Progressives reclaim vague concept of “morality”
Read this review of Susan Neiman’s new book, Moral Clarity. It’s one of many books about how the left eschewed virtue and how the right cornered the market on it, for good and for bad. Neiman is a “progressive,” but she takes progressives (read: liberals) to task in the same way conservatives always have:
Neiman, an American philosopher who runs the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, Germany, worries that American progressives have drifted away from the values and intellectual traditions of the West, stretching from classical antiquity to the Enlightenment (this is the larger narrative). She is vexed that contemporary conservatism has staked an uncontested claim to these traditions. When George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004 (this is the more local narrative), she recalls, “I was stunned by the claim that voters chose George Bush because they cared about moral values. Either they had been bamboozled or the left had dramatically failed.”
This quote reveals the typical liberal condescension that a conservative couldn’t possibly have the moral high ground. “How dare they claim it!”
Why have moral values become the property of the right? Her diagnosis, in part, is that “Western secular culture has no clear place for moral language, and its use makes many profoundly uncomfortable.” She also connects the “rightward turn in American culture” to the reshaping of American conservatism as an intellectual rather than an anti-intellectual movement. As the principle-driven progressive politics of the ’60s petered out, the American right discovered the power of ideas.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top71 Comments to “Progressives reclaim vague concept of “morality””
As Reagan said, “We win, they lose.”
Report comment to moderator
“Western secular culture has no clear place for moral language, and its use makes many profoundly uncomfortable.”
When you remove all possibility for universal truth, goodness, and beauty (IE. a Creator God) then you lose any mooring for those things. It’s no surprise that the “progressives” have no clear sense of what is moral.
On the other hand, I’ve seen them insist that they do have morals, and how dare we insinuate that they cannot be moral.
Of course, to state that, it’s quite obvious that they’ve totally missed the point. It’s not that they can’t have morals, or more appropriately, values, since “morals” imply universality (or absolutes), it’s that their sense of value is derived out of thin air, and is based on nothing but personal preference or “consensus”. The difficulty they run into is that this set of “values” is temporal and may change in the next 10-20-50-100 years. From that standpoint, there’s no place for them to denounce or judge any one else’ morality, or lack thereof, since it’s all relative anyway.
Who is to say that my horrid belief is immoral? Hasn’t my beliefs and morality evolved right along with everyone elses?
Report comment to moderator
Actually I think she has a point.
Conservatives are more worked up over Bill Clinton lying about Monica that they are about the fact Bush has killed (at least) tens of thousands of innocent people.
Report comment to moderator
Nick– Pointless, untrue, irrelevant, and self-contradictory. All in two sentences. Very tight.
Report comment to moderator
Same question as MIM: On what objective basis is truth built, when truth is relative and divided among the world’s religions or even based off our own personal moral instinct?
Because people don’t share the same moral instincts: for hundreds of years Hindus in India burned widows with their husbands, and Islam (at least initially) spread via violence.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps Neiman is discovering that modern liberals aren’t liberal at all.
They no longer stand for individual liberty and responsibility or love of logic and reason. They enigmatically do precisely the opposite of what they say. What kind of morality is that?
The so-called progressive stands for social re-engineering using the strong arm of government. They say they are for liberty, but grow government to take over every aspect of our lives.
They say they oppose racism, then institutionalize it. They say they are for freedom of speech, as long as they agree with it. They say they stand for the little guy, but kill the littlest of them all. They say they want to improve the environment while hindering numerous forms of energy that would help the environment.
I agree with many things liberals say, but they are completely inept at accomplishing them. Their logic has become twisted and confused. They need our help. Go on, give one a big hug. They need us. Otherwise they will hurt themselves and everyone around them.
Have you hugged a liberal today?
Report comment to moderator
The “progressive’s” basic problem has to do with the sort of moral and cultural relativism that provides no foundation for stating truth. Whether consciously or not they follow Nietzsche’s nihilism that includes a deceased God who no longer allows for firm moral or cultural truth.
The trouble, however, with many conservatives is that they, having been to some extent influenced by the reign of nihilism, are uncertain of their own moral and cultural ground.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt is right. As Gary North used to say, “Godless conservatism doesn’t beat godless liberalism.”
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man, and others, have it right.
I want to add something.
When liberals say that they are moral or have a moral sense, it always strikes me that they are simply co-opting our morals. For example, they know that murder is wrong, but our belief system already includes that belief.
Even on an issue like “gay rights”. When they say that homosexual people should be treated fairly, they are co-opting our morality. It is Christianity that teaches love for all people and inherent human equality.
————————
Where they go wrong is in inventing a “new morality” in which Choice trumps almost everything else. That way is wrong, because they obviously don’t think people should have the choice to beat up homosexuals or to force everyone to join a Christian church. Neither do we, because our moral system is consistent. What’s right is always right, and what’s wrong is always wrong.
That’s another way that they go wrong. They think that morality should bend to specific circumstances rather than the circumstances bending to the morality. That thinking leads to justifying whatever the given individual does, as they have done with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s escapades.
Report comment to moderator
I definitely agree with MIM, Kimberly, and Xion.
At the same time, a majority of Americans now believe that the democrats are the party for morality.
The Iraq War, hidden torture arenas, numerous scandals, and a perceived lack of morality by the current administration is dooming the republicans in the current election.
Even if McCain pulls off the upset, the Republicans will lose even more senators and congressman and end up weakened in setting any agenda.
Both conservatives and liberals have been secularized and watered-down to the point where morality is no longer defensible and no view can lay claim to being on the side of values or truth.
Based on Biblical morality what would have been the correct stance for:
Iraq
torture
abortion
global warming and environmentalism
health care
immigration
Oil and energy independence
I certainly don’t think the republican party can lay claim to being value driven. Greed seems to be their primary motivation. But then again, democrats and their desire for free handouts from the wealthy doesn’t seem any less money driven.
Report comment to moderator
Greed seems to be their primary motivation.
Well, this depends on to what extend we really believe what the media says. Probably the truth is somewhere between “Republicans are the good guys!” and “Bush is a terrorist!” and closer to good guys.
As far as the political issues you list, we’ll need to take a little time and work down the list and find Scripture references (what better way to find Biblical morality than go to the Bible?)
Report comment to moderator
Vote for Bob Barr in 2008!
Report comment to moderator
The moral argument always wins. Neitzsche was only partly right about the weakness of morality. Morality is slavery, but imposing judgment on others makes you strong. Further, it’s very pretty to think that morality is real and absolute. And maybe it really should be, whether or not it is. Therefore, we’ll always have a party of God. There will always be Republicans, whatever they call themselves.
Upon close examination, morality turns out to be a shunned business, like the hangman’s profession. People pay others to preach morality. This is because people understand that ethicsusually slums in the realm of things that can be stated otherwise, which is almost all of the world we know. The people who implement morality in culture have to be spindoctors and masters of postmodern rhetoric.
The income they get from the morality business they have to pay back out for the expense of hypocrisy. There’s very little profit in remaining in the business. The smart operators move in opportunistically, rake off their gains, and then get out quick.
Report comment to moderator
It all depends on what you mean by morality, and the exchange in #3 and #4 make the point.
Conservatives see morality as pertaining mostly to sex and abortion. The so-called “values voters” are voting their opposition to gay rights and abortion rights.
Then they justify pre-emptive war, use of torture, denial of basic civil rights, opposition to health care programs and various other things — all of which liberals believe are moral issues — on the grounds of pragmatism or conservative political principles.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, #6.
Right on! megadittos.
A post from a few weeks back pointed out that most of the things secular progressives claimed to hold so dearly were being achieved by religious communities.
Godless conservatism? Ayn Rand, call your office!!
Report comment to moderator
Any discussion of morality you hold with a secularist invariably degenerates into the seculibidiot trotting out the canard: “Yes, but whose morality are we talking about here? From whence was it derived? Why? How?” etc etc
Those on the fundagelical conservative side (ie fundy cons) are exempted from fretting about such narcissistic drivel.
Report comment to moderator
One would presume that in decrying hypocrisy and greed as the slimy underbelly of conventional morality Scroop Moth is himself necessarily expressing moral sentiments. The nihilism implicit in his third sentence is thereby exposed as self-contradiction.
The curious inversion of our contemporary political alignment requires a redefinition of teerms like “conservative” and “liberal.” Modern conservatives seek to conserve the Liberalism of thinkers like Adam Smith and Edmund Burke that reached its apex in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Political and economic freedom at home and a dependence on local autonomy and reason. Modern progressives who claim the name liberal are in fact reactionary, prefigured by the forces of the French Revolution, depending on passion rather than reason, government action rather than Burke’s “small platoons” of voluntary human associations, pragmatism over people, and an abstract version of a future “ubermensch,” a romantic vision of an “authentic” humanity that requires the demolition of our contemporary “bourgeoise” to bloom.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG– I thought you might show up on this thread.
Unfortunately, I see where you’re coming from here: Conservatives see morality as pertaining mostly to sex and abortion. The so-called “values voters” are voting their opposition to gay rights and abortion rights. . I think “morality” is so much more than that, but thanks to voter politics, it boils down to this in the news a lot.
From the conservative perspective, liberals see morality as pertaining mostly to global warming and universal health care. Then they justify socialistic health care, extensive government taxes, illegal immigrant labor, and new “green laws” on emissions and where we can’t drill for oil on equality and the need to care for Mother Earth.
Noble goals, perhaps, but are they enough to build a moral system off of?
By the way, I noticed the “Christless Christianity” thread expired, which was really too bad. It was a good debate.
Report comment to moderator
#14 SteveG You say, conservatives justify …
- Pre-emptive war. Only in the case of WMDs as Hillary does. Waiting for the first strike may be the last. When is war OK with you, after a few cities have been leveled? Obama doesn’t mind either.
- Use of torture: There is no consensus on this. Putting a bra on your head is not torture. Denying criminals cable TV is not torture. Playing Barry Manilow is definately torture. I oppose that.
- Denial of basic civil rights: So-called gay rights and abortion rights are not really rights and they are definately not basic. How is sucking someone else’s brains out a right? And gays have the same rights as everyone else.
- Opposition to health care programs: No, only socialized medicine. My plan is far better: Everyone should purchase cheap major medical and then use flexible savings accounts for the rest. This would keep costs down. HMOs are the worst idea ever. They are killing health care.
Socializing HMOs will put the government in our shorts. Whatever we eat or drink or do will be regulated by Washington supposedly for our best interest and to help the taxpayer.
Report comment to moderator
My father-in-law is an extreme liberal and is a pacifist. He opposes all war on moral grounds.
He stormed the beaches in Normandy. So I ask him, “Was stopping Hitler the right thing to do?” “Yes”, he says. “And you oppose all war?”, I ask. “Yes”, he says. That’s about as far as we get.
Liberals have lots of heart, so much so that they stop making sense. If liberals want to be the heart, then let conservatives be the brains.
Report comment to moderator
KEN: . . . in decrying hypocrisy and greed as the slimy underbelly of conventional morality Scroop Moth is himself necessarily expressing moral sentiments.
This evangelical chestnut has been been burnt to ashes in many previous threads. The morally powerful are indifferent to hypocrisy, which is the resentful protest by the morally weak. Consider the gallery of Republicans caught in scandal since the Revolution of 1994 — which of them is remorseful at his hypocrisy? Consider moralists like Olasky, who spin hypocrisy into some kind of virtue that corresponds favorably with immoralists, who are incapable of rising to it, because they have no standards to betray. Talk about Nietzschean arrogance! So no, KEN, I’m not inconsistent unless I say that hypocrisy is evil. It may be, but I don’t go that far. It’s comical. Bruta figura.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: But see, it always goes to extremes. Y ou cite as an example of a liberal someone who opposes all war under any circumstances despite having fought in one he considered just.
I daresay you won’t find many such, which makes your citing of it as reason to discount liberal thought specious. Most liberals are not pacifists, though most of us are concerned about the incautious use of military force.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner at #16: Those on the fundagelical conservative side (ie fundy cons) are exempted from fretting about such narcissistic drivel.
Sure .. because you shut down your brain and say “it’s in the book so I believe it (except when I don’t and then I have a really convoluted rationalization to explain why).”
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly: From the conservative perspective, liberals see morality as pertaining mostly to global warming and universal health care. Then they justify socialistic health care, extensive government taxes, illegal immigrant labor, and new “green laws” on emissions and where we can’t drill for oil on equality and the need to care for Mother Earth.
Noble goals, perhaps, but are they enough to build a moral system off of?
But see, your underlying assumption is that these goals are just arbitrary, which is implicit in the way “Christian” and “liberal” are usually presented as opposites around these parts.
Liberal Christians would be surprised to hear that. Or rather, probably not surprised but certainly disappointed.
Report comment to moderator
Xion at #19:
- Pre-emptive war. Only in the case of WMDs as Hillary does. Waiting for the first strike may be the last. When is war OK with you, after a few cities have been leveled? Obama doesn’t mind either.
War is justified when it’s defensive and unavoidable and not based on deception.
- Use of torture: There is no consensus on this. Putting a bra on your head is not torture. Denying criminals cable TV is not torture. Playing Barry Manilow is definately torture. I oppose that.
Do you think it’s wrong to subject people to extreme pain or fear of death? Most liberals do on the grounds that they are human beings and that we should treat them with some minimum standard of decency no matter how much they hate us (be better than they are) while many (certainly not all) conservatives shrug it off on the grounds that “they would do worse to our people” (likely true, but still, we should be better.)
- Denial of basic civil rights: So-called gay rights and abortion rights are not really rights and they are definately not basic. How is sucking someone else’s brains out a right? And gays have the same rights as everyone else.
I was talking about habeas corpus, right to speedy trial, right to legal counsel .. luxuries like that.
- Opposition to health care programs: No, only socialized medicine. My plan is far better: Everyone should purchase cheap major medical and then use flexible savings accounts for the rest. This would keep costs down. HMOs are the worst idea ever. They are killing health care.
But nobody currently involved in the political debate is proposing anything like “socialized medicine.” That’s a buzzword conservatives throw around to scare people.
Report comment to moderator
But see, your underlying assumption is that these goals are just arbitrary.
Perhaps, but if they’re not arbitrary, we’d love to see your reasoning on how you get to these goals. So … Why these particular goals? What makes them so definitively NOT arbitrary?
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #18: By the way, I noticed the “Christless Christianity” thread expired, which was really too bad. It was a good debate.
It was. But I’m sure we can pick it up again in the next appropriate thread.
Kimberly at #26: Perhaps, but if they’re not arbitrary, we’d love to see your reasoning on how you get to these goals. So … Why these particular goals? What makes them so definitively NOT arbitrary?
A liberal Christian (the evangelical left for example, or the more theologically liberal denominations) arrives at the idea that environmental regulations, to take just one example, derive from our mandate to take care of the Earth.
Conservatives bristle against the idea that it should be a matter of law, but I think that’s debateable. Conservatives also fight hard to try to ensure the law continues to forbid gay marriage. Suddenly, the weight of the state is their friend when it’s an issue they agree with?
A good percentage of political liberals are devoutly religious, again, contrary to this blog’s use of the word “liberal” as if it is a synonym for “atheist.” They draw their ideas about morality from their beliefs, same as you do. (And so do I, though mine are less specifically Christian than some.)
Report comment to moderator
This thread has moved from Ms. Neiman’s basic point that Progressives or liberals have become unmoored from basic Western values and morality. In effect they advocate a loose form of liberty that pays scant regard to morality or, gasp, sin.
Like Kimberly, I would be delighted to know how the liberals on this thread base their own claims to truth. My view is that they are basically living off the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian tradition, while claiming to be uninhibited and creative individuals, not beholden to any sort of tradition.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop responds to Ken (#17) with this gem: “This evangelical chestnut has been been burnt to ashes in many previous threads.”
Snort! Right…. In your imagination maybe…
He then decrys (again) hypocrisy (and arrogance), and then trys to deny he believes it is wrong.
Uh. Yeah. Whatever you say Scroop.
Your arguments aren’t hanging together today.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG–
I took a post in today (5.28)’s Whirled Views to respond to an argument in the last thread. So you might look there for at least a partial response.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives bristle against the idea that it should be a matter of law, but I think that’s debateable. Conservatives also fight hard to try to ensure the law continues to forbid gay marriage. Suddenly, the weight of the state is their friend when it’s an issue they agree with
I’ve discovered gay marriage threads are dangerous!! so I avoid posting on those. But I usually read them (or at least skim parts), and Jon Rowe has made some convincing arguments against government regulation in marriage. I think you have a point here, and off the top of my head, I’d rather have govt. non-interference on marriage (even though I feel very strongly against so-called “gay marriage”) than telling me what kind of light bulb to put in my house.
They draw their ideas about morality from their beliefs, same as you do. (And so do I, though mine are less specifically Christian than some.)
Well, from where we stand on the perspective, liberals are at least closer to the athiest point on the spectrum than we are.
It gets confused because we feel that we have the true morality (we believe Scripture is accurate; we’ve been through this already too!) although we’ll readily admit there are some problems interpreting.
Even for those coming from the same perspective (say, me and Peter Leavitt I think) morality is a tricky thing. I stand more firmly against abortion than against global warming, because I believe that the unborn child’s life is immediately more important than a slowly deteriorating world. On the other hand, we’ll probably both agree that we DO need to protect the world and thus support at least some measures to “go green”. (Composting is good).
Morality probably boils down to
1) What are your priorities (abortion v. global warming)?
2) How do you interpret your religious beliefs and writings to “produce” the morality you hold?
Report comment to moderator
“Composting” means making compost piles.
Report comment to moderator
Neiman: “I was stunned by the claim that voters chose George Bush because they cared about moral values. Either they had been bamboozled or the left had dramatically failed.”
HSK: This quote reveals the typical liberal condescension that a conservative couldn’t possibly have the moral high ground. “How dare they claim it!”
No it doesn’t – It just shows clear-sightedness about George Bush. Conservatives may indeed have the moral high ground now and then (though less often than they like to imagine, which seems to be all the time), but George Bush has never ever been anywhere near it!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt — do I qualify as a liberal? or a centrist? well, in any case, I would affirm that my values are grounded in Scripture and the Church’s teaching.
For instance, if one confesses that God has truly spoken, that this Word is available to all (see the Penteost sermon of Peter’s), there is a radical notion of equality tucked in here. All can hear. That equality of person has about it a number of secular and political analogues. (Remember Protestants started Sunday schools, and schools in general precisely out of the conviction that if all could hear, all should hear and so be educated.)
As to HSK’s post, it was the last line of Neiman that caught my attention: “As the principle-driven progressive politics of the ’60s petered out, the American right discovered the power of ideas.” Take away the political context, and the idea is still true. For Evangelicals, the late 20th C has been a time to discover the power of ideas.
Of course, this linking of religion, morality and knowledge have been a part of American civic live since the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (see Art. 3, Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,…)
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly at #31: It gets confused because we feel that we have the true morality (we believe Scripture is accurate; we’ve been through this already too!)
But see, that’s not really true at all. Nothing in Scripture says to use the weight of the civil law to, for example, ban gay marriage. Religious conservatives read a proscription against homosexuality, and then they have the choice of whether they take that as:
* They should refrain from homosexual activities, encourage others to do the same and regard homosexuality as sinful, OR;
* They should try to enforce their view of appropriate behavior on the population at large through the law.
Now, I am not arguing for or against either of these positions. I’m saying that it’s not at all clear from Scripture which is right.
The liberal Christian, by the same token, ALSO looks to Scripture for “the true morality,” reads passage after passage of the Old Testament prophets, and then Jesus, and then Paul, urging God’s people to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows, the sick, the imprisoned, and responds to that call.
Again, I’m not saying one is more right than the other or that one is right and the other wrong; I’m saying that people can get all kinds of things out of Scripture and respond differently. For you to say you have the “true morality” where a liberal Christian who isn’t concerned about homosexuality but cares deeply about the poor doesn’t, is a bit presumptuous, I think.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, how can you say: “Liberals have lots of heart,….”???
They are the ones defending sucking out the brains of healthy babies or dismembering them. They are the one who endorse assisted suicide. I think they’re quite heartless. They defend the right to do these things to death — usually someone else’s.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Conservatives are the ones defending forcing women to have babies they don’t want and aren’t prepared to care for. They are the ones insisting that someone facing a terminal diagnosis and a final few final weeks of life in great pain should have to endure it until the last possible moment even if he wants to be released.
“Heartless” is in the eye of the beholder.
Report comment to moderator
Well, NJLawyer #36. I don’t believe any liberal would directly advocate sucking the brains out of kids. This is all accomplished indirectly.
Liberals are the sensitive ones. They are like kindergarten teachers who want everyone to play nicely and get the same number of cookies. If Bobby got no cookies yesterday he gets extra today. It is outcome based equity, not equal opportunity.
Unfortunately such a philosophy does not work in the adult world. Was racism a big problem in America? Yes. So what is the liberal solution? Favoritism based on skin tone. You see, they acknowledge that racism is morally bad. However, their solution is racist in itself.
With abortion the issue is feminism. Women weren’t allowed to vote and had to stay at home slaving away for centuries. So we want to allow them to act like men for a while. So we will let them sleep with people they don’t particularly like and then ignore the offspring. But killing sounds so harsh. So we will simply call it choice. There now everyone is happy! Time for a nap everyone.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #25 You say,
“War is justified when it’s defensive and unavoidable and not based on deception.”
I agree, but if you knew you were being deceived, then you wouldn’t go to war. McClellan offers no motive. The real deception came from Saddam Hussein.
“Do you think it’s wrong to subject people to extreme pain or fear of death?”
Tough question. If a million people could be saved by pulling out someone’s fingernail, would it be justified? The fingernail will grow back, but the million people won’t.
“I was talking about habeas corpus, right to speedy trial, right to legal counsel .. luxuries like that.
What conservative opposes these?
But nobody currently involved in the political debate is proposing anything like “socialized medicine.”
Neither Obama nor Hillary are talking about a single payer system like Kucinich did. However, Universal Health Care as defined by Obama and Hillary Clinton are government controlled mandates. Hillary’s plan includes garnishing the wages of anyone who doesn’t buy health insurance. What happened to the liberal love of liberty?
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
It’s been clear for some time that the administration’s case for war was deceptive, and McClellan confirms it. The administration deceived the public, Congress and the UN. Why? Because regime change in Iraq had been the goal of neo-conservatives for a long time and 9/11 served, with the aid of some blatant misdirection, as the kind of Pearl Harbor-like event necessary to get the people behind the effort.
On torture, your example is specious because you’re arging for a relatively minor injury against saving a million lives. I’m talking about waterboarding and attaching electrodes to people’s testicles on the off-chance they might know something useful when we’re not even sure they do.
Anybody who applauds the Bush administration’s treatment of the various detainees held for years without trial or access to a lawyer supports the denial of basic civil rights. They may not be Americans with a legal entitlement to those rights, but WE are Americans and supposed to be better than those we consider our enemies.
I don’t believe thet garnishing of wages is a formal part of the Clinton plan, it’s just something she speculated about. Nevertheless, I also didn’t like that she’d consider it and it’s one reason I prefer Obama.
Report comment to moderator
I wanted to clarify something I said earlier regarding the state not regulating gay marriage:
govt. non-interference on marriage should mean exactly that.
I don’t have a problem with no laws prohibiting it, but I’d also rather not have laws promoting it. The government should be neutral: currently it seems to be supporting gay marriage and the gay morality, and I feel that interference here is probably wrong, since they’re not going to stand up for those opposed to gay marriage at the same time.
the goal: government neutrality. They shouldn’t legislate morality–neither yours nor mine.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (35)–
Nothing in Scripture says to use the weight of the civil law to, for example, ban gay marriage.
No, it doesn’t. Go back and read my post again. Bans against gay marriage probably aren’t a good idea; unfortunately, government support of gay marriage isn’t good either. (see post 41).
You mentioned the mission for God’s people to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows, the sick, the imprisoned, and responds to that call I agree with this too. (Perhaps it just didn’t come through in my post). I see God’s missive too and feel it is improtant. But I’m still not going to be eager for the govt. to jump on the bandwagon and offer welfare programs.
The call to God’s people is exactly that: a call to God’s people . Social work should be left primarily to the church and church-related organizations (Samaritan’s Purse comes to mind).
I’m not sure whether you support government programs or church-based ones ….
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly: I’m not trying to advocate or oppose any specific approaches here. We were talking about the basis of moral ideas, and the insinuation that progressives just make theirs up while conservatives have “the true morality.”
My point, to put it simply, is twofold:
* Conservatives, in fact, do NOT arrive at all their moral ideas based on Scripture. There is much in Scripture they do not support (death penalty for adultery for example, or Levirate marriage), and there is much that they do support that they may infer or derive from Scripture but do not get directly there.
* Liberals, in fact, are often religious. They are admittedly less likely to be so statistically than conservatives, but many are. And those who are can also point to Scriptural support for their moral ideas — with about the same amount of inferring and deriving that Conservatives have to do.
Report comment to moderator
Why blame the entire alphabet for the actions of Mr. X?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG #40
No one in the US government advocates putting electrodes on testicles. Your example is specious!
As for the “detainees”, I am as baffled about that as you are. We should have kept them in their respective countries and have those governments deal with them. This whole Guantanamo thing is nuts!
Since the subject here is morality I would say that we both have the same morality about deception (maybe). If your president deceived you, then you have a legitimate gripe. But since you have no evidence, your gripe is speculative. Regardless we agree on the moral question. Why do you assume McClellan is telling the truth when he has so much to gain by lying?
I need to think this through more, but in war there is an aspect of deception that might be legitimate. A fake move or false transmission or propaganda can throw off the enemy and save lives. I always assumed that Bush called Islam a religion of peace, because it was safer for our troops. Sometimes though, I think he just might believe it. Unbelievable!
As a Christian I would say lying is wrong. But as a commander of troops, I would use any weapon at my disposal and deception is a weapon. Rahab lied to the troops looking for the Israelite spies and was rewarded for it. This has always bothered me, but it is what it is. Is all fair in love and war? Needs more thought.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: . . . I would be delighted to know how the liberals on this thread base their own claims to truth.
Most people agree that truth is contested. Jesus said He was the truth and whatever corresponds with Him is truth and whatever resists the mastery of His person is darkness. Christians therefore believe that an alliance with Jesus is the code that unlocks the essence and existence of reality.
The genius of Jesus’ theory of truth is that it appeals to everybody. If you’re a classic Christian you can believe that reason is able to determine the relationship of thoughts and statements with the actual state of affairs. When your intellect conforms with Jesus, He gives you the spiritual power to “comprehend” the darkness of the world and know the truth about the world He made. If you are a godless liberal, you can deflate the importance of truth as a philosophical concept in favor of the contingent meanings that persons and groups of persons establish by their cultural performances. If truth is a Person, persons can make truth. People aren’t just servants but friends, apostles, and agents of that personal — divine — authority. Persons participate in the construction of truth, not just in its observation.
Daniel Dennett wouldn’t use the preceding language, but his work is regarded by professional Christian philosophers as an exemplary statement of contemporary philosophical naturalism. “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” asserts that matter precedes mind, and that consciousness evolved through the operation of various algorithms. Powerful ideas like truth use the brain to replicate themselves as viruses use the metabolism and machinery of the cell, but are not themselves alive.
You don’t have to think the moral imagination depends on God to admire it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG–
There is much on this thread that I think we are actually in agreement (!!) on.
Liberals, in fact, are often religious. I believe you: their theology may be quite different, but they are still religious. So thank you for the clarification.
There is much in Scripture they do not support (death penalty for adultery for example, or Levirate marriage), and there is much that they do support that they may infer or derive from Scripture but do not get directly there.
This happens for two reasons: we prioritize (same as you do) and we pick and choose (some times for logical reasons, sometimes not), same as you do.
(For example, probably the reason most conservatives would give for not supporting the adultery death penalty would be a) we’d need to kill off half of society, too extensive, and b) that part of the law passed out of effect with the coming of Christ, admittedly a hard line to draw).
Since both camps claim to draw their morality from Scripture (and also from other places ranging from political figures to other cultural/religious principles), I propose that the question here should not stand “Where do you get your morality from?” but “How do you accurately determine moral principles and prioritize them? What makes conservation or abortion or welfare a moral value and where should it stand on the top of the list?”
That’s a hard question.
Report comment to moderator
That should have been “why should it stand (or not stand) at the top of the list on moral prioroties?
I suppose I could rephrase that “where should it stand in the list of priorities,” hence the confusion.
Report comment to moderator
#46 Scroop – Truth is objective reality, not a subjective construct. Your understanding of that reality is subjective, but truth exists apart from you.
When Jesus said he was truth, he was not trying to be mysterious or fabricate a religion. He was talking about actual objective truth. The one who speaks reality into existence is the author of that reality.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3
“[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible … All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Col 1:15-17
Report comment to moderator
XION,
Lying is wrong – don’t bear false witness – but as you point out there are Biblical examples where saving a life trumps the command to not lie – Egyptian midwives lying to Pharoah about Hebrew women giving birth before they get there in order to save the lives of the Hebrew male babies being born in Egypt.
KIMBERLY,
My ears always perk up when someone says we shouldn’t legislate morality. Morality is a code of conduct and the law already legislates certain obvious acts of misconduct – murder, theft, etc. And I think you would agree that we should ban abortion which means you want the government to legislate morality when it comes to abortion. I think people tend to back off when it comes to homosexuality because they don’t see any harm to society by accepting the behavior – if it doesn’t hurt anyone, why legislate against it? – is a common argument.
Report comment to moderator
SBG (50)–
Good point regarding govt. legislation of morality. You make me think.
On the other hand, taking care of the poor is also a moral act, and some would argue that conserving the environment is a moral act. Do we want the government to legislate these acts as well?
The question stands as I put it to SteveG (although in slightly modified form): How do we determine from our source of morality (the Bible, among other sources) which moral acts are of a higher priority, and which ones should the government regulate?
Report comment to moderator
KIMBERLY,
I didn’t mean to imply that the government should legislate everything. But as far as conserving the environment though, I would think that government regulations of corporations is in essence a legislation of morality. And in some communities, individuals are required to recycle trash and water their lawns on certain days of the week. And taking care of the poor is in some ways legislated because the taxes we are required to pay are used to help the poor – welfare, social security, etc.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t mean to imply that the government should legislate everything.
Understood. I am apparently having difficulty making myself clear today. Posting flu or something.
I’ll agree with you that the government needs to to legislate some morality and then in some places draw the line.
How do we know where to draw the line? I know I want it closer to “no legislated morality” (an impossibility) than “everything legislated” but it’s a tough call.
We could say “only those moral acts with a direct negative effect on somebody else” and we’d have murder, theft, and abortion, but then we might have to include stricter conservation requirements than we’d like.
We might say “all New Testament regulations” and then we’d avoid the problems implementing Mosaic Law outside of the Old Testament Jewish nation, but then we’d struggle with moralities borrowed from other cultures and other religions.
I submit that the goal should be to give human beings as much individual freedom as possible. Milton wrote against govt. censorship in Areopagetica, and the today’s government needs to be very careful about what it censors. How we meet this goal should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Now … I hope that was actually clear and not a jumbled post.
Report comment to moderator
XION: Your understanding of that reality is subjective . . .
Welcome to the congregation of the damned, XION. I’m so glad you visited us today and do hope you’ll come back again soon — and often!
Our knowledge of things is contingent on language, impersonal power struggles, our places in society, and personal biases. We can presuppose truth, but we can’t decide what it is. We struggle in vain to copy things accurately and represent them with our thoughts, words, and symbols. The more we look at things, the dimmer the light of intelligibility. That which takes form in our minds as “truth” lacks foundation to claim the essence of things. Most vexing, the claims that trouble us the worst, our politics and ethics, are claims that perpetually can be stated otherwise, irrelevant to truth. Our knowledge is subjective — because it’s not objective.
Report comment to moderator
Saved By Grace writes:
“…but as you point out there are Biblical examples where saving a life trumps the command to not lie”
I’m not saying we should lie, but that commandment specifically states we should not “bear false witness against our neighbor“. In other words we shouldn’t steal our neighbors good name or reputation. That is the intent of the commandment.
Please get this right.
Report comment to moderator
Xion in #49,
Exactly. Truth is not defined by what corresponds to reality. Jesus is the Truth, and He defines reality, because he was the Creator of it.
Report comment to moderator
KIMBERLY – We could say “only those moral acts with a direct negative effect on somebody else”
But who defines whether there is a negative effect? With abortion, the baby is defined down to just another part of the woman’s body so there is no negative effect on somebody else. That seems ridiculous to me but completely logical to someone else.
I agree that we should have individual freedoms – hence the Bill of Rights. And I think the original intent of the government was to protect us militarily and protect those rights through legislation. The size and scope of the government has grown well beyond what I believe the original founders intended.
Your posts are clear – I’m just playing a little devil’s advocate with my questions.
Report comment to moderator
As crazy as this sounds Scroop, I think I agree with what you said in #54, but that is not what I was talking about.
Our understanding of truth is certainly subjective and imperfect. Like blind men touching an elephant, they each have different opinions about the objective reality of the actual elephant. But the elephant exists whether they have an opinion about it or not. Falling trees make a sound whether anyone is there to hear it.
Truth is objective reality. Our finite minds can only comprehend a small bit of it and even that is subject to distortion of our senses and biases. For this reason you and I only see a dim reflection of truth, but that does not alter reality one bit. We bridge the gaps with faith, a belief system, a world view about what the elephant actually looks like.
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” I Cor 13:13
Even if we can’t agree about our dim view of reality, we still have faith, hope and love to get us through.
Report comment to moderator
Make it Man #56 – If you define reality as the material universe, then you are correct – the creator of something is more than the thing he created.
You bring up a good point. Truth is more than all things that exist. There is also moral truth, purpose and plan, design, ideals, etc. But if these things are real, then I would call them reality.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE IT MAN,
Point taken – my mistake – I should have used Lev 19:11 “You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.” or Col 3:9 “Do not lie to one another”
Report comment to moderator
We could say “only those moral acts with a direct negative effect on somebody else”
Well, in my last post I threw out this definition anyway because it’s too broad.
Certainly it could be easily redefined to permit abortion. You can redefine almost anything (of course, that does not make it true!)
Report comment to moderator
Xion 58– Good post, quite insightful as to objective truth vs. subjective perception of truth.
Report comment to moderator
I love to be palpated, but modesty advises me to resist the picturing of truth as an elephant. Even if that benefits Republicans! Besides, we have to keep this discussion above partisanship.
Report comment to moderator
XION, I share your enthusiasm for faith, hope and love — and wish more Christians knew what Augustine said about them. The people who run this blog seem to have more confidence in the rationalist project than you and I do. Augustine had a lot of anxiety about truth as a possession of thought and a property of language. He would advise us to think of truth as the string of beads in the hands of someone at prayer, the Christian’s direction rather than the content of doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
#64 Scroop – You see how much we have in common? How uncommon! Augustine is one of my favorite theologians. I would love to find the string of beads reference if you find it. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
#58 is why I’m a universalist, by the way.
Report comment to moderator
This moral question about deception is intriguing. Nearly every aspect of war involves deception. Hiding behind a rock is deception. Camouflage gear is deception. Stealth weapons, false transmissions, feigning, flanking, surprise attacks. It is all deception for the purpose of killing more of them than you.
Sports are the same way. Pitchers in baseball try to deceive the batter. Huddles hide the play from the opponent. You then fake left and go right. So skeptics can’t try to claim the moral high ground and say all deception is wrong and then go and watch a ball game. Neither can Christians.
So is there something deeper here regarding deception? Under normal circumstances lying is morally wrong. Why does competition change things? You could say sports is merely a game. You could say defensive war is a matter of self preservation. Lying to each other is treachery. Lying to the enemy is part of the rules. What’s up with that?
Report comment to moderator
#66 SteveG “#58 is why I’m a universalist, by the way.”
I understand. My perspective is that I cannot know the truth on my own, therefore I place my trust in someone who does. Peace brother.
Report comment to moderator
Under normal circumstances lying is morally wrong. Why does competition change things?… Lying to each other is treachery. Lying to the enemy is part of the rules. What’s up with that?
Just some rambling thoughts.
It may or may not be the competition element that changes the acceptablity of lying because some forms of lying are especially reviled in competitive/war situations.
I suspect that people see a large difference in lying to an enemy in order to get ahead in a game, and lying to your constituents about who the enemy is in order to rally their enthusiastic support for your war efforts. (No, I’m not having a go at Bush, I’m just expressing the view of those who do have a go at Bush).
The key difference is loyalty and betrayal. If you lie to your enemy it’s likely that you’ve betrayed no-one (because your enemy probably doesn’t trust you enough to expect the truth from you), but if you lie to your own team you’ve abused their loyalty, squandered their trust and betrayed them.
So I guess trust is a big factor in the issue of deception/lying. Few people trust a used-car salesman, so most people expect the used-car salesman to try to deceived them. But then, that’s deception within capatilism, which is a competitive system…
Darn, now I’m back to your question, Xion. Why does competition change things?
Maybe it’s because people have an expectation, and therefore acceptance, of deceptive practises in competitive systems. And they accept it because they personally invest less trust in the “players” which, in turn, means they have less chance of being betrayed.
Report comment to moderator
#69 Flaming Icarus – I think you may be on to something. Expectation may be part of it. Perhaps the reason is because there are rules of engagement that permit certain types of deception. It is expected and therefore allowed. If it is permitted, then you aren’t violating any law against it.
Expectation can set up de facto rules. For example, the British army would stand right there with big red coats and let you shoot them … once. That was the rule.
When the American rebels hid behind rocks they were violating the rules and the British objected. Eventually the expectations changed, which changed the de facto rules of engagement. The Geneva Convention was an attempt to stop the slide down the slippery slope by shaming countries into playing nice during war.
So if certain types of deception are considered playing by the rules, i.e. legal, then it is no violation. Pitchers are expected to deceive batters. Armies are expected to sneak up on one another. It’s the rule.
Report comment to moderator
So there’s a defacto rule that one doesn’t hide behind women and children when waging war. Evidently the radical Muslims didn’t get the memo…
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!