0
RonD1120

Liberal Morality

Recommended Posts

Since I live in the fringe of modern society in a mountain Christian enclave I have reached an intellectual quandary.

With all this brouhaha over Trump's private conversational remarks, what is the politically correct, progressive/liberal definition of morality?
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>what is the politically correct, progressive/liberal definition of morality?

The definition of morality is knowing right from wrong. Not just for conservatives or liberals, but for everyone.

The easiest way to see how moral someone is is to see how they act when there are no consequences (that they can see) for their behavior. How do they treat waitresses and servers? How do they talk when they think no one is listening? How do they treat others who are dependent on them, and thus can't really criticize them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

Since I live in the fringe of modern society in a mountain Christian enclave I have reached an intellectual quandary.

With all this brouhaha over Trump's private conversational remarks, what is the politically correct, progressive/liberal definition of morality?

Strive to respect everyone's right to decide what is best for themselves, as long as "what is best" does not cause harm to others. Strive in your own life to avoid causing harm to others, and instead try to be helpful where you can.

Really, it comes down to "do unto others as you would have done unto you".

Trump's private conversational remarks would have been merely crude if they has been limited to observations/judgments that so-and-so is "hot" or unattractive or whatever. That would still be limiting women's value to a single measure, their utility as a sperm receptacle. Trump went beyond that, to claim he has the right to do as he wishes with any woman's body just because he is rich/famous. The woman herself has no say in the matter.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be nice to have the morality of the very wealthy and have the right to stroll in on a bunch of naked Miss USA contestants because you own the contest.

/www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/12/former-miss-arizona-trump-just-came-strolling-right-in-on-naked-contestants/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

Or, of course, indulge in a little pussy grabbing.

On an April 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trump bragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.

“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.

Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”

Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Character is what you are in the dark" -- Dwight L. Moody

I think the same can be said for a person's "morality."

It's what you do (not say, but DO) when you think you can "get away with it."

Let's face it, everybody has three selves; one they project to other people, one they believe they are, and the last who they really are.

I know of nobody on earth who behaves the same in all circumstances. Nobody.

I know of nobody on earth who is as good as they believe themselves to be. Nobody.

Even people with the absolute best intentions can be complete assholes and never realize it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know of nobody on earth who is as good as they believe themselves to be. Nobody.



I understand the sentiment behind this statement, but not sure I agree with it.

There are quite a few people whose sense of self-worth is so low they truly believe the world would be a better place if they were dead. Most if not all of those people are much better than they believe themselves to be.

But, like I said, I understand agree with what I think was the sentiment you wanted to convey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting a little side tracked here, but if you re-read the sentence, you'll see it doesn't mention whether the person is better or worse than they believe themselves to be. Simply that they are not; that could be better or worse, just not equal to.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the impression sometimes that you think political and/or religious differences turn people into something other than human beings; in other words, that ideological differences trump human similarities.

For the overwhelming majority of human beings, across the overwhelming situations and judgments, that's simply not true. What we have in common is way more important than what we don't.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>what is the politically correct, progressive/liberal definition of morality?

The definition of morality is knowing right from wrong. Not just for conservatives or liberals, but for everyone.

The easiest way to see how moral someone is is to see how they act when there are no consequences (that they can see) for their behavior. How do they treat waitresses and servers? How do they talk when they think no one is listening? How do they treat others who are dependent on them, and thus can't really criticize them?



By that standard, neither candidate would appear to have the edge.

Hillary has earned a reputation as an evil human being for those in her employ, and being assigned to her was viewed as punishment by the Secret Service (who dubbed her aircraft "Broomstick One").

Trump is an undisputed gonif when doing business, and is a complete schmuck in public. Oddly enough, people have voiced admiration for his treatment of them when nobody was looking.

I view both of them as being consummate assholes, but Hillary is an unrepentant parasite from the word go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But that is an excellent question. What is considered to be the 'new standard?'



No, it's a stupid question. The Golden Rule has been around for a long time. It hasn't changed, regardless of the cesspool of liberal thinking Ron believes has ruined the world.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm always surprised that there are some people who think that the only morality stems from having an authoritarian sky-based father figure doling out eternal punishment. Are you saying that the only reason you are a decent person is because of the fear of eternal torment in hell? Because the reason I am a decent person is because I respect other people and want to make the world a better place. I don't need my sky-daddy telling me that I'm grounded in order to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120


With all this brouhaha over Trump's private conversational remarks, what is the politically correct, progressive/liberal definition of morality?



His private conversational remarks were an admission of sexual assault. You not understanding this verifies that you're morally bankrupt.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes

What is and is not 'moral' varies widely from person to person, society to society, culture to culture and varies greatly over time, as it should.



Religions introduce a wide variety of taboos and that's not universal.

However, I disagree with your basic premise. There are basic and universal concepts of morality which seem to cross all cultures. For instance, I can think of no culture where murder, simply because a person doesn't like someone, is acceptable. Nor theft. Nor lying. Nor rape simply because the rapist wanted to.

The basic concept of fairness is universal not just in humans either, but is easily demonstrated in apes, monkeys, dogs . . .
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
basic premise yes, murder might be considered universally taboo. Unless of course you are talking about Hitler and had advanced knowledge of his misgivings.....then would it be 'moral' to snuff that murdering fuck?

Generally yes, but there are always exceptions to every rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The basic concept of fairness is universal not just in humans either, but is easily demonstrated in apes, monkeys, dogs . . .



Murdering infants to establish dominance and limiting bloodlines is pretty common behaviour amongst primates.

Are you saying you can somehow prove this is considered immoral amongst primates?

Murdering people for bringing shame is considered the right thing to do amongst some cultures.

Some consider Robin Hood a moral hero, others an immoral thief. Theft is not always considered immoral.

The basic concept of fairness is nowhere near universal and certainly not throughout history.

TK was right on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've missed the point entirely.

Yes, there can be exceptions for specific purposes to almost any moral situation you'd care to talk about. However, what I'm talking about in terms of morality is what is commonly acceptable day-to-day.

Yes, you're allowed to "murder" somebody who is about to murder you. We call that "self defense." That doesn't mean murder is moral on a day in and day out basis in our common lives.

I defy you to name any culture where murder is acceptable as a day in and day out occurrence. I'm not talking about a war zone or area of civil unrest. Just walk up to anyone and kill them without any repercussions. Name it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I defy you to name any culture where murder is acceptable as a day in and day out occurrence. I'm not talking about a war zone or area of civil unrest. Just walk up to anyone and kill them without any repercussions.



Moral, acceptable and repercussions are all different concepts.

But that aside.

Look at Honour killings and suicides as two acts, which moralities are viewed entirely different amongst various cultures or subsets of cultures.

Quote

Just walk up to anyone and kill them without any repercussions.



When slavery was morally acceptable, killing slaves was morally acceptable.

There is at least one person here who has no moral objection to black people murdering other black people today in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0