 |
| The left has scolded and we have rolled over like lame ducks |
Why do we 'separate' moral values from politics these days?
I get pluralism and tolerance, but why not 'include' morals and values in our tolerant pluralist discourse?
Anti-intellectualism is one reason that comes to my mind.
Overall, we conservatives are really passive and wimpy when it comes to publicly standing on our morals.
We almost apologize for our morals and hide them. In politics, the conservative politicians literally form their answers to avoid mentioning the word morals and replace it with 'values' and 'laws'. Values can 'conflict' without passing judgment. For example, "well, you like to work, make money and keep it. Good for you. I respect your values but think you should give it all away to the government. That's my value." You can oppose views without any moral "ought" that otherwise would transcend an individual opinion. (I shutter to think if we ever had a debate that the individual is not God and their opinion is not the center of reality)
Morals on the other hand 'imposes' a moral imperative on others; meaning "A" is right and "B" is wrong. Therefore do "A". This does not sit well with the 'left' in Canada.
The left have kicked our butts and silenced us from sharing our morals without massive reprisal. We conservatives should admit they 'got us' on this matter (for now). We are silent pansies tip toeing around each issue: least we are called a whole bunch of names.
Before we spout 'morals' and change the world, I think there needs to be a debate outlining that there is nothing logically wrong with introducing morals into political debates...especially if our goal is to strengthen families.
Secondly, we need to silence the left particularly in the area of their claim we are something bad or wrong if we determine something is a moral issue. On what 'moral authority' does the left think they stand sovereign over us and instruct us on what our thinking is? I blog and say something is 'immoral'...what's the big deal? The very act of the left 'condemning' my "intolerance" is a moral imperative they are imposing on me. They say, "thou shall not impose your morals on me"...which ironically is a moral judgment in and of itself.
That is hypocrisy. I say enough.
Step 1. Dismantle the lefts bogus straw man argument: 'avoid morals and use words like values and laws'
Step 2. Be free and debate your morals without fear
Step 3. Live them out by loving others
Love is not based on agreement, so love your neighbour, both on your right and left.
You firmly believe the government shouldn't be involved in business. Why should they should be involved in morality? Keep citizen's property and persons safe, and end your mandate there.
ReplyDeletePushing for less government on one hand and more on the other is the definition of hypocrisy.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAgreeing on any form of government requires an agreement on morals.
It sounds like your morals include the right to private property and security, and you would like to have a government that enforces laws to uphold those values.
Communist governments for example do not place so much value on private property, because they are based on different morals (e.g. rights for society ahead of the individual).
A government that defends property and safety through taxation still has to be morally justified, e.g. people say it is moral and just that the government claim the exclusive right to tax everyone in the land and to maintain a police and military force to uphold its decisions.
Ryan, great point, I think the idea of tolerance can often mean acceptance of different morals, which doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDeleteIf I think its immoral for someone to murder, I can hardly be tolerant of someone who thinks murder is moral.
I can't speak for everyone, but I think your view that homosexuality is intolerant, but what I really mean is that in my view that behaviour is not immoral, and I think my view is correct, and my view defines less things as immoral, which makes your view seem less tolerant. (I'm not trying to make this personal when I use "you" and "I").
I think people have the right to their property and their body and the right to do with them what they please providing their not preventing others from the same.
So if two adults want to do anything together I believe its moral.
Your morality harshly conflicts with mine. Presumably homosexuality is just one of possibly many things you think that two people (or even one person) should not do. This general concept is hard to stomach for me.
I'm glad Ryan isn't in a position to re-write the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
ReplyDelete15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
...or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
"I shutter to think if we ever had a debate that the individual is not God and their opinion is not the center of reality)"
ReplyDelete"Shudder". Problem is since the 1960's we've been inculcated with the propaganda that says we ARE God,and the centre of our own little universe,that's what the teaching of "the self" was all about. It succeeded very well, unfortunately.
So,we've lost that debate before it's even begun.
" All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
What the hell does THAT mean? "Equal in dignity and rights"? How do you define "dignity" as something that is external,given by governments to it's citizens? Human dignity has nothing to do with governments or others perceptions.
Sounds like the words of a communist bureaucrat determined to define every nuance of existence through rules,regulations,and laws,all handed down from atop the State's Mt. Olympus.
I tend to agree with the first anonymous post,the State should provide us with security of the person and his property,and leave the rest to the citizens,as we used to do before socialist meddling in our lives became the predominant theme.