The Corrosion of Conservatism

[guacamole]

So this is your round about way of saying that there are certain kinds of sins, or a certain quantity of sin, that you deem acceptable in a candidate, and Trump has crossed the line you've arbitrarily drawn in the sand.

No-- not a line I'VE arbitrarily drawn in the sand, but one drawn consistently (arbitrary or not) by thoughtful Christians in the past.

Now that I've answered, how about you? Where do you arbitrarily draw your line with respect to accepting scurrilous and sinful behavior from your leaders?

[Mountain Man]

Where do you arbitrarily draw your line with respect to accepting scurrilous and sinful behavior from your leaders?

Ah, it's the "Have you stopped beating your children?" routine. Not playing that.

[carpedm9587]

We are probably using some of the terms differently. From a macroscopic, ethical anthropology perspective, it isn't necessary to believe that the ends justify the means even for relativism/subjectivism. One can have a more or less coherent ethic that doesn't accept violation of that ethic, and still believe that morality is a fiction or human construct.

It is possible that "ends-justifies-the-means" thinking is closer to moral nihilism.

fwiw,
guacamole

Out of curiosity - are you equating "fiction" with "human construct," or was that truly an "or" (one or the other)?

[carpedm9587]

Ah, it's the "Have you stopped beating your children?" routine. Not playing that.

Interesting...so guacamole acknowledges a degree of arbitrariness - but you won't even answer the question at all? How is that not dodging?

[guacamole]

Out of curiosity - are you equating "fiction" with "human construct," or was that truly an "or" (one or the other)?

I'm using in the Nietzschean sense that he expresses in "Truth and Lie in the Non-Moral Sense" where he refers to any human cultural construct as a "fiction." There's not meant to be any critique in the word.

[guacamole]

Ah, it's the "Have you stopped beating your children?" routine. Not playing that.

[Mountain Man]

Interesting...so guacamole acknowledges a degree of arbitrariness - but you won't even answer the question at all? How is that not dodging?

Look at how he worded the question.

[carpedm9587]

Look at how he worded the question.

OK - I did. Behavior can be separated into "moral/sinless" or "scurrilous/sinful." We seem to have acknowledged that the line is drawn somewhat arbitrarily (because the alternative is insisting on 100% moral/sinless, which will never happen). The question asked where (and how?) you go about placing your line.

I admit that Guacamole's answer is a little vague (a reference to "where thoughtful Christians have done so in the past), but you seem to be avoiding answering it at all. I'm curious as to why?

[carpedm9587]

I'm using in the Nietzschean sense that he expresses in "Truth and Lie in the Non-Moral Sense" where he refers to any human cultural construct as a "fiction." There's not meant to be any critique in the word.

Understood. Nietzsche and I never really got along all that well. What he would label a "fiction" I would simply label "subjective" or "personal." I suspect it is largely due to Nietzsche's influence that discussions like the one I had with Seer end up in a dead end. If it's subjective or personal - it's "not real" or "mere preference." I would say it's subjectively real, and preference can range from "my preference for pizza" to "my preference for living." The two are nowhere near equivalent - but they are both preferences.

[guacamole]

Understood. Nietzsche and I never really got along all that well. What he would label a "fiction" I would simply label "subjective" or "personal." I suspect it is largely due to Nietzsche's influence that discussions like the one I had with Seer end up in a dead end. If it's subjective or personal - it's "not real" or "mere preference." I would say it's subjectively real, and preference can range from "my preference for pizza" to "my preference for living." The two are nowhere near equivalent - but they are both preferences.

Nietzsche's one of my favorite heathens precisely because the vigor of his language. As far as the subjective=fiction angle, a lot of modern meta-ethicists are hostile to subjectivity and relativism in ethics. They do not subscribe to divine command theories of morality, but you don't need to subscribe to divine command theory be a moral objectivist or realist. Not than most Christians will consider it... I've been down that road with people here too.

[carpedm9587]

Nietzsche's one of my favorite heathens precisely because the vigor of his language. As far as the subjective=fiction angle, a lot of modern meta-ethicists are hostile to subjectivity and relativism in ethics. They do not subscribe to divine command theories of morality, but you don't need to subscribe to divine command theory be a moral objectivist or realist. Not than most Christians will consider it... I've been down that road with people here too.

Yeah - but you're starting from a share "moral objectivist/realist" starting point - at least giving you THAT for common ground. I'm the heathen rejecting both the idea of god AND the idea of moral objectivity. I'm dead in the water before the conversation even starts.

But am I to understand that you do not subscribe to "divine command theory?" You believe morality is rooted in something other than "god says so?" Or were you simply noting that others believe morality can be objective/absolute and rooted in something other than "god says so?"

[Mountain Man]

The question asked where (and how?) you go about placing your line.

I admit that Guacamole's answer is a little vague (a reference to "where thoughtful Christians have done so in the past), but you seem to be avoiding answering it at all. I'm curious as to why?

Like I said, his question had a distinct odor of "Have you stopped beating your children?" to it. I suppose I could give the equivalent answer to "I have never and will never beat my children" and say, simply, "I don't accept any 'scurrilous and sinful' behavior in my government leaders," but I have a feeling that wouldn't be a satisfactory answer.

To be even more vague, I could say that I will not vote for those who I think might support or enforce government policies that would compel me to contradict or that might restrict my ability to exercise my core Christian values.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, his question had a distinct odor of "Have you stopped beating your children?" to it. I suppose I could give the equivalent answer to "I have never and will never beat my children" and say, simply, "I don't accept any 'scurrilous and sinful' behavior in my government leaders," but I have a feeling that wouldn't be a satisfactory answer.

That answer would essentially say, "you won't vote for anyone" because there isn't anyone that is perfect and can claim "no scurrilous or sinful behavior." (though I don't use the term "sinful" myself, for obvious reasons. I think you said earlier that this isn't true.

To be even more vague, I could say that I will not vote for those who I think might support or enforce government policies that would compel me to contradict or that might restrict my ability to exercise my core Christian values.

So the moral character of the politician is not your concern - it's about whether they would support/enforce government policies you find immoral? So if a politician is found to be badly lacking in moral character - it would make no difference as long as their official government policies align with your values? Is that correct?

What if there was an alternate candidate that personally behaved in line with your moral values, supported policies you did not like (e.g., fiscally, ecology, etc.) but did not support any policies that conflict with your Christian values (e.g., abortion), and didn't have a prayer of winning. Would you vote for them instead?

[Mountain Man]

That answer would essentially say, "you won't vote for anyone" because there isn't anyone that is perfect and can claim "no scurrilous or sinful behavior." (though I don't use the term "sinful" myself, for obvious reasons. I think you said earlier that this isn't true.



So the moral character of the politician is not your concern - it's about whether they would support/enforce government policies you find immoral? So if a politician is found to be badly lacking in moral character - it would make no difference as long as their official government policies align with your values? Is that correct?

What if there was an alternate candidate that personally behaved in line with your moral values, supported policies you did not like (e.g., fiscally, ecology, etc.) but did not support any policies that conflict with your Christian values (e.g., abortion), and didn't have a prayer of winning. Would you vote for them instead?

I could go point by point through this, but it'd be faster if just said that your analysts is pretty much wrong from beginning to end.

Instead of reading my comments with the presumption that I must be wrong, try coming at it from the angle that I could be right.

[carpedm9587]

I could go point by point through this, but it'd be faster if just said that your analysts is pretty much wrong from beginning to end.

Instead of reading my comments with the presumption that I must be wrong, try coming at it from the angle that I could be right.

The "analysis" (assuming you are referring to the first part of my response), was simply noting the consequences of the answer you noted you "could" have given. The rest wasn't analysis. I asked two questions. And I didn't presume "wrong" or "right." I'm curious about how you approach this. But if you don't want to talk about it..