Romney PLEASE! and NOT Santorum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Is a public official allowed to use their personal moral and ethical beliefs as a guideline to their actions?

---

Of course, so long as following those personal moral/ethical guidelines do not function at cross purposes to the constitution, relevant law, and personal liberty.

well, amoral means actually "outside of morality." and it could be argued that sex is inherently amoral, but that context creates the morality. And context includes not just specific definitions (eg, sex within marriage is moral, sex outside of marriage is moral -- as this holds ideas around marriange and what nto), but really the broader ideas that a person can decide within their context whether having sex is appropriate, can take precautions to care for themselves and others in the process (ie, birth control, barriers to prevent disease), and can determine the moral constructs of that relationship.

All of this moralizing -- or i suppose you could say "moral relativism" -- is individual and *private* and not subject to law under the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

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.
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.

---

So under your morality-as-consensus paradigm, a sort of electoral might makes right criteria should apply? If 53% of the voters decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Civil Rights Acts or the First Amendment, that would be ethically coherent? Is a war moral if 68% of us approve of it, but evil once 23% of us weary of it and change our minds? No consistent logical system or revealed wisdom should apply, just what’s currently fashionable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

So under your morality-as-consensus paradigm, a sort of electoral might makes right criteria should apply? If 53% of the voters decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Civil Rights Acts or the First Amendment, that would be ethically coherent? Is a war moral if 68% of us approve of it, but evil once 23% of us weary of it and change our minds? No consistent logical system or revealed wisdom should apply, just what’s currently fashionable?

---

That's the problem with a "morality as consensus" or pure democracy model. Tyranny of the majority at best, a pure mobocracy at worst.

Our constitution protects us from that, although I understand it's now an out-dated document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

That's the problem with a "morality as consensus" or pure democracy model. Tyranny of the majority at best, a pure mobocracy at worst.

Our constitution protects us from that, although I understand it's now an out-dated document.

---

Yes. The founders talked about rights when they wanted to limit the power of government over the individual. Now a big slice of the political class talks about rights when they want to expand the power of government over the individual. If they manage to convert the Constitution from a restraining order to a shopping list, something special will have departed from the world.

And how exactly does our constitution protect us from majority rule? That's pretty much how laws are voted in, isn't it? Up or down? A majority of the votes? isn't that how we do things here? Or maybe you think only the landed ruling class should make the laws, and set the rules. Surely even you can concede that laws can't be written to please everyone. So how do you propose we do it?
Yes, morals change, and we change with them. This isn't 1776, as it turns out, and we don't own slaves (which was not questioned in a moral context by those 'oh so moral founding fathers') And we don't consider women second class citizens who can't vote, own property, or worry their pretty little heads about important stuff. We evolved, as a society, into the realization that treating others like that was immoral, so we changed, and our morals and laws reflected that.
We share certain morals as a nation, and yes, our laws evolve to reflect those shared morals. We cannot write law to reflect that which only a few hold as 'the moral thing to do', and the rest of us find to be a bunch of hooey.

"So under your morality-as-consensus paradigm, a sort of electoral might makes right criteria should apply? If 53% of the voters decide to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Civil Rights Acts or the First Amendment, that would be ethically coherent? Is a war moral if 68% of us approve of it, but evil once 23% of us weary of it and change our minds? No consistent logical system or revealed wisdom should apply, just what’s currently fashionable?"

and what if we decided dogs could marry 13 year old girls.....or little boys should have one ear cut off...
The voters won't overturn Row V Wade because the voters want to keep it legal! And safe. Nor would they vote to overturn the Civil rights act or the first amendment. This argument is totally bogus, and an attempt at distraction. This isn't a slippery slope scenario, and majority rule certainly isn't a slippery slope. Even the Supreme Court runs on majority rule! How can anyone argue against majority rule? How exactly would you do it?

I guess a person who doesn't understand the nature of morality wouldn't understand this. Morality isn't a religious thing. it isn't a talking snake, magic apple sort of thing. It is wholly and completely of the evolution of man. Once it was ok to kill your neighbor for his food, this is what animals do, without remorse. Now we know that to be immoral and our laws reflect that. Is that the tyranny of majority Alan? That we don't let you go out and kill your neighbor for his food? Or steal his food? Do you wish to own slaves? We impose that tyranny on you as well. We don't let you own slaves, as much as you may want to.

I know the republicans like to sound smart and knowing when they keep saying over and over how our country has lost it's morals and THEY will take it back. They never used to say exactly to WHAT they want to take it back to. Now we know. Rick (don't google me) Santorum has stated what he will take us back to if he is elected and it's not looking so good for women. A majority of Americans (damn that majority rule!) have/will reject that vision and thankfully that is still how we elect our President (unless the supreme court and governor-brothers interfere)

Let's talk about pure democracy because that like applied in ancient greece or something (and hey it probably applies to an OWS general assembly). But what we have going on in the U.S. is something else entirely ....

In essence: I REALLY don't think most of the policies we are getting actually spring from vast bottom up demand. I just don't see that AT ALL. What we have in the U.S. is not entirely able to be summed up in a word (although there are so many choice ones that apply to some degree).

Basically as far as the higher positions of power go you have candidates picked by an elite (the super PACs and so on - it doesn't even require some "shadowy" elite when you have that kind of money sloshing around) and rubber stamped by the electorate (assuming the voting is legit which hey is an assumption).

The theoretical benefit of democracy is it gives the people some say in their government (which is kinda better than an entirely unaccounatable government). It's a release valve, it's a guard against some layer of power abuse, it may not perfectly protect minority rights, but it at least protects majority rights (in theory anyway). Which again is better than an elite that rules in a way that is opposed to the vast majority. Tyranny of the majority, as flawed as it may be, is still better for most people (by definition) than tyranny of the elite. So it's one step up.

And so the theory is not all bad. I could imagine the type of society or situation it would work in (better on a small scale probably, and better in a multi-party parlimentary system, and likely incompatable with the level of propaganda and media sellout in U.S. society, not to mention the ignorance and apathy and not to mention, and this is huge, completely incompatable with the money in politics!). But in practice current U.S. democracy seems to be used just to lend credibility to whatever government we happen to get. If conditions ever reach a point where a release valve is desperately needed, there isn't going to be one. They (the lawmakers) are making sure of that (by ever more totalitarian law).

Quote:

---

Our constitution protects us from that, although I understand it's now an out-dated document.

---

Yea the civil liberties carnage mostly started under Bush W, grossly accelerated under Obama. Although things have been messed up in various ways for a long time, but after 9-11 IS when loss of rights didn't just happen via secret CIA plots or something but burst right out in the open. Still if people think economics is more important when voting than NDAA, well .... in the long run they will get neither! (neither economic prosperity nor civil liberties). In a world where the official law is anyone can be locked away without trial for anything, what power do people really think they have to have economic or any other grievances addressed, no matter how bad things get? Economics as the number one issue? That's short sighted. Not because economics doesn't matter, IT DOES, but because what kind of economy do you really think you are going to get in a police state? Not one that serves most people, I'd bet! Environment should also trump economics. What kind of economy do you think you are going to have in a trashed planet when all the basic natural resources which underlie the economy are destroyed?

Thanks for helping to make my point ANM. Those are the kinds of things that happen when government oversteps it's constitutional limitations.

Oh, and if you think that our liberties started disappearing under GWB, your memory may not be long enough. Consider mass internments of American Indians and Japanese Americans or the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Perhaps a bit before your time, but clear examples of the federal government overstepping it's authority under the guise of "majority rule".

Peggy, consider the idea that if constitutional principles had been uniformly applied at our founding, your examples would never have been an issue. They were an issue because people felt that their personal beliefs trumped reason, logic and fair play. When you use "morality" as a valid basis of governance, you absolutely are setting yourself up for laws that result in despicable outcomes.

I believe that a perfect form of federal governance would be limited to one basic tenet. Your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

And how exactly does our constitution protect us from majority rule?

---

The Bill of Rights was a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

The Bill of Rights was a good start.

---

It's still majority rule. it has to be. When we vote on something, the only logical outcome is, what the majority votes for is what we have. Well, now that corporations are people (admittedly with a ton of money and power no individual has) it is becoming the golden rule. The one with the gold, rules! Which is kind of how strict constitutionalists seem to want it. They really don't want the unwashed masses to have a voice.
I guess I don't understand your argument/objection to majority rule. How exactly do you propose we make laws, decide policy, etc..? See, when some elected official proposes something completely against our SHARED MORALITY, like invasive ultrasounds before abortions, then the MAJORITY rises up and says I Don't Think So, that official backs down, realizing the MAJORITY of their voting populous doesn't want that. Do some think that procedure is just fine and dandy? Sure, Santorum for one, but the majority said no, so it won't happen. Just as the majority wouldn't allow the reversal of row v wade, or the first amendment, etc..