

If you believe in moral relativism then you must not believe in the universal truths upon which our country was founded.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[mattskramer]

No quibbling, no long explanations, no, it depends....you're applying for a leadership role, answers are yes or no.


Do you understand your core values?
Is liberty more important than equality?
Is the state necessary?
Is government necessary?
Are all values relative?
Are rights more important than duties?
Have you ever regretted something you have done?
Does the free market exist?
Is welfare acceptable?
Are you better than a homeless bum?
Is the separation of church and state a good thing?
Should societies attempt social justice?
Do you read?
Are poor people lazy?
Should health care be available to all?


All 15 questions are Yes or No. Two questions are debatable, four questions are 'No,' Nine demand a 'Yes' answer if you are to rule. A correct score to be a ruler must be close to perfect. Not done yet.

The questions are too vague. With some qualifiers, I could answer them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The questions are too vague. With some qualifiers, I could answer them.

Answer them anyway, perhaps noting which are so vague your yes or no answer does not do it justice, like I did.

 

[mattskramer]

Answer them anyway, perhaps noting which are so vague your yes or no answer does not do it justice, like I did.

Do you understand your core values?
Yes

Is liberty more important than equality?
It depends of your definition of the terms.
Liberty is as important as equal opportunity.
Liberty is more important than is equality of results.

Is the state necessary?
Yes - for certain things such as national defense.

Is government necessary?
Yes - for certain things such as national defense.

Are all values relative?
I do not know. I think that most values are relative.

Are rights more important than duties?
No. They are linked.

Have you ever regretted something you have done?
Yes

Does the free market exist?
No. A relatively (or moderately) free market exists.

Is welfare acceptable?
Yes - under rare and special circumstances.

Are you better than a homeless bum?
It depends on how you define "better".
All things considered, I think that I'm better than most bums.

Is the separation of church and state a good thing?
No. Total and absolute separation would not be good.
The degree to which church and states are linked should be reduced.

Should societies attempt social justice?
Yes - to a degree

Do you read?
Yes. I am readeing now.

Are poor people lazy?
Some are lazy and some are not lazy. I think that most are not lazy.

Should health care be available to all?
Yes - to a small degree.
At the very least, emergency care should be provided.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While Liberty and equality are linked, you can never have real equality without liberty. So in the chicken egg test, Liberty comes first, in my opinion.

Now you could argue that somehow equality could exist in a non free environment if everyone had the same exact rights and privileges , but that isn't really true since someone or some group will be in charge or stronger, etc etc...

 

[mattskramer]

While Liberty and equality are linked, you can never have real equality without liberty. So in the chicken egg test, Liberty comes first, in my opinion.

Now you could argue that somehow equality could exist in a non free environment if everyone had the same exact rights and privileges , but that isn't really true since someone or some group will be in charge or stronger, etc etc...

Wow. I see your point. True communes were attempted where everyone shared all resources in a practically equal manner, but as I recall, none were ever successful in the long run.

 

[Diuretic]

Wow. I see your point. True communes were attempted where everyone shared all resources in a practically equal manner, but as I recall, none were ever successful in the long run.

If by "success" you mean duration then I would think that Australian aboriginal societies which were run along communal grounds for between 40 thousand and 60 thousand years (the duration is still being discussed) would have to be judged successful.

 

[AllieBaba]

If you believe in moral relativism then you must not believe in the universal truths upon which our country was founded.

Actually, I do believe in universal truths. But I believe that personal values are relative, because when you start down that path, you open the way for the argument (for example) that we can't hold people accountable for their actions because they THINK they're doing the right thing.

But maybe that doesn't work....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, I do believe in universal truths. But I believe that personal values are relative, because when you start down that path, you open the way for the argument (for example) that we can't hold people accountable for their actions because they THINK they're doing the right thing.

But maybe that doesn't work....

Well, if you believe in universal truths then you are not a moral relativist. You might be thinking of moral pluralism where people have different beliefs and practices but where there are still limits to those differences. However, there are those who do basically believe in moral relativism and their arguments can lead to the support and justification of almost anything.

That is why leftists are so dangerous to the USA …they are basically moral relativists. Their belief system is insidious and you can see them (like the ACLU) chipping away at our Constitutional rights. Their "god" is basically the STATE because it represents their highest power and truth. Of course the STATE in reality is only run by humans and power-hungry humans will trample over others all in the name of the STATE they create… all justified by their moral relativism that is ensconced within the framework of that STATE. Nobody is held accountable for horrible actions if the STATE condones it. This is how the world winds up with monsters like Stalin and Mao who lead a STATE into starving and killing millions.

The formation of the US was based on a higher power and truth than that of a STATE. It was founded on universal truths and rights that exist for every INDIVIDUAL. The rights of the INDIVIDUAL are greater than that of the STATE. That is why our country has been a shining star in this world filled with socialist/communist/totalitarian governments under which so many people suffer.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually your nation was founded on the ideas of Montesquieu and Locke and aspects of English common law and a whole heap of other ideas. I don't know if they can be called universal truths. I mean, the doctrine of the separation of powers was thought up by Montesquieu - a very good doctrine but hardly a universal truth.

Now, why are leftists "moral relativists"?

 

[Annie]

Actually your nation was founded on the ideas of Montesquieu and Locke and aspects of English common law and a whole heap of other ideas. I don't know if they can be called universal truths. I mean, the doctrine of the separation of powers was thought up by Montesquieu - a very good doctrine but hardly a universal truth.

Now, why are leftists "moral relativists"?

Why would you care? From what I've seen, you favor 'no government', right?