Murrow - McCarthy: Good Night and Good Luck - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #31 12-05-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

When did the moral subjectivist undergo such a thoroughgoing conversion?

I don't understand what you're saying or implying. Simplify, please.

[2] A moral objectivist may argue that because most people have a "moral sense" about what actions are right and wrong, the burden of proof actually falls on the subjectivist to show that this sense is illusory. However, the moral subjectivist can simply point out that many people claim to have a "moral sense", but all these people come to opposite conclusions about whether or not, for example, abortion or the death penalty is ethically right. If this "moral sense" can lead to such widely different conclusions, then it is unreliable. The moral objectivist could argue that objective moral values still exist, but that only certain people's moral sense is correct while the others are mislead. However, such an argument appeals to an arbitrary decision as to who's moral sense is correct. An objectivist could also argue that our moral sense cannot discern any objective moral laws although they still exist. But if such were the case, there would be no reason to postulate the existence of such laws, for it was the existence of a moral sense in the first place which was appealed to as evidence for the existence of objective moral laws.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html

kerry · #32 12-05-2005, 08:57 PM

unless my aging memory is failing me, in the past you have dismissed moral arguments on the grounds that morality is subjective and personal unworthy of grounding a political position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I don't understand what you're saying or implying. Simplify, please.

[2] A moral objectivist may argue that because most people have a "moral sense" about what actions are right and wrong, the burden of proof actually falls on the subjectivist to show that this sense is illusory. However, the moral subjectivist can simply point out that many people claim to have a "moral sense", but all these people come to opposite conclusions about whether or not, for example, abortion or the death penalty is ethically right. If this "moral sense" can lead to such widely different conclusions, then it is unreliable. The moral objectivist could argue that objective moral values still exist, but that only certain people's moral sense is correct while the others are mislead. However, such an argument appeals to an arbitrary decision as to who's moral sense is correct. An objectivist could also argue that our moral sense cannot discern any objective moral laws although they still exist. But if such were the case, there would be no reason to postulate the existence of such laws, for it was the existence of a moral sense in the first place which was appealed to as evidence for the existence of objective moral laws.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html

Botnst · #33 12-05-2005, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

unless my aging memory is failing me, in the past you have dismissed moral arguments on the grounds that morality is subjective and personal unworthy of grounding a political position.

Yes, that's close to an accurate characterization. I think statecraft is valuable but without moralality. A nation cannot be moral but a person cannot help but be moral. Morality is intrinsicly human, in my estimation.

Weighing morality, like morality, is also distinctively human and individual.

B

kerry · #34 12-05-2005, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yes, that's close to an accurate characterization. I think statecraft is valuable but without moralality. A nation cannot be moral but a person cannot help but be moral. Morality is intrinsicly human, in my estimation.

Weighing morality, like morality, is also distinctively human and individual.

B

Ergo the moral equivalence of the US and USSR.

cmac2012 · #35 12-06-2005, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

With your comments above, you inadvertently illustrate the seriousness of the problem....

The PC stuff is being fed to us bit by bit, slowly and with subtlety, so that people like you will think that "it's not that bad", or "jeez, it's not socialist re-education, it's just one word.....", etc.

By the time people realize how deeply it has infiltrated our culture and our politics, and how radically it has altered the way we think and live, it will be too late. So far, it is going EXACTLY according to their plan.

Their plan. Now whose the tin hatted fear monger.

cmac2012 · #36 12-06-2005, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Please tell me that you do not think the USSR at that time was even close to having the same moral standing that the US had.... If so, then you far more misguided than I ever suspected.

Oh, cruel slap, unkind cut, woe is me.

Botnst · #37 12-06-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Ergo the moral equivalence of the US and USSR.

Ah, now I get it.

I don't believe that a nation can act in a moral fashion, of it's own volition. A nation doesn't say, "I am making a moral choice." A nation makes choices of necessity or of perceptions of necessity.

But an observer, using his own version of morality, may say, "That nation's behavior is immoral (or moral)." This is an anthropomorphism, of which I am guilty.

mikemover · #38 12-06-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Oh, cruel slap, unkind cut, woe is me.

I didn't ask you to care. I'm just documenting my observations.

Mike

mikemover · #39 12-06-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Their plan. Now whose the tin hatted fear monger.

I don't fear it. I'm just aware of it. I used the word "their" for lack of a better word at the time. I'm hardly treading on "conspiracy theory" ground here...

Mike

cmac2012 · #40 12-06-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I didn't ask you to care. I'm just documenting my observations.

Only a fool would try to claim that the US and USSR were roughly equivalent in type and scale of moral attrocities.

My problem with the "Stalin was a monster" line of thinking (he was) is that too often we are held up as the shining example of what a nation should be compared to the horrors of Stalin's Russia. We do have a lot of good things happening, both now and in the past. Along with that were many cases of trodding rough shod over the rights of all sorts of peoples and nations less powerful than us in pursuit of fun and profit, or to prevent those lands from falling into Soviet hands.

Ya ever read about Kermit Roosevelt's manipulation of events in Iran in '53 in service of removing the mildly socialist Mosadeq and replacing him with the hated Shah? The Shah whose secret police we and Israel helped train in the art of clamping down hard on dissent? Should be taught in high schools.

http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/rushdie/00-06-16tim.htm

Might have seemed like the right thing to do to some, but it has reaped us much trouble, ongoing.

Know thyself, sayeth the sage, and we're stuck, many of us, in delusions about our non-stop wonderfulness and erroneous beliefs that the world is eternally grateful to us for restoring freedom in their various nations.

It would take pages to get into it and you probably wouldn't read it anyway.

Have you been reading how many smaller companies -- smaller than big oil, Halliburton, and Bechtel -- are hurting more than a little in international sales because of general anti-American sentiment? I'm going to post an article soon on this.

Crush your rose-colored glasses under your heel w/o delay.

mikemover · #41 12-06-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Only a fool would try to claim that the US and USSR were roughly equivalent in type and scale of moral attrocities.

My problem with the "Stalin was a monster" line of thinking (he was) is that too often we are held up as the shining example of what a nation should be compared to the horrors of Stalin's Russia. We do have a lot of good things happening, both now and in the past. Along with that were many cases of trodding rough shod over the rights of all sorts of peoples and nations less powerful than us in pursuit of fun and profit, or to prevent those lands from falling into Soviet hands.

Ya ever read about Kermit Roosevelt's manipulation of events in Iran in '53 in service of removing the mildly socialist Mosadeq and replacing him with the hated Shah? The Shah whose secret police we and Israel helped train in the art of clamping down hard on dissent? Should be taught in high schools.

http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/rushdie/00-06-16tim.htm

Might have seemed like the right thing to do to some, but it has reaped us much trouble, ongoing.

Know thyself, sayeth the sage, and we're stuck, many of us, in delusions about our non-stop wonderfulness and erroneous beliefs that the world is eternally grateful to us for restoring freedom in their various nations.

It would take pages to get into it and you probably wouldn't read it anyway.

Have you been reading how many smaller companies -- smaller than big oil, Halliburton, and Bechtel -- are hurting more than a little in international sales because of general anti-American sentiment? I'm going to post an article soon on this.

Crush your rose-colored glasses under your heel w/o delay.

No rose-colored glasses here. I'm well aware of our bumbling in Iran and elsewhere.... I'm hardly harboring any illusions of the US being "perfect". We are far from it, and I don't know how you could have not noticed me talking about many of these "imperfections" in other posts and debates and rants, and I continue to do so.....

However, if you look around the world, at the various nations' governments and economic systems..... Other nations may have certain isolated things that they do "better" or more efficiently than we do, but if you look at the big picture...."all things considered", if you will.... it really doesn't get any better than what we have here.

If you want to be a pessimist and call us the "lesser of the evils", or whatever, that's fine..... It doesn't change the fact that we've still got the best thing going overall, and instead of so much counterproductive self-loathing and self-blame, we really should be working on improving an already great thing.

Mike

davidmash · #42 12-06-2005, 07:40 PM

If I came here from mars, I would promptly get back in my transportation, place barricades around the planet with "do not disturb for 1000 years" signs and promptly get the hell out of dodge.

I am guessing (hoping) that in a thousand years we will either have exterminated all life on this little rock we live on or we will have evolved into a species that can play nice with the other children in the sand box.

MS Fowler · #43 12-06-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

If I came here from mars, I would promptly get back in my transportation, place barricades around the planet with "do not disturb for 1000 years" signs and promptly get the hell out of dodge.

I am guessing (hoping) that in a thousand years we will either have exterminated all life on this little rock we live on or we will have evolved into a species that can play nice with the other children in the sand box.

David,
Why are you so optimistic? Look at the history of humankind. We, as a race of people, have always engaged in selfish, murderous behavior. ( Some would say we are inclined to evil, continually). What ould possibly change that history?

cmac2012 · #44 12-07-2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

No rose-colored glasses here. I'm well aware of our bumbling in Iran and elsewhere.... I'm hardly harboring any illusions of the US being "perfect". We are far from it, and I don't know how you could have not noticed me talking about many of these "imperfections" in other posts and debates and rants, and I continue to do so.....

However, if you look around the world, at the various nations' governments and economic systems..... Other nations may have certain isolated things that they do "better" or more efficiently than we do, but if you look at the big picture...."all things considered", if you will.... it really doesn't get any better than what we have here.

If you want to be a pessimist and call us the "lesser of the evils", or whatever, that's fine..... It doesn't change the fact that we've still got the best thing going overall, and instead of so much counterproductive self-loathing and self-blame, we really should be working on improving an already great thing.

It's true, our overall system does work better than most or even all. And I have seen you criticize our land as well.

I'm worried about complacency, the sitting on one's laurels sydrome. One wag once raised the question, "Are we a first class people, or an average people who stumbled upon a first class continent?"

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Our once extensive natural wealth gave us wiggle room for all sorts of errors. Witness the huge cost of our erroneous Vittnam adventure (Wha's up BOT!). Could have brought a lesser nation low and it was a speed bump for us, financially anyway.

In this era of clearly increasing scarcity of energy and other resources, we proceed, unhindered, with a way of life that seems to require much more energy per capita than most of the rest of the world. Only ones higher are in much colder lattitudes than we. We are enormously inefficient, IMHO. Businesses that are way less efficient than their competition tend to go under.

I see washed out bridges ahead. But, what the hay-ell...Full Speed Ahead!!

MS Fowler · #45 12-07-2005, 05:57 AM

cmac,
You asked is we were a first class nation, or an average nation that stumbled onto a first class continent.
IMO, we WERE a first class people. Look at the how industious were the early settlers, and pioneers. "Yankees" were notable for ambition, and hard work.
Now, the emphasis is on easy money, or --believing that the government will supply all our needs, to sit back and wait for something good to happen. We have become spolt by our previous sucess, fat and lazy.
Sure, there are exceptions to my critique. But the percentage of "go-getters" v. the perceantage of " sit and waiters " has shifted drastically.