Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Morality and Politics

YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 7:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you think that politics and morality are mutually exclusive? Why? Are there other realms of human behavior that are amoral? How do you reason your way to believing that anything anyone does could be amoral?

It was mentioned in another thread, and I'm very interested in hearing others' perspectives. It's one of those days when I can pretend to be a grad student again, lol...
Tsar of DDO
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 8:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What do you mean by "amoral"?
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 9:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 8:07:02 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
What do you mean by "amoral"?

lacking moral sense, being not moral or immoral, divested from morality.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 10:26:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Politics can be used as a tool to implement a moral code by force... but I think that what most people consider a moral code cannot be followed by the one who implements it if they want to be effective. To be succesful in politics one must be pragmatic, and always willing to be a bit more brutal than one's closest competitor, even if the brutality is veiled. Sometimes the morality is bent to justify this brutality (Third Reich, Shinto and the darker periods of Christian and Islamic History), and other times a form of collective cognitive dissonance is employed, the most striking examples being some of the more jingoistic strains of conservative American ideologies, which celebrate the spread of 'freedom' and 'democracy', and the Soviet Union's disturbing brand of stratified, oppressive communism. The main difference is that, while the former ideologies slowly transform the moral code into one which supports the necessary brutality, the others leave it in place while acting in a directly contradictory manner.

In short, the only sort of moral code that can be applied to politics is one which is suited to the brutality of politics, one which most wouldn't consider 'moral' in any sense.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:14:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:26:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Politics can be used as a tool to implement a moral code by force... but I think that what most people consider a moral code cannot be followed by the one who implements it if they want to be effective. To be succesful in politics one must be pragmatic, and always willing to be a bit more brutal than one's closest competitor, even if the brutality is veiled. Sometimes the morality is bent to justify this brutality (Third Reich, Shinto and the darker periods of Christian and Islamic History), and other times a form of collective cognitive dissonance is employed, the most striking examples being some of the more jingoistic strains of conservative American ideologies, which celebrate the spread of 'freedom' and 'democracy', and the Soviet Union's disturbing brand of stratified, oppressive communism. The main difference is that, while the former ideologies slowly transform the moral code into one which supports the necessary brutality, the others leave it in place while acting in a directly contradictory manner.

In short, the only sort of moral code that can be applied to politics is one which is suited to the brutality of politics, one which most wouldn't consider 'moral' in any sense.

Are you saying that any intersection of morality and politics must make room for politically motivated brutality which therefore renders "conventional" (and I use conventional here loosely, even though I'm sure there is a better word) morality outside the political realm, or are you saying that morality itself must make room for both the bad things that are done in the name of politics and conventional understandings of right and wrong?
Tsar of DDO
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:35:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 7:59:51 PM, YYW wrote:
Do you think that politics and morality are mutually exclusive? Why? Are there other realms of human behavior that are amoral? How do you reason your way to believing that anything anyone does could be amoral?

It was mentioned in another thread, and I'm very interested in hearing others' perspectives. It's one of those days when I can pretend to be a grad student again, lol...

Politics and morality are inherently linked because law and morality are inherently linked.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 10:01:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/27/2014 9:14:04 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:26:19 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Politics can be used as a tool to implement a moral code by force... but I think that what most people consider a moral code cannot be followed by the one who implements it if they want to be effective. To be succesful in politics one must be pragmatic, and always willing to be a bit more brutal than one's closest competitor, even if the brutality is veiled. Sometimes the morality is bent to justify this brutality (Third Reich, Shinto and the darker periods of Christian and Islamic History), and other times a form of collective cognitive dissonance is employed, the most striking examples being some of the more jingoistic strains of conservative American ideologies, which celebrate the spread of 'freedom' and 'democracy', and the Soviet Union's disturbing brand of stratified, oppressive communism. The main difference is that, while the former ideologies slowly transform the moral code into one which supports the necessary brutality, the others leave it in place while acting in a directly contradictory manner.

In short, the only sort of moral code that can be applied to politics is one which is suited to the brutality of politics, one which most wouldn't consider 'moral' in any sense.

Are you saying that any intersection of morality and politics must make room for politically motivated brutality which therefore renders "conventional" (and I use conventional here loosely, even though I'm sure there is a better word) morality outside the political realm, or are you saying that morality itself must make room for both the bad things that are done in the name of politics and conventional understandings of right and wrong?

The former. Everyone follows a moral code, some of which vary greatly from one another. In order to rise in political circles, one's code must allow for the necessary brutality. There are also some commonalities between the various accepted moral codes which can be cultivated or enforced by those in power. It's not in their interest for the people below them in political power to have an honest and brutal outlook on things and, to be honest, it isn't in the general public's interest either. A fantasy series that I like has a saying in it: "On the heights, all paths are paved with daggers." I don't think that people in the upper echelons of power have any sort of lasting, secure happiness available to them. Everything can change in a heartbeat. It's an uncomfortable condition, and I pity any populace which would have to bear it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -