Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Printable View
Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Interesting question...I guess we must define both moral and ethical and just how they can overide the rights and beliefs of the general population in all its diversity.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
New York's former governer, Mario Cuomo, did not believe that it was ethical, or even legal, for his moral beliefs as a Catholic regarding birth control/ abortion et al could usurp the rights and beliefs of the overall population of the state.
He was duly vilified by the church....calling for him to be excommunicated blah blah blah....everything short of demading him to be burned as a witch.
He was an elected official looking to the secular rights of his constituents, not the moral teachings of his own particualr belief system and cosmology.
His morals/ethics colored his personal actions and he did not attempt to force belief into law.
The interesting thing to me is the beliefs themselves, and not so much whether a fellow developed his beliefs through pure reason, or by talking to his favorite sky god, or by reading the pattern in his morning breakfast cereal.
And I think that's the best place to develop an honest discussion, by focusing on the details of the beliefs/policy, and not trotting out the religion card.
"And I think that's the best place to develop an honest discussion, by focusing on the details of the beliefs/policy, and not trotting out the religion card.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the problem [as I see it] in this country, is that beliefs tend to get confused with notions of singular right, power and an increasingly vexing sense of infallability. It has me very worried.
Chanterelle beat me to it.
But as long as Candidate X is ranting about "radical secular ideology," and decrying the decline of judeo-Christian values, the religion card is in play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Yes. It is in play as a distraction from what is really going on.
About a million years ago, I did a brief stint as "the lovely assistant" for a magician. All my flitting, smiling and posing were specificly designed to take attention away from what the magician, the main act, was actually doing before his great reveal. I see this as the function of a great deal of ranting that is taking place in the public sphere lately.
technically I think they are required to carry out whatever the law is, so that a governor is required to carry out the death penalty even if they don't believe in it (some put up a some fight though).Quote:
Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?
Governors in most states I am aware of have the powers of pardon, reprieve, and commutation of sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Gov. Toney Anaya in New Mexico commuted all outstanding death sentences in the state, for instance. Gov. George Ryan of Illinois stayed all executions for years, and then finally commuted > 150 death sentences to life sentences.
I suppose we could just elect robot overlords to mercilessly carry out rules and make policy, might not be the sort of place most of us would enjoy living though :-)
Uh oh--the robot card. :cool:
(Cue Mitt)
This is true. And the laws of America are moral, because you don't need religion for morals. Bae is right in that, if i read him correctly. It doesn't matter where the morals come from, but are they shared morals of the nation. Do we all hold these morals sacred.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
We, as a nation, decided, for instance, that old people shouldn't have to worry about starving, being homeless without medical care, so we as a nation decided to implement SS and medicare. Sure, there were those who balked. There are always some who balk at everything. But on the whole, we knew this to be the right and moral thing to do. Same with welfare, and unemployment. I know some don't see these as moral programs, but they are. I'm not religious, but I am familiar with most mainstream religions, and I think all preach taking care of those less fortunate. And I think you'll find most atheist liberal, where the moral platform is the same.
We, as a nation, decided that abortion should be legal. Sure, some are dead set against this (and i can appreciate that...for another thread) but the majority of Americans want to keep it legal. Not legal with a rusty knife, but legal. A candidate like Santorum, who is sanctimoniously in your face about very private things, and even not so private (birth control) is very off putting and jarring, to say the least. He's talking about devils and morals and how women SHOULD behave...and this guy is running for President! You want to know what the Taliban would look like in a modern, 21st century nation? He's right there, running for President. A religious moralist running for the highest office in the world. Just because he represents your religion doesn't make him any less dangerous. I believe bae said it best. I can't believe anyone is considering this guy for President.
Morals are not the result of religion. No religion owns them. Morals are the result of evolution into thinking, cooperative societies. In order to be successful, societies needed to develop certain codes of ethics, or morals. I know many fundamentalist wouldn't admit it, but every successful society, whether christian, Jewish, pagan, whatever, share basically the same morals. Didn't come from a bible, or sky god, but from the evolution of man. And because they come from man, are constantly changing. The amoral behaviour of showing your ankles changed to knees, then to something else.
So, in a long winded way, to answer bae's question, yes, we expect our politicians to be guided by their morals. But, as fellow Americans, we also expect to mostly share those morals. A Taliban leader couldn't possibly expect to lead us, as well as even Santorum would shock them. Santorum doesn't share the majority of America's morals, which are not amoral as some would say. I think our morals are pretty well intact, thank you, and find most Americans very generous and kind and compassionate. Women enjoying sex is not amoral, in my opinion, and the pill, and yes abortion, has done more to advance our society than many other modern advances.