Conservatism's 'loyal heir'

[Xavier_Onassis]

Here JS gives you clear guidelines of all the positions, and yet you refuse to identify which you are.


You could even make up your own definition.

But no.

disappointing.\

I think I would go with situational ethics.

Suppose I was charged with a group of hungry children and I knew of a bakery warehouse where it was probable that the bread would be eaten by rodents or otherwise be spoiled rather than sold. If I were to break in and steal this particular bread in this particular situation, I don't think I should be considered guilty of the crime of theft.

[_JS]

Kantian ethics might work there as well XO.

I worked on that list for a review of Lewis' The Abolition of Man I wrote not too long ago.

I think it works rather well and I drew from reputable sources. Situational Ethics and Moral Relativism get a real knocking around from those who look down on modernism (as Lewis did) and post modernism. Yet, in reality I think that many people fall into both categories to some extent. It would really be difficult not to.

[sirs]

Nah.

Then I'm sorry I couldn't help you.  And thanks for the book recommendation on moral view considerations, though as I've already referenced, I'm pretty "absolute" in those views already.  Thanks again, though

[Xavier_Onassis]

It doesn't seem to me that any rational thinking  person could actually be a moral absolutist. It is not too difficult to imagine a situation where almost any crime or sin could be justified by exceptional circumstances.

Even cannibalism.

Have you seen the film "Alive" about the Uruguayan rugby team that survived by snacking on their deceased teammates?  The Anniversary DVD  interviews all the main characters. Quite interesting.

As realistic a plane crash as I have seen in any film. At least as realistic as the crash in Tom Hanks' "Cast Away", and I bet done with a much smaller budget.

[sirs]

It doesn't seem to me that any rational thinking  person could actually be a moral absolutist.

Probably because no one, including myself, have claimed to be a diehard 100% moral absolutist

Have you seen the film "Alive"

No

[_JS]

Stop Sirs, before you make a fool of yourself.

A moral absolutist doesn't go half way. This is inherent in the term itself. To be a moral absolutist you must believe that morality is dictated by absolute standards set down in universal laws (rules, etc). Typically there is a God or god-like figure who sets these universal laws (a Tao would work as well).

So you get a view of morality as being something like this:

Slavery is wrong.
Theft is wrong.
Dictatorship is wrong.
Adultery is wrong.
Fornication is wrong.
Murder is wrong.
Cannabilism is wrong.

Absolutism means that there is no question after the statement. You cannot say something like, "well, Thomas Jefferson took very good care of his slaves and it was a common economic arrangement at this point in Southern American history." Now you are making a moral relativist argument.

Moral Absolutism means what it says Sirs. It is like pregnancy. You can't be sometimes, sort of, 35% pregnant. You either are, or you are not.

For an absolutist there is no moral dilemma that is not solved by universal law (whatever law that is depends upon the beliefs of the absolutist - it might be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc.)

Does that make sense now? I'm not being a smart ass and I understand that these terms get misused a lot by people who don't understand them, including journalists. Yet, you cannot "sort of" be an absolutist. You are, or you are not.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This reminds me of the anti-alcohol debate back in the early 1900's with Carrie A. Nation and company.

A total abstainer was a person who never drank alcohol. But then some would claim that alcohol as a tonic foir heath was okay.

Those that disagreed and refrained for absolutely all use of alcohol were not just Totalers, but Tee-Totalers, which is where the word comes from.

Teetotalers were, with regard to Demon Rum, moral absolutists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Sirs makes this claim:

"Probably because no one, including myself, have claimed to be a diehard 100% moral absolutist",

one can only wonder if he refutes the word 'diehard' or claims to be a 98.6% or 99 and 44/100ths percent moral absolutist.

But no, this is impossible. Either one is an absolutist or one is not. Unless one is 100% absolutist, one cannot claim to be an absolutist at all.

There are no exceptions from absolutism.

[sirs]

Stop Sirs, before you make a fool of yourself.  A moral absolutist doesn't go half way.

Try reading first, then you may want to look in the mirror with that proclaimation.  "Healthy injection".  Now, what part of that clear parameter I provided in the beginning insists I must be some 100% moral absolutist??  It means, I have very strong and concrete positions of morality, of what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.  THAT's what my statment meant, so why this semantic two step of what I was supposed to mean, I can only assume at this point as some deflection effort.  To what ends, I'm not at liberty to form a substantiated opinion.....yet.  Suffice to say, i know what I meant, and it really wasn't complex at all, as it fits the parameters I originally presented.  Had I claimed I WAS a moral absolutist, I would have said so       

[_JS]

You do know what the word "absolutism" means, correct?

[Mr_Perceptive]

Whether it is called "conservatism" or not is really immaterial.

President Bush and his administration has certainly led the right wing in this country, until perhaps 2006. I don't see a lot of inconsistencies with right wing thought.

Actually, the neocons differ greatly from traditional conservatism as presented by William Buckley.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Interesting.

I don't believe Bush's failures necessarily come from the historical definition of conservatism that I offered. Not at all.

I agree that Krugman does exactly that, which is the point of his article. As I said, simple tit-for-tat politics.

But, to be fair to Krugman, many on the right have claimed that the Republican Party (along with the President) did stray from traditional conservatism and that cost them in 2006 and with Bush's problems. In fact, I believe that you agreed with this assesment, though I could be mistaken. So, it isn't as if Krugman just made that theory up...it has been popular amongst the right as well.

I don't really care what you call Bush. Mister Potato Head is fine with me. In an historical context, I think that he is a conservative...but so are most American presidents to varying degrees. We live in a rather solidly right of centre nation.

"We live in a rather solidly right of centre nation."

And God bless America we do!

[BT]

Actually i don't think neo-cons are conservatives. It is a misused descriptor and pejorative much like liberal was last decade.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Good point, BT.

BTW, what Service were you in?

[sirs]

You do know what the word "absolutism" means, correct?

Yes.  And I used the term in conjunction with the opposite of moral relativism, a near sickening aspect of those who can rationalize anything to everything, regardless any facts or logic to the contrary.  Now, do you understand my actual position yet, given the parameters I've tried to provide??

[_JS]

You do know what the word "absolutism" means, correct?

Yes.  And I used the term in conjunction with the opposite of moral relativism, a near sickening aspect of those who can rationalize anything to everything, regardless any facts or logic to the contrary.  Now, do you understand my actual position yet, given the parameters I've tried to provide??

But that isn't what moral relativism means at all. It isn't "rationalizing anything and everything." Nor is moral absolutism the opposite.

I gave you perfectly good examples of how each would approach the moral question of stealing, so you could see the difference.

Simply saying moral relativism bad, moral absolutism good, is foolish. One cannot be sort of a moral absolutist or have a "healthy injection" of moral absolutism. 

Moral relativism simply takes into account the historical, cultural, and social context of a moral decision. And as much as you claim to hate moral relativism...I've seen you make a moral relativist argument in this very forum.