Political Spectrum Test
I haven't changed that much.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
http://www.people-press.org/quiz/political-typology/
Comments (278)
I scored about as I expected.
Never denied it. You lean that way yourself it seems, and somewhat more authoritarian too, which is no surprise.
:P
My preferred economic system would be distributism - lots of independent, small producers - and no large multinational corporations. With focus on family and culture, rather than economics. Nowadays, a large part of our identity is an economical one - what job do you have and how much you earn. That's wrong. So I'm economically liberal towards the small guy, economically authoritarian towards the big guy, and socially authoritarian towards everyone on key issues with regards to the family. Oh, and I'm environmentally friendly too.
I don't disagree with anything much of what you say, except I am not much of a family guy.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-3.88&soc=-4.92
Though I generally despise details which are supposed to say something about someone, if these assessments would be mandatory in everyone's profile picture, a lot of the communication here would become more efficient.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-4.5&soc=-2.67
I am surprised you scored dead center, it seemed to me you are particularly right leaning.
At any rate:
So I did another one :D
And I get this knob:
http://uk.isidewith.com/
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
edit: But no matter what political test I do, I always end up with the Green Party at the bottom.
The New York Times published some maps this morning showing how the popularity of a bunch of TV programs were very closely correlated with voting patterns in the recent election. The concept works because it tends to be the case that a majority of people in a census tract tend to like the same TV programs and they also like the same candidates. The programs (and the candidates) might be dog shit, but that doesn't matter for purposes of prediction.
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory asks somewhat meaningingless questions that by and large don't suggest anything at all, but people with (and without) psychiatric diagnoses tend to answer the questions in a predictable way. That's all that's necessary.
Well, although I've taken those tests a number of times and I'm pretty sure that I don't consistently answer the questions. (Well, most of the questions, that is, The handful that are unambiguous and well-constructed I answer consistently.)
How many five-year-olds children can you take on?
http://www.nerdtests.com/mq/uttake.php?id=109440
My results were 28 children.
http://spekr.org/
I feel that this is ultimately the most accurate one. The other tests are quite shoddy.
So, which shows did the libs like and which did the God fearing like?
Meaning?
Maybe theoretically, but practically, most people would not consider me libertarian. For example thinking the state should prevent the population's access to drugs isn't libertarian. If I go to the libertarian party holding such views, I'd be thrown out :P
I haven't seen a lot of those points of divergence asked.
You can see that I tend to be closer to conservatives than liberals [1], regarding the foundations of my morality.
It reveals (to a certain extend) how you think and what personality you have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Liberals meaning progressives, leftist in this case, not liberalism in the classical sense.
Interesting. Based on the first test, I'm closest to BitterCrank - which isn't much of a surprise - and John. I'm ever so slightly to the right of them, and slightly more libertarian than John. I'm also more libertarian and further to the left of Wosret and Terrapin, who are in the same region on the chart as me, although only ever so slightly more libertarian than Terrapin.
I'm "water my weed plant and I'll share some bruh", but very close to "this molotov will inspire social change".
I got bored with the other one.
Haha--so I'm kind of right on the edge of "Water my weed plant," "420" and "Average Citizen." That seems about right.
Quoting Hanover
Interesting. So me, you and Crank are on the same page.
Quoting jamalrob
I was determined to complete it, even though on my first attempt the webpage refreshed 40 questions into the test and I had to start from scratch. I left the page to look up eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture. Still not sure about my answer for that one. If, in the former, it's something like a hospital, then I'd be in favour. But if it's a third runway or a HS2, then I'd be against. And the latter seems a bit tricky too, but if in practice it mostly works as intended, I'd probably be in favour. Criminal organisations probably deserve to have their profits and assets confiscated - but the issue would be that they haven't been [i]convicted[/I] as criminal.
Interestingly, though, I seem to disagree with you and BC as much as agree.
I can't recall much that we have disagreed about politically other than in that discussion on abortion, where we were also in agreement. And I thought that our agreement was of greater significance.
Yes but you three certainly have more agreements between you, than you would with me for example.
Loyalty seems to be the "highest" for me and I think that's true. I would say that fairness is probably also above authority, just intuitively thinking about myself, but definitely below the others.
On that one, I had to answer a bunch of questions with "neither agree nor disagree," especially the economic questions. I don't know if I approached the quiz that consistently, because when I answer those sorts of questions, I'm always torn between approaching them from a stance of either:
(1) What I'd ideally do, which is trash our current socio-economic structure and replace it with an extremely idiosyncratic socialist-oriented but still libertarian-in-many-ways system, and approaching questions in this way, I tend to go with "neither agree nor disagree," because, for example, I wouldn't even have a tax system, but it would still be a system where the government provides all sorts of things--it's not like I'd have our present system just with no taxes, so questions about that stuff are kind of a moot point from this perspective,
or
(2) Answering from a perspective of "Well, under our present system I'd say x (but I wouldn't stick with our present system)"
And given a 0 purity score, of course I don't mind that it's disgusting, haha.
See, I said I'm not a purist.
>:O
Mine is 3.3 on Purity.
It could just be that a lot more people who identify as liberals decide to take the quiz.
It could be, but given the cultural milieu I doubt that the rate of conservatives being produced is greater than the rate of liberals being produced. Children end up being liberals simply because they're a lot more likely to be exposed to liberal thought and influences.
Yeah, I agree with that, and it's pushed along by universities leaning so much towards the liberal side, and a culture where now it's more or less seen as a requirement for a reasonable career that one goes to university.
Yes, so at least for the developed world that is the case, and I guess it will continue to be the case for quite awhile. In a way, it cannot NOT be the case - liberalism leads to more spending and more diverse markets than conservatism, so I wouldn't expect an economy leaning on capitalism to lean towards conservatism, especially in today's world when capitalism must adopt a "human" face, without sacrificing sales.
And that is precisely what universities ought to be encouraging: independence of mind and the free play of ideas. But that's not what's happening now. I'm at risk of agreeing with you here.
Haidt says: "But if we turn down the disgust a few notches, we see vast difference between left and right over the use of concepts such as sanctity and purity. American conservatives are more likely to talk about the “ sanctity of life ” and the “ sanctity of marriage. ” Conservatives — particularly religious conservatives — are more likely to view the body as a temple, housing a soul within, rather than as a machine to be optimized, or as a playground to be used for fun.
(...)
On the left, however, the virtue of chastity is usually dismissed as outdated and sexist.
(...)
The Sanctity foundation is used most heavily by the religious right, but it is also used on the spiritual left. You can see the foundation’s original impurity avoidance function in New Age grocery stores, where you'll find a variety of products that promise to cleanse you of “ toxins. ” And you’ll find the Sanctity foundation underlying some of the moral passions of the environmental movement. Many environmentalists revile industrialism, capitalism, and automobiles not just for the physical pollution they create but also for a more symbolic kind of pollution — a degradation of nature, and of humanity’s original nature, before it was corrupted by industrial capitalism."
So leftist do care about purity, but this is expressed in different areas than right wingers, e.g. leftist are viled by the sight of this:
edit:
They also have shifted the meaning of the word "natural" to the equivalence of "good," hence appealing to nature. 'Nature in its pure form is good and human institutions ruin it.'
This reveals their deep rooted world view on nature, which is contrasted by conservatives, who are much more wary of nature and its dark aspects.
Notice how this is pretty much the opposite of the traditional understanding of these political positions. For conservatives, the status quo, e.g., class hierarchies or disparities in the treatment of men and women, is defended partly on the basis of its supposed naturalness, whereas leftists--at least in the old days--either point out that these things are social and amenable to change, or else deny that we must respect what is natural.
The confusion here is probably partly down to your American libertarian understanding of conservatism. In any case, it's one reason why I see much of the green movement and today's Left as conservative.
I'm a Leftist and I positively love cooling towers.
Conservatism as popularised by Burke, et al. has no fixed view on policy or dogmatism, but it is rather a political strategy to cope with human frailties. Traditionally, they dislike the state of nature (Rousseau) and ideological revolutions (Jacobinism) -- the appeal to nature has always been left wing, see Rousseau:
"People in their natural state are basically good. But this natural innocence,however, is corrupted by the evils of society."
Marketing people make use of this leftist phenomenon by labelling their products: "natural pureness." It is the leftist version of sanctity and purity that Haidt refers to.
Haidt continues: "Political views are multifaceted, but a single liberal– conservative (or left–right) continuum is a useful approximation that has predictive validity for voting behavior and opinions on a wide range of issues (Jost, 2006). In terms of political philosophy, the essential element of all forms of liberalism is individual liberty (Gutmann, 2001). Liberals have historically taken an optimistic view of human nature and of human perfectibility; they hold what Sowell (2002) calls an “unconstrained vision” in which people should be left as free as possible to pursue their own courses of personal development. Conservatism, in contrast, is best under- stood as a “positional ideology,” a reaction to the challenges to authority and institutions that are so often mounted by liberals (Muller, 1997). Conservatives have traditionally taken a more pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inherently selfish and imperfectible. They therefore hold what Sowell called a “constrained vision” in which people need the constraints of authority, institutions, and traditions to live civilly with each other."
This phenomenon is even more apparent in Europe.
What exactly are they trying to aim for then if they hold this view of human nature? Human perfectibility? Are you saying, in light of:
Quoting Emptyheady
That conservatives are trying to be liberals?
I disagree with this characterization.
In my experience the right is just as likely to appeal to naturalism as the left and each do so in turn as it serves their agenda.
In fact I seem to recall you have made an argument from nature for conservatism on the old forum.
"They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator. Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous." (Pinker)
The rest is on the old site that I can't reach.
Leftist's view is utopian, hence all the ideological revolutionary/revolting push comes from the left. Children tend to be leftists, due to lack of life experience and abundance of naive world views.
edit: The reason Christians tend to be conservatives, is because they share the tragic vision of human nature --> "the fallen human creature."
I pointed out then that conservatives hold utopian visions as well.
Conservatives consistently insist that if we just lower taxes utopia will ensue.
Again it is a matter of convenience, if it is useful for furthering their agenda the right wingers are just as likely as any leftist to appeal to a utopian vision.
This is a little bit of a strawman with respect to some conservatives like me. I'm a rational conservative instead of a reason-skeptical conservative à la Burke (see here for distinction). As shown by the last chart I posted in this thread, I don't value authority as much as other conservatives. However, I am conservative in that I share many of their values/ideals with regards to, for example, sexual behaviour, values which you'd deem to be sexist or whatever, despite the fact that they would apply equally to men and women (such as chastity for both). Furthermore, I decide in the favor of such values based on reasoning, not based on tradition.
Taking a disparaging position by labeling leftists as 'children' to justify superiority in your political world-view does not legitimize it only because you proscribe the other and quote some people. When exactly will you be speaking? And I hardly think that in its sharp "adult" contrast a pessimistic view of humanity where the ends justify the means can be considered any different to the very source of your opposition.
The Nazi needs the Jew to preserve his ideological position.
Well I do happen to share what Emptyheaded considers as the Tragic Vision of mankind with some contrasts - for example I don't place such a strong value on authority (for the sake of authority) or tradition (for the sake of tradition). Indeed, in my vision authoritarianism undermines all authority, because it removes the reasons one would have in the first place for obeying authority - it reduces authority to lawless tyranny. I also disagree that the ends justify the means, because I see means and ends as being connected together to begin with such that a nasty means cannot lead to a good end - indeed that would be nonsensical in my opinion.
But I do believe that most human beings will be selfish and have a tendency towards immorality. Despite this, I think that people are perfectible, and they can improve and change for the better. There can also be exceptions, but this is just what the majority will always be like in my view. I am a conservative, though I wouldn't say I'm a conservative because I share the Tragic Vision. Indeed, I'm not a reason-skeptical conservative the way Empty is. I'm a conservative simply because I think conservative values make for a better society - greater social cohesion, greater levels of morality, people more likely to strive for what is higher, etc. Liberalism - in my opinion - naturally degrades into all of us striving for the lowest common denominator - what is worst in man - hedonism. Liberalism tends to see freedom as the freedom to do whatever you want - and so freedom ends up being equivalent bondage to lust. I tend to see freedom in a different and more positive way - freedom is the capacity to achieve virtue and act virtuously.
Talk about a straw man. If those values do equally apply to men and women, then how can they be sexist? Why do you think I would hold such an irrational position?
Okay that was my fault for not expressing myself correctly. That's something that most liberals would deem sexist, simply because that's how they label it when it is discussed. They do so out of ignorance or prejudice most of them. But then prejudice exists on both sides.
Did you? I don't remember that. :D
Anyway, we agreed about the right to have an abortion in reasonable circumstances; that it should be legal in most cases; that there are morally excusable cases; and that the right attitude towards most cases is one of understanding, leniency and sympathy. We both disagree with typical "pro-lifers". And, in practice, I think that our positions play out more or less the same way, and that the difference is more theoretical. I wanted to conserve the current legal status quo here in the UK, and you wanted to scrap it, didn't you? But what difference would that actually make, if any?
We disagreed about your inclusion of what I consider to be unreasonable circumstances; that abortion should be legal even in those cases where a bad reason for abortion is given and where there is minimal risk; that there should be some sort of deterrent or means of discouragement; and I don't quite recall your view in this regard, but I think that getting an abortion is a bad decision in most cases, in an ethical sense, given the other available options - a bad decision which is either excusable or inexcusable.
There is a distinction between my ethical views and my political or legal views, in that there are cases which I'd consider to be morally wrong, but in which I think an abortion should be a legal option.
Oh, come on. You surely don't want a bunch of stuffy 8 year old conservatives.
Youth are liberal (even radical) because they have nothing to lose, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons, too).
Yes, I agree, and I know what you should do about it. You should lose more.
Motheryucker >:O
I think in general population polls it is closer to half.
That's not true, even there liberals dominate currently. It's not as bad as in universities though (especially social sciences universities >:O )
It was my understanding that most people fall towards the center.
With the left leaners having a slight numbers advantage.
But when it comes to far leaning the right has the numbers advantage.
Fuck the far-leaning - they are crazies too >:O
https://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php
That's not me, though. Not that I don't care about pollution, but it has to actually be pollution and not some sort of (what I consider an irrational) blanket dismissal of heavy industry or technological items (like automobiles) related to it, or technological advances like genetically modified foods, etc. Also I don't at all agree with statements like "Nature in its pure form is good and human institutions ruin it."
I don't actually consider myself a liberal by the way, and politically I classify myself as a "libertarian socialist," where I have a lot of hardcore American Libertarian Party-styled views.
Economic Left/Right: -9.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85
And the other stated "solid liberal"
Quoting Agustino
:-}
Loyalty is one of the least relevant. I can think of countless cases where loyalty wouldn't be a good indication of whether someone acted rightly or wrongly, and countless cases in which being loyal would lead to immorality.
Likewise with authority. Police Officer? Priest? Soldier? President? Moralist? Whatever. Doesn't matter. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
And yes, being loyal would indeed lead to immortality, as you yourself say :D
As for authority, it is moral to obey authority when (1) that authority is right in its views and (2) you clearly perceive it is so. To do otherwise is to be immoral. Therefore there needs to be respect for just authority. But yes, if the authority is wrong, then it isn't an authority anymore... Clearly!
That is your opinion blud.
That doesn't sound so bad.
Agreed. Even the very first question when I decide whether something is right or wrong, do I consider it relevant whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society. For me that is a yes, but I assume that in saying yes it would lean towards conservative, but I do consider whether a person who has committed an act be someone who has conformed to fundamentalism or other forms of radical ideology. Loyalty to country vs. whistleblower against government corruption vs. security?
When I did the test the first time, my loyalty was shockingly low and so I went back and analysed the questions to find that by ticking agree to not just 'I am proud of my country's history' of which I am not because of what it done to our indigenous community, but also "People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong" which I absolutely did not agree with along with "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty" which I moderately disagreed with. It changed my 'loyalty' exponentially, but I am loyal already, I studied law and am devoted to the wellbeing of my country even if that means speaking up against injustice.
The test is stupid.
Quoting TimeLine
I answered "slightly disagree" on this one because I'm not exactly proud of my country, nor do I think this is a moral value. At the same time, neither is not being proud of your country a moral value so... Slightly disagree fits the best.
Quoting TimeLine
I answered "moderately agree" - I could see exceptions, but for the most part they should be loyal to family. For example if my wife or child steal something, I'll do my best to save them from facing the consequences of it, especially if it was the first time they've done such a thing, and they were compelled by some reasons to do them. Now obviously I'd also try to convince them never to do such a thing again. But then it depends, in some circumstances I wouldn't defend them - say if my child rapes someone, then I wouldn't be loyal to him. So it depends on the gravity of the offence, and on their intentions.
Quoting TimeLine
I answered "slightly agree" because you're in the army - you have to obey, for the most part. The only times when you can disobey is when you have (1) tried to convince your commander otherwise, and (2) when what you're being asked to do goes against the interests of the army. For example if the commander orders something that consists in betraying the cause the army is fighting for, then you have grounds to disobey. If the commander proposes a course of action you disagree with, you can try to convince the commander otherwise, but ultimately you must listen to what he says - he's the commander for a reason. Without such principles the army couldn't function, nor could pretty much any other organisation.
But it is good to betray bad principles, people, etc., whether you dislike it or or not. (Unless perhaps it was over something lacking significance). And having character is not equivalent to loyalty; loyalty is just a single quality or characteristic, whereas having character means more than that.
Quoting Agustino
Yeah yeah, I meant immorality. X-)
Quoting Agustino
So authority is secondary. Whatever makes the authority right in its views is primary - and I think that that very often relates to fairness and harm.
Quoting Agustino
There should be, but [i]only when those conditions are met[/I].
Quoting Agustino
No, not clearly. Authorities can and have been wrong countless times, yet people still meaningfully refer to these authorities as authorities. You're just using the word differently.
No, it's never good to betray them. Betrayal involves deception, and that's never good. Having character emerges out of loyalty - it is loyalty that structures the character.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, but when it exists in its proper form it has to be accorded with the necessary respect, and it would be immoral not to.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes
On the contrary, if they're bad enough, and if you subscribe to a duty-based ethics, then it's your overriding duty to betray them. Either way, it'd be the right thing to do.
It would've been good to betray the Nazis. If you can't accept that, then there's a big problem with your moral foundations.
Quoting Agustino
It doesn't necessarily involve deception. It only necessarily involves going against them, which you can do without either letting them know beforehand or deceiving them. For example, you could have a sudden change of heart and just walk away from a criminal organisation and alert the authorities.
And anyway, if deception avoids terrible consequences, such as those risked in a hostage situation, then deception is the good option in contrast to bad options.
Quoting Agustino
That's your personal view of character, not a truth about character itself.
Quoting Agustino
Firstly, it isn't about "need" or "has to be". It's about what [i]ought[/I] to be. I don't [I]need[/I] to do [i]anything[/I].
If you change your terminology appropriately and accordingly, as per the above paragraph, then I agree.
No I can't accept that. It wouldn't have been good to betray the Nazis, it would have been good to oppose them. That is different. Everyone hates traitors, even those who benefit from them.
Quoting Sapientia
These are acts of betrayal. There is a difference between betrayal and opposition
Quoting Sapientia
:-} Deception is still immoral, but maybe necessarily immoral per @Heister Eggcart's usage of the term in such circumstances
Quoting Sapientia
And this is your personal view as well, not a truth about matters themselves.
Quoting Sapientia
If you don't do it in that case, then you are immoral. So it is a need if you want to be moral.
Yeah, in terms of "what we should allow people to do," I'm definitely libertarian, and a minarchist libertarian at that. In terms of economics, though, I'm an idiosyncratic sort of socialist, where among other things, I think it's ridiculous that we've arranged things so that people have to do without or even worry about whether they're going to have shelter, food, healthcare, education, transportation, etc.
>:O Like 30% of the questions are sexually related...
I've done it and.... disaster :P :
It says I am a Left-Liberal :’( ... What should I do?
>:O
I seem to share more with Left-Liberals on care, fairness and liberty, and more with conservatives on Authority, Loyalty and Purity, even though I out-do the conservatives for the latter two :P
That's crazy. And no, everyone doesn't. In some cases, many people share my view that they should be lauded for doing the right thing in difficult circumstances.
Quoting Agustino
I didn't deny that they were acts of betrayal. My point there was only that they don't necessarily involve deception.
Quoting Agustino
There's no "still" about it, in my view. Deception isn't immoral in itself, and in some situations it would form part of a moral act. But if it can be avoided without consequences like the one in the hostage example, then it would be ethical to do so.
Quoting Agustino
It could also be a truth about matters themselves. But my point was mainly that you aren't justified in making those claims about character as if your personal view of it was objective and applicable to others. It'd only be applicable relative to your personal view, which wouldn't mean much if your personal view is rejected, and especially if there is good reason to reject it (which there is).
Quoting Agustino
Agreed.
Your scores are:
Care 97.2%
Fairness 86.1%
Loyalty 25%
Authority 19.4%
Purity 22.2%
Liberty 27.8%
Your strongest moral foundation is Care.
Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal.
I don't think it's crazy at all. From a pragmatic point of view, there's nothing worse than a traitor. That's why, for example, in Chinese strategy manuals it is advised to kill traitors after you use them, because they are scum, good for nothing, when the world is most dear to you, they will betray you. That's why nobody from a pragmatic point of view likes traitors. Traitors lack commitment. Traitors mean disaster.
Quoting Sapientia
Nope - the ends don't justify the means.
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah, maybe in another lifetime you bother to actually provide it :-!
>:O >:O >:O
"Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head."
:-O
~
Scores:
Care - 100% - Strongest Moral Foundation
Fairness - 97.2%
Loyalty - 47.2%
Authority - 61.1%
Purity - 75%
Liberty - 63.9%
Closest Morality - Left Liberal
Relative:
Care - 22.5%
Fairness - 21.8%
Loyalty - 10.6%
Authority - 13.7%
Purity - 16.8%
Liberty - 14.6%
Okay but if you analyze my scores, it doesn't seem I fit the left-liberal pattern. For one, left-liberals show a tendency for high scores in care and fairness, low scores in loyalty, authority and purity, and a median score in Liberty. I don't fit that pattern. I have high scores in all of them (with just authority being the lowest). This does actually reflect how I am. But it's not a left-liberal pattern - the assigning algorithm fails in my case. I'm closer to conservatives, but I don't fit in with many conservatives either, but I fit better than with left-liberals.
When I saw this one, I said there's something wrong (but not maximum wrongness) with feminists seeking to do this. They should just open women only clubs :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
This one was fucked up - I gave it maximum wrong. I also gave maximum wrong to the cheating ones >:O
Quoting Heister Eggcart
We're not doing business together Heister... >:O
What're those scores relative to? I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be, dunno how I'm failing in that category. I wouldn't consider someone loyal if they put up with sluts and cheaters, :-|
Me neither lol. The relative ones are the relative weighting of that respective factor compared with the other factors (that's why they add up to 100%). So that shows that loyalty has a relatively low place in your moral scheme.
It's probably what I "care" about most, though, haha.
No - look at TGW, he's classified as conservative (despite having care at the top). It's a more complex algorithm I think, but obviously I don't think it's very good :P
That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:O
I am Christ returned. Just believe me, you may not understand, but it's the truth (Y)
>:O Blasphemy!
[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2znybsp.jpg[/IMG]
For a few of the questions, I voted for the first level of "okay" where what I meant by it was, "I think it's morally okay, but I don't think it's cool to do." In other words, it's something that I see as a dick move, but I wouldn't say it's immoral. An example is the guy wearing the other-colored shoes on the soccer team. That's not immoral, but I'd probably think the guy is a jerk (unless there were unusual circumstances).
There were also a couple where I answered the first level of "not okay," but where it would really depend on more detailed information. For example, someone killing a rabbit on a TV show. It would depend on what sort of TV show it is. Is it some sort of survival show a la Survivorman? In that case, I'd be okay with it. He's got to eat, that might be the only food available, and he's showing folks how to survive in extreme situations. In most cases I'd think it's not okay though.
You wouldn't though, would you? (Because you're crazy). :D
Quoting Agustino
An ethical point of view is the only relevant point of view, given that we're discussing moral foundations. So unless you're suggesting that a pragmatic point of view is the ethical point of view, then that's not relevant. And if you are, how so?
Quoting Agustino
That's very obviously one sided. They're not good for nothing, nor scum if what they're doing is the right thing, which it could be. They're also pragmatically valuable for the other side, given that they can be advantageous, in that, for example, they can provide intel about the enemy, exposing weakness.
And no, someone who has committed an act of betrayal - a traitor - won't necessarily do so again, nor do they necessarily lack commitment outside of that very narrow context, in which lacking commitment isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Nor do they necessarily mean disaster. And you're using these emotive terms which connote something bad, but bad things happening to bad people is often deserved.
Quoting Agustino
They can do for me. Talk of deception in itself, rather than as it relates to consequences, can be pretty meaningless, ethically, I think. I suppose this is where your notion of purity comes into play. But I don't care for purity if it leads to bad - or terrible - consequences, like an innocent hostage being tortured or killed. The latter is far more important. This notion of purity should be thrown in the trash before it causes real harm.
Quoting Agustino
You could just open your eyes. The terrible consequences I mentioned? The qualities that people speak of as virtues are not necessarily so, and are not so if they aren't balanced or put to good use. There's nothing virtuous in loyalty to scum. Loyalty to scum begets scum. You shouldn't be proud about it either; you should be ashamed. If you were a soldier who was loyal to the Nazis, and carried out heinous acts because of said loyalty, then you're more deserving of a military execution than a medal. It's a good thing that they didn't see it that way at the Nuremberg trials. "Oh, you were just following orders? How good of you to have demonstrated such loyalty! Forget about the millions of innocent lives that were brutally and unjustly taken because of people like you. Here, take this medal. You've earned it".
These are the good reasons I referred to, and this isn't the first time I've brought them up.
This statement suggests two things: (1) that loyalty is secondary to whatever it is that makes something good; and (2) that loyalty [i]in itself[/I] isn't good, but is only good [i]in relation to[/I] the good.
(Y)
What I said to Agustino about a quality being virtuous only if it is balanced and put to good use also applies with regard to liberty. Liberty isn't good if it is excessive or used to cause needless harm. That's why there are laws and authorities, and why there are prisons filled with prisoners. Chaos is not paradise.
I didn't answer anything in the quiz in favor of "causing needless harm" in my opinion.
Okay. I don't know the questions or how you answered, so I can't judge for myself at present. But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. For example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Incidentally, this is one of our many disagreements.
Ah, okay. Perhaps you are more liberal than me, then.
I'm not of the view that speech causes any harm--thus it can't cause needless harm. If people are hurt in a theater after someone yells "Fire," it would be because of idiots panicking, trampling others, or whatever exactly happened.
Yes, I know. I think that that's absurd.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That is to cherry pick only those factors which are consistent with your stance, and wilfully ignore others.
Why isn't it that you're cherry-picking only those factors which are consistent with your stance? Because it's your stance, hence it's correct? (haha)
Because I acknowledge the other factors, like the ones you mentioned.
I'm not ignoring that someone yelled "Fire" in the scenario. I don't count that as causal for whatever harm might ensue.
I said that you're wilfully ignoring it [i]as a factor[/I], which is how I interpret your second sentence. Your first sentence doesn't reflect my criticism of your position.
Right, so what makes it correct that it's causal?
Most obviously, it wouldn't have happened otherwise, or at least without a similar trigger, such as a noise which sounds like a gunshot.
It probably might be, but whether or not it is better, it is still flawed. What on earth is purity?
Quoting Agustino
I think this was an attempt to connect your moral values politically to align it into a category, albeit a measly one. I instantly saw the logic and connections with the questions and potential result, which makes it easy to manipulate.
Quoting Agustino
I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. I believe it starts with the individual, then family, then community, and if the individual cannot understand and apply righteousness, it effects the family and then the community. If your wife did something bad, you would do your best to save her; for me, if anyone that I knew did something bad I would try to save them and if they do not listen then facing the consequences of justice is the causal result, which would be to lose me as a person and potentially their place in society depending on their actions. Without a doubt, some people I may care deeply for I would want to try harder by giving them more leeway to change, but if they fail, I become aware that I cannot do anything further.
I am absolute on righteousness, however cold it may appear.
Quoting Agustino
This is a tricky one but I too selected slightly agree, only because tactical offences could be beyond the scope of a soldier' understanding and it could jeopardise the result. But then, when you think of WWI and the mass slaughter of soldiers by Hamilton' blunder in Gallipoli. What would have happened if they said no?
Haha, you're explaining what "causal" would refer to, as if that's at issue. I'm asking for the evidence of it being causal versus contrary views.
:-}
Quoting Sapientia
No I'm not suggesting pragmatism as a point of view, I'm merely illustrating that acts of betrayal say something about the lack of character of the traitor.
Quoting Sapientia
They can't be doing the right thing by betrayal. The right thing is opposing immorality, but not by immorality.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, hence why it is suggested to use them, and then throw them away, because otherwise they become dangerous.
Quoting Sapientia
An act of betrayal is immoral, and betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it.
A traitor
The sequence of events, repeatability, observing what happens in the absence of such a trigger, what we know about human nature - specifically about how people are likely to react in those sorts of situations...
Those people didn't just think to themselves out of the blue "Let's panic and run for the exit". They did so as a reaction to someone shouting "Fire!", which caused panic and alarm, which caused them to run for exit, which can cause harm, which would be needless harm if there was no good reason to shout "Fire!".
The real question is, why are you feigning ignorance? Do you care more about being consistent than representing the truth? Because it is the other way around for me.
Chastity? Respect for the sacred? That kind of stuff.
Quoting TimeLine
In fact quite the contrary :P - I did see the logic of it, and would have said that I agree to it because that fits in with my political view (conservatism) - but I didn't.
Quoting TimeLine
I disagree with this, and I think that any such morality is ultimately an abstraction, completely removing feeling - especially fellow-feeling, compassion - from the equation.
Quoting TimeLine
As you know, I adopt the opposite starting position. For me it starts with community and asks "How can we live and flourish together?" In fact it starts with community and asks "How is individuality even possible?" For me, the idea of the individual entirely separated from society is incoherent, for the simple reason that none of us are born as individuals. Our individuality develops in society - we are nurtured by society. If it wasn't for society you wouldn't be alive in the first place, much less be an individual. So it's our society that allows us to develop our individuality and know ourselves. In it we move and have our being. It is true that our society is more often than not not harmonious and it becomes better not to take part because of this, but this is only an a posteriori consideration.
Quoting TimeLine
Well if they do not listen there's not much you can do to save them, is there?
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, obviously obeying the commander doesn't guarantee a good outcome. But the commander given the fact that he's supposed to have greater knowledge, experience and understanding compared to the soldier is more likely to take the right decision - now of course this doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. So as a principle, it still is right to obey the commander.
How is my chastity politically relevant? I choose not to sleep around and I choose to wait until I meet a genuine love, but that is my choice and no one else is required to follow that neither should anyone tell me what I should or should not be doing. I choose to do what I want despite my environment. That is because I live in a liberal democracy where there is no intense involvement in our personal affairs from religious sources. Hence, why the questionnaire is flawed; it is culture-specific, or, lacks relativism. Politics should always be separate from religion.
Quoting Agustino
It is not removing feeling, it is transcending irrational emotions. On the contrary, the feeling becomes more genuine and real because you realise that your previous attachments were infantile at best; love is a decision, it is not some sweeping form of randomness that comes out of nowhere and there are reasons behind these feelings that can be adequately understood. But if my loved one committed a wrongdoing, I would not 'switch off' and would still feel pity and sadness, but not ridiculous enough to continue supporting wrong-doing only because I love them. No, my principles are above my emotions.
Quoting Agustino
All learning starts with the community, through social constructs and other considerations and then we work backwards, where we meet and love our partners and family and friends, before we take another step back to ourselves where we mirror our flaws and develop a conscience, moral consciousness and finally our individuality. When we do that, we start working - authentically - back up because we have transcended the initial 'learning' phase and started to see our responsibility and individuality. So - by choice - we meet a partner and start a new family with them and form friendships with likeminded people and then participate willingly in a community that we hope to develop into something good. The latter half is genuine, authentic and applied consciously, whereas the initial phases are not, though still necessary.
What do you think you illustrated? Because it looked to me like you basically just resorted to a bit of name calling ("scum", "good for nothing"), mentioned a strategy which is based on pragmatics rather than ethics, and made some unwarranted assumptions, e.g. about what someone will do, what something entails, what something will lead to...
What shines through is that you disapprove, but beyond that...?
Quoting Agustino
I think that in difficult either-or situations, there can be a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do, and that the right thing to do can involve betrayal. I further think that it's unjust to accuse such people of immorality, when they've done the right thing despite what it involved and despite how less considerate people might judge them. According to my position, betrayal isn't in itself immoral, so your point wouldn't even apply.
Quoting Agustino
Correction: they [I]can[/I] become dangerous. They could be perceived as a danger - rightly or wrongly. They kill them anyway, because it's one less thing to be concerned about, and because it might give them a strategic advantage which they wouldn't otherwise have.
Now, what has that got to do with morality?
Quoting Agustino
You've said that it's immoral, but I don't agree (not in itself or in any situation), and saying that doesn't shed any light on the issue.
At least you accept that it is the right thing to do if one is absolutely compelled to resort to it, but it isn't clear to me what exactly you think that would require, i.e. what conditions would need to be satisfied.
I'd go further. I think that it is the right thing to do if it prevents ethically worse alternatives, or if it is the right thing to do in principle, even if things go awry. That it involves betraying someone's trust is not at all ethically relevant for me if that someone is immoral. If they're immoral, then betraying them would be the right thing to do. Wilful complicity in immorality can't be moral, whether it's because of loyalty or some other reason.
It's a moral questionnaire, not a political one. Your chastity is relevant to your morality.
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, no one disagreed. I didn't argue that the law should make a compulsion out of morality, did I?
Quoting TimeLine
Public education is a different story, and it should be happening, including on moral matters. Lots of people make mistakes that they regret, and it would be better if they have access to more guidance.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, there is intense involvement from popular media and culture which is largely secular, and largely hedonistic - it utilises mechanisms of peer pressure to push you to do certain things and live a certain way. Just as bad as having religion actively involved in your life if you ask me.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, I agree with that.
Quoting TimeLine
Love is a decision, and therefore it ultimately does not depend on reasons, but on choice. That you do have reasons for making that choice when you make it, that's certainly true.
Quoting TimeLine
Hate the sin, but lover the sinner a Christian would say. I never said to sacrifice your own principles and engage in immorality because of your emotions, indeed that would be weakness. But there's a difference between that, and being loyal to your family.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree with all of this, beautifully said :) 8-)
That was my reply to you when you were talking about pragmatics, so obviously nothing to do with morality, I don't understand why you'd expect it to have anything to do with morality, granting that you yourself weren't talking about morality there :-}
Quoting Sapientia
No I accept no such thing. It's never the right thing to do, at best it is necessarily immoral, as per Heister's usage once again. Meister Heister!
Quoting Sapientia
Right if someone is immoral, go ahead and be immoral yourself when dealing with them... Sounds good!
Quoting Sapientia
What have I been telling you all this time? Did I say opposing immorality is the right thing to do? Did I say that betrayal isn't the right way to oppose immorality? Doesn't this mean that there is a right way, which doesn't involve betrayal, to oppose immorality?! :s
Quoting Sapientia
Okay, in my view of things, there are situations where there simply is no right thing to do full stop.
Quoting Sapientia
I said that a traitor has a bad character. Why does he have a bad character? Because he doesn't exemplify loyalty, one of the virtues. Why is loyalty a virtue? Because it is necessary for us in order to care for each other and avoid harming one another. Furthermore, loyalty is necessary for authenticity - loyalty to values in this case. Loyalty is a character trait - not a moral or immoral action. It is a moral character trait.
Mmm. Loyalty to the good is reciprocal, I think.
So then, why is there a panel "conservative" "liberal" etc &c., that comes along with it?
Quoting Agustino
Blimey, you know my feelings on this subject and I do agree with this, particularly the duplication of people turning themselves into the same object while pretending individuality, posting photo's on Instagram on a Wednesday afternoon knowing that is the best time to garner the most likes, everything about themselves a mere empty show. I still pity them, it is emasculating seeing people give up on life like that. Humpf. It is nonetheless fallacious to utilise the superficial world of popular culture as a way to justify the necessity of a conservative environment.
Quoting Agustino
There shouldn't be; if you are loyal to your moral principles and ultimately to love, loyalty to your family and friends is a natural extension of this. But if members of your household or friends are not applying themselves similarly to principles of love, your loyalty [to love] cannot be shaken and ultimately it is their choice to abandon the application of these principles. Your loyalty is to love and so it is to humanity as a whole and is not specific to your family. "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." Hence love is a choice.
:-!
What do you mean? That if you're loyal to the good, then the good will be loyal to you? That makes sense to me if we're talking about people, rather than principles or values or other things.
That doesn't conflict with either of my points, by the way. (Although I did infer them from what you yourself said, so maybe it wasn't supposed to). And besides, the test was simply regarding loyalty, rather than loyalty to the good. It seems that many people - some more than others - value loyalty over and above what I think of as vitally important and overriding moral factors, such as whether something is fair or harmful. Why be loyal otherwise? Perhaps for other reasons, but when it comes to ethical reasons, that just doesn't seem right. Whether it's loyalty to family, religion, tradition, nation, and so on and so forth, just doesn't strike me as more important than those vital and overriding moral factors. After all, you might have a horrible family, tradition, religion, nation, etc.
Because their point is that certain types of morality are associated with certain types of political positions. This is what Haidt's research focuses on - the relationship between morality and politics. Personally in my case, my moral values did push me towards conservatism for example. If it wasn't for my moral values, I probably wouldn't have been a conservative.
Quoting TimeLine
Why? It's not superficial at all if most people are engaged in it. Your point fails precisely because society cannot avoid using mechanisms of peer pressure to enforce social norms. Whether these norms are hedonism or Phariseeism, it will still be one of them :P - you think that just because you don't have people knocking on your door asking you to come to Church, there are no mechanisms to indoctrinate you... of course there are, and because they are not even known, they are more insidious than ever. At least if you have the Communist coming to your door to indoctrinate you, you know who he is and what he's there for. But when you're just watching a movie... you have no idea, what's really going on.
Democracy (as understood today) is a bad political system - one of the worst, according to Plato in fact - only tyranny is worse than democracy according to him. Democracy, capitalism, consumerism, hedonism - these are one and the same. Democracy has no aristocratic principle - it has no principle of pulling people towards the higher. Since it seeks equality so rampantly, it leads to everyone being reduced to the same common denominator - everyone being leveled down and becoming equivalent to Nietzsche's Last Men. In a democracy we all tend to become equally bad.
I come from a communist country, but communism was only worse than democracy simply because communism was tyrannical. But democracy isn't much better. My grandfather who lived under constitutional monarchy, communism and capitalism used to tell me as a child how constitutional monarchy was the best in his opinion, and we discussed this for a long time and well into my teenager years actually. Monarchy has an aristocratic tendency, and since the monarch is guaranteed almost life-time rule, he's not going to be searching for power, since he already has it. His efforts will be elsewhere.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree
Quoting TimeLine
I also agree with this.
Quoting TimeLine
Don't laugh you, it was very well-written :P haha! xD
That's a shame. Your earlier statement made more sense and was more agreeable. Loyalty being good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad seems absurd or lacking in meaning. By the former, I mean contradictory, and by the latter, I mean, for example, that it would be a bit like praising someone for restraint because they only cut off one of the innocent victim's ears and their nose, rather than both of their ears and their nose. The latter, as illustrated by example, is also quite absurd, albeit in a different sense.
wat
I've never suggested this to be the case.
If loyalty is inherently good, then it's good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad. If it is inherently good, then it is good in itself, by virtue of it's nature, regardless of what (or who) one is loyal to, or whether it (or they) is (or are) itself (or themself) good or bad.
(Sorry if the brackets are excessive (except I'm not really sorry)).
"Loyalty" to the bad is not loyalty, I thought I already made that clear with my bringing up of "bad character."
That's interesting. I agree insofar as whether or not it's family isn't what should be most important. But, for me at least, it's emotional connections whichever way you look at it, and you'd just be swapping one for another, rather than transcending emotional connections. And I think that although ethical principles can be more important [i]than[/I] certain people, ethical principles are more important [i]in relation to[/I] people than, say, abstract concepts like purity.
Someone can yell "Fire" while people hearing that do not panic like idiots, no?
Don't you know about the fight or flight response? Don't you realise that there are some things that are outside of our control? Like what adrenaline can do to you, for example?
No, that wasn't clear to me, but I did suspect that you might go down that route. It's getting more and more absurd. Of course there can be loyalty to the bad! Haven't you heard about the Mafia?! What about the Nazis?! (Let me guess, they're not examples of True Scots- I mean, [i]loyalty[/I]). Your use of scare quotes is totally misguided, and your position is ludicrous.
Wow, okay. We're polar opposites in that regard.
Right. So "No" is your answer?
Care 80.6%
Fairness 69.4%
Loyalty 61.1%
Authority 63.9%
Purity 66.7%
Liberty 75%
Your strongest moral foundation is Care.
Your morality is closest to that of a Conservative.
The "image address of your avatar in the post above is http://i-6uf0utvje8gy-cdn.plushcontent.com/uploads/userpics/615/n9PJRBAH0A2TQ.jpg
I was only talking about pragmatics in the first place because you bloody brought it up! If we've strayed off course, it is you who has lead us there. My initial reply was to question it's ethical relevance, given that this discussion is about ethics. You said something vague about it supposedly illustrating character. Are you now saying that it has nothing to do with morality? If so, why bring it up? No more red herrings, please.
Quoting Agustino
That's hilarious! So you're disagreeing with yourself now, are you? Okay then.
Here's the quote:
Quoting Agustino
That implies that betrayal [i]is[/I] the right way of opposing something or someone [i]if[/I] one is absolutely compelled to resort to it. So you need to retract one of your statements to avoid contradiction.
Quoting Agustino
Well, obviously that's not what [i]I'm[/I] suggesting, since I don't think that you'd be immoral yourself. That's just your assessment, which I think is mistaken.
Quoting Agustino
My point was only taking into consideration limited either-or situations, and it was only about betrayal as it relates to loyality simpliciter, rather than loyalty to the good. Your point about opposing immorality misses the vital point I've been making about the problem with placing loyalty above other more important moral values. These more important values determine what is moral or immoral, and so by placing loyalty above them, in my assessment, that could mean that in being loyal to something, that something could be immoral, and if it was, then, rather than opposing immorality, you'd be complicit in it.
And if betraying a loyalty isn't the right way to oppose immorality in these difficult, limited, either-or situations, then what would be? If you remain loyal to the principle that you shouldn't ever deceive anyone, then in the hidden hostage situation, that could mean that the hostage would be murdered, in part because of your loyalty, and I think that that'd be an ethically worse alternative. The right thing to do would be to prevent innocent people being murdered, and if deception worked (which it might well do, and it certainly has a better chance of working then simply telling the truth about where the hostage is hiding), then I think that you could look back and rightly say that it was the right thing to do compared to alternatives: telling the truth, getting shot by attempting to take the gun off of the guy, doing nothing...
I think that it'd be misguided to assume that there'll be a right way to oppose immorality which doesn't involve betrayal in these sorts of situations. If you were already part of something immoral, perhaps unknowingly, such that you were loyal to them and vice versa, then how would you oppose immorality [i]and[/I] rightly get yourself out of that situation without betraying that of which you're a part?
Quoting Agustino
That might answer some of the questions I asked above, but I think that it's the wrong answer. Betrayal can be part of doing the right thing. If you've got yourself mixed up in something bad, the right thing to do would be to betray the bad people involved by walking away and abandoning them before the situation gets any worse. That way, for example, you could avoid going along with these bad people when they commit a serious crime - and, moreover, you could even prevent it at an earlier stage, when it isn't quite as serious, by alerting the authorities, so some good could even come out of it - perhaps even redemption or a step towards it. (And no, you're not superman, like Wosret seems to picture himself in these hypothetical situations, so you can't stop them on your own, unassisted by the police).
Quoting Agustino
I've already told you my criteria for virtue, and taking them into account, as well as what is possible, it follows that loyalty isn't necessarily a virtue. So when you say, simply, that loyalty is a virtue, I reject that. It either is or it isn't, depending on the relevant context. There are things which can qualify and things which can disqualify.
Being loyal to something (or someone) you shouldn't be loyal to disqualifies loyalty in that form from being virtuous. That it can be virtuous in other forms doesn't make loyalty a virtue. Yet that is the error you seem to have made.
We probably agree about the more obviously good situations, in which being loyal is indeed a good thing and a virtue. But that isn't enough to support your claim that loyalty is a virtue, because it's not all roses. And even if loyalty is necessary for these sort of good situations to arise, that wouldn't make it a virtue either. You can't sweep the badness under the rug; and loyalty can go hand in hand with badness - there's nothing which makes them mutually exclusive. In these situations, it's a vice: not a moral character trait, but an immoral one, given the context and how it's put to use.
It isn't a matter of taste, or what you would or wouldn't be on board with, or about matching reality to your ideals. That approach seems disingenuous and backwards.
I think about how things are, and I try to match my thinking so that it reflects reality. And the reality I see involves loyalty as what must surely be a vice, since it is present in immoral situations - think about the Mafia - in which the right thing to do would be to break off this loyalty, even if it means betrayal; and, furthermore, since loyalty can and - in some situations - does make matters worse, leading to further immorality. This is very evident if you examine these kinds of situations. Loyalty to a heinous organisation which commits immoral acts is surely a vice. How can it not be? Because it would ruin your quaint little idealised notion of loyalty as a virtue? Sorry, but that's just how it is. You can either face up to this harsh reality or stick your head in the sand. Your choice.
Aristotle had the right idea with his golden mean. Not only can a quality be disqualified as a virtue because of excess or deficiency, it can be disqualified if put to use wrongly, like by being loyal to the Mafia. It then becomes a vice. Rushing to battle is not brave, but reckless. And loyalty to that which is immoral is itself immoral, so it can't be a virtue, given the nature of virtue. It must be a vice. Virtue, good. Vice, bad. It's not complicated.
It's a loaded question, so I'm not going to answer it with a "yes" or a "no". I read between the lines and decided instead to criticise the assumption implied by your question. Better to cut to the chase and avoid those kinds of questions.
It is not necessarily rearranging but rather when one transcends to a moral consciousness that is individual and free, their emotions transcend along with it to a sophistication necessary to work in line with reason. The courage to face geworfenheit by creating our own family through choice - the love you accept from a partner, the friends you choose to have in your life, the people in your community - rather than ones pre-existing biological and social environment that lacks this choice means that you overcome learned prejudices, ideas and even psychological decoys. It is not abandoning or being disloyal but rather approaching the world around you consciously without allowing your emotions to guide you along some subjective path because that is just the way that it is.
Our emotions promote feelings where conscience is concerned and thus ethical principles are an inevitable result of this; if our emotions are a mess, what exactly happens to our conscience and morality? Reason may appear cold, but it is quite the reverse; you become emotional for the right reasons when your mind is clear enough and this clarity is only possible through free-will.
As for purity, its involvement in the political domain is highly dangerous to civil liberties and traverses a landscape that could set a social structure that renounces our humanity.
The only thing the test is doing is exposing our failure to separate politics from our moral - personal - values; the only political system necessary is one that enables freedom to choose without causing harm to others and any system that may jeopardize this freedom should ultimately be reconsidered.
Quoting Agustino
Did you miss my quote from good ol' Bertie?
Quoting Agustino
Are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself out loud because you clearly are not talking to me. If you were, you would realise that most of what you say is what I already said but you are saying it in your own way. :P
Quoting Agustino
Parliamentary systems clearly build coalitions that reduce the probability of authoritarian outcomes and representative democracies are - whilst not utopian - certainly more successful. Adding a dash of ideology through a constitutional monarchy can solidify the restrictions of power. I think it is certainly successful in my country.
As for reducing people to the same common denominator, this is perhaps more a result of the structural factors vis-a-vis economics.
Okay but remember you were questioning whether it is a moral test or a political test. The facts are that it is a moral test, and the purpose of the authors is to see how morality is associated with political views - which may not be your purpose, and you may even think it is a stupid purpose. But they are investigating an empirical connection between certain moral evaluations and certain political affiliations.
Quoting TimeLine
I'd say freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't harm others is only one of the many factors that a political system has to consider - it's certainly not the only one though. And I doubt there's any system - including liberal democracy, which grants freedom to choose without causing harm to others. In fact, I see many people harming each other in liberal democracies based on their choices.
Quoting TimeLine
No :P In fact, I distinctly remember reading them while sitting at my desk, and agreeing with most of them apart from the "comfortable myths" one :P [ let me explain why as well lol - Bertrand Russell aims that against religious belief, but just as religious belief can be construed as a defence mechanism against a fear of death (and it is true that it can lessen fear of death for the believer), so too atheistic lack of belief can be construed as fear of accountability/responsibility - one doesn't believe in God because one doesn't want to be accountable for the kind of life they lead on Earth (and this too lessens fear - in fact atheists often use this as an argument for atheism - you no longer have to worry about the afterlife) ]
But please note that you misunderstood what I wrote. I meant that it's not a superficial issue in terms of importance (and not in terms of intellectual depth). Because so many people are affected by it, it's not an unimportant issue at all, quite the contrary. And whether those people are stupid or not makes little difference to its importance. That it is intellectually shallow I agree, but intellectual shallowness isn't a political consideration in judging the importance of something. And so it is not an error in using it as a criticism of liberal democracy - liberal democracy systematically leads to this clearly bad outcome.
Quoting TimeLine
lol :P Don't punch me too hard O:) haha xD
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, but reducing the probability of authoritarian outcomes isn't the only relevant consideration. As if the world is politically perfect if we just avoid tyranny...
Quoting TimeLine
Our economic system is the result of our political system, or at least the two of them are well-correlated together. You pretty much cannot have one without the other, hence why I said capitalism is democracy.
Quoting TimeLine
I disagree, morality is a political consideration of importance in structuring a society. If you create a political system with no concern for morality, you've clearly created an abomination. In fact, that's what tyrannies consist in - political systems with no concern for morality. Since purity is part of morality, it is a consideration that needs to be thought through when judging a political system.
I agree with the gist of that. Reason plays a role in the morally conscientious - those who are morally conscious and strive to act morally - and differentiates the morally conscientious from those who just act emotionally without guidance from their conscience and without the use of reason. I suppose you could think of the former as a sort of transcendence over the latter, and the former does also seem to be more sophisticated. Sometimes you need to think things through, and to get your priorities in order, in order to reach the right ethical conclusion.
But emotion is primary, in my view, in that it is the primary guiding force, whereas reason has secondary functions. I get this powerful intuitive feeling about what is right or wrong, and I think of that as my conscience, and try to follow it in order to be ethical. This conscience is foundational, whereas reason is like a tool which can be used in an attempt - which might or might not be successful - to control conflicting emotions, and to arrange priorities. Being conscientious is no guarantee of acting morally, but I cannot go against my conscience in good faith without thinking and feeling that I have done wrong.
It is important to overcome prejudice, bad ideas and psychological decoys - even if that means being disloyal, since loyalty is worthless and ought to be eschewed if it is loyalty to that which is immoral. And loyalty should always be a secondary consideration. That which is moral warrants loyalty more than anything else which is not necessarily moral, whether that be family, tradition, religion, nation, some abstract concept, or any personal quality deemed to be a virtue.
I agree that notions of purity could be dangerous in the political domain, hence I think we should be wary in that regard. And in the ethical domain, I think that it should not be the focus. I have seen it expressed in what I judge to be trivial matters or expressed in ways I find offensive or repellent.
Sure, it can be construed in that way, but it'd be wrong in a lot of cases.
:-} Yes, just as Russell's construal would be wrong in a lot of cases...
Oh yeah, more bullshit. I totally dislike this hypocritical bias when you admit something on one side, but not on the other. How is it comforting knowing that you might spend your eternity in hell? :s
I acknowledged it on both sides, actually. But it'd be dumb to assume that they've equivalent in terms of the quantity of people these theories respectively apply to on each side, since that is incredibly unlikely and without warrant. So when I said "perhaps not so many", that was a reasonable thing to say.
Do you deny there are any comforting aspects? How many people think they're going to hell? How many people think they're going to heaven?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/520033697/Most-believe-in-heaven-and-think-theyll-go-there.html
Quite many, the fear of hell is a source of anxiety for many religious people... really your ignorance on these matters is quite painful.
Quoting Sapientia
There is the possibility of comfort, but nothing more than that. In fact, it could be argued that death with no afterlife is more comforting and liberating as a view - it removes a possible source of worry. If death is the end, nothing to fret about.
Quite many? Relative to [i]what[/I]?
So I needn't have said "perhaps", and I understated it. The claim that there are not quite so many relative to both atheists [i]and[/I] other believers is backed up by evidence.
And you have the nerve to accuse [I]me[/I] of ignorance in these matters?!
Quoting Agustino
You sir, are in denial.
Relative to their authentic belief, obviously.
Quoting Sapientia
Right, another poll citing fool (not to mention how you upload that link way after I had already responded, and then act as if I ignored it... :-d ). You should know that most people who identify as Christians don't even know what their religion teaches. You can prove anything with statistics, you should also know that. They've even proved that non-existent particles exist. Unless you put that brain of yours to work, looking at statistics is useless. That's not science. That's not how science is done. Science is founded on both reason and empirical investigation, not on empiricism alone.
Quoting Sapientia
No, you are in denial of the simple fact that the possibility of Heaven does not entail that one would go there, and therefore it is bullshit to claim that belief in afterlife reduces fear of death. What reduces fear of death is belief that YOU will go to Heaven - that's more than just believing in an afterlife or in the possibility of going to Heaven - or whatever Russell would identify as "comforting myths". No religion teaches that you are destined to go to Heaven regardless of what you do - so if people believe that, well, then they're idiots, end of story - and they're not even religious believers belonging to any of the large religions in fact, since that's not the teaching of most of these religions. And what clearly reduces fear in atheists is the belief ("comforting myth") that there is no judgement after death and no hell. These are facts - undeniable. Whether people are aware of them or not is irrelevant. They are at work, psychologically.
You make this sound so easy, lol. Really, I'd love to have a piece of this revelation, Sappy, it would help me very much (Y)
Quoting Sapientia
So, loyalty is a vice, now?
What is the basis of your morality? The prevention of further immorality or suffering in future? I can't see how that can be since I distinctly remember you being in favor of bringing children into the world.
Quoting Sapientia
Again, here you seem to prop up a kind of consequentialism, which still doesn't make any sense to me. Are you judging what comes before, what is acted out, or what comes about as a result?
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Which is? What makes loyalty a virtue as opposed to when loyalty is a vice if loyalty in itself is not a virtue?
Heister, actually I must ask you, how do I begin my study of the real Meister? >:O What works would you recommend to start with? O:)
https://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Thought-Meister-Eckhart-Nothing/dp/0824519965/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
This is a great introduction. McGinn has also translated Eckhart's sermons, but you could try those after, or perhaps follow along with the references as you read the book I linked above. The last chapter in that is perhaps the most revealing. It's what cemented my fascination with Eckhart. And I suppose that we all have that one thinker that every word reads like revelation, and Eckhardus is mine at the moment! (Y)
>:O I've had to order it from your amazon, because Sappy's Amazon wasn't delivering to me :-}
Yes the British certainly have shown their "loyalty" many times... Like here:
So, you're reading things into what I say, now? I spoke of reality involving loyalty as a vice, but that isn't the same as your careless misunderstanding above. If you were paying enough attention, you'd know that I think that reality also involves loyalty as a virtue, and that it is neither one nor other in itself.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Your memory isn't as good as you think it is. I'm not in favour of bringing children into the world, I just don't see anything wrong with it in numerous cases, so I'd defend those cases. And I don't accept as my basis for morality anything as simplistic as the prevention of immorality or suffering in future. I'd have to add qualifications, and by doing so, your implication about an internal inconsistency wouldn't apply. I argued against such a principle at length in the anti-natalism discussions on account of it being too simplistic and absolute, among other reasons. I take the anti-natalist argument and turn it against them as a [i]reductio ad absurdum[/I]. If you start with such a principle, and if it were universally adopted, then, in light of the consequences, I'd conclude that the principle, in its original form, should be rejected, at that it would need to be revised.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, I tend to think along consequentialist lines, and have done so in this discussion. I might've been using one type of ethical reasoning more than others. But I'm not tied down to think [i]only[/I] along those lines. I can judge immorality in light of [i]various[/I] respects, rather than just a single respect. I think that to suggest otherwise would be another oversimplification.
In the example under discussion, it can be immoral in [i]all three[/I] respects that you mentioned in your question. It's immoral if you knowingly intend to commit your loyalty to an organisation which you know to be immoral, without good reason. It'd be immoral to commit immoral acts as part of such an organisation that you're loyal to. And it'd be immoral - or [i]even more[/I] immoral, if it is already so - if there are immoral consequences (or further such consequences) as a result.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I thought I'd made that clear by saying: virtue, good - vice, bad. The nature of virtue is good. It can't be otherwise, or it wouldn't be virtue. So, given that loyalty can be bad, it can't in itself be a virtue.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I've said this already, too. I mentioned two conditions. Have you forgotten them, or did you not read them in the first place? Perhaps you were too busy trying to think of a sarcastic comeback or find a suitable GIF to use.
I mentioned balance and being put to good use. If you want a little more detail, see my previous posts.
So, loyalty is amoral, now? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
Quoting Sapientia
You're not in favor of bringing children into the world, but you don't see anything wrong with it? Uh, so why are you not in favor of procreation? Certainly something has to be wrong with it, otherwise you have no reason to be against it.
Quoting Sapientia
Much ado about nothing, here. You still failed to answer my question.
Quoting Sapientia
Ah, so you're a moral relativist that prefers to meander around in whatever ethic suits them best in a certain situation, (Y) (N)
Quoting Sapientia
Why? Again, I ask, what dictates moral behavior in whatever ethic you're trying to peddle me? Please, this is a very simple question.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, yes, and I'm a college student and you're awesome - but do either of these facts explain anything at all? Nope. Merely differentiating between words like virtue and vice gets me nowhere closer toward understanding how you're defining said words.
Quoting Sapientia
As far as I remember with regard to your responses to me, it is actions and their consequences.
Quoting Sapientia
[hide="Reveal"]
What?! You mean he should've said Agustino saw through his ploy? :-O
Quoting Agustino
>:O
Are you trolling me? In itself, yes, loyalty is amoral. But that didn't just happen [i]now[/I]. I have been saying that since the start of our discussion. I may not have used that word, but it shouldn't take a rocket science to figure that one out. My meaning was clear. Even Agustino understood.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's just not something that appeals to me. I'm not enthusiastic about it. I don't promote or encourage it. There doesn't have to be anything wrong with it, unless this lack of appeal or favour counts. (But that's just my personal opinion, so I don't really see why it should). And, like I said, I'm not against it, I'm just not in favour of it. The two aren't equivalent, so don't conflate them.
Also, I don't think that it's sensible to treat this issue in a way which rules out or overlooks a case-by-case approach. The devil is in the details, so I find your oversimplifications problematic.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I answered your second question, which partly answers your first question. Your first question is very broad and could be the topic of an essay, so I'm disinclined to answer. But I've already touched upon some of what it is that forms the basis of my morality in this very discussion. Yet you act as though you're oblivious to much of this discussion. Why don't you just look at the results of my moral foundations test? Or you could read what I've already said about it in this discussion. Why not do both? Are you just being lazy?
I would've been fine talking about suffering, which you yourself brought up, since that plays a part in my ethics. I just objected to your unsophisticated way of putting it, and said that I'd have to add qualifications.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's not a very charitable way of putting it. Why needlessly limit oneself in the way you suggested?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's not a very sensible question. As I said, I tend to think along consequentialist lines. If that answer's not good enough for you, then tough shit. Not my problem.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Look, it's your fault for not paying attention when I explained it in more detail the first time around. You asked what the nature of virtue is, and I answered that question. I'm not sure what more you want. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Actions and consequences can be relevant with regards to virtue and vice, yes.
If you mean to enquire about what it takes for something to count as a virtue or a vice, I've answered that multiple times now, and you've replied to both posts in which I mentioned my criteria by quoting much of what I said, but leaving out that part in particular. Surely you must have seen it. I'm now determined not to repeat that unless I have to, so I refer you back to those previous posts. And I'll assume you have nothing to say or ask about it, since you've chosen not to address it on two separate occasions. It's just got hot air, in response, it seems.
Furthermore, I had no problems with John hiring the more attractive one rather than what the author deemed as the more competent one. If it is his business -- that is how I interpreted the context of the question -- it is up to him what he prefers.
I forgot most of the questions.
I can't remember a single one. X-)
Do you think that the results reflect your moral priorities in the right order and proportion? I think it roughly does so in my case, but if it does so in your case, I find it hard to wrap my head around why you'd think so little of fairness - at least in relation to the other values.
(I've edited this comment because I've just realised that that's a different set of results from before and that they relate to a different moral foundations test).
I see that in the last test, your results for fairness are quite different, and not as disproportionate. Maybe that one was a better reflection.
I just did that test because csalisbury commented that the original test was "terribly designed." I answered the questions and tried not to over-think the questions I got.
My guess is that I am quite libertarian (i.e. indifferent) to personal choices that does not infringe on human rights. I think that most of the questions regarding fairness was answered indifferently by me, because I compartmentalise my negative emotional response from a moral one. If I would not have done that, the results would probably be less odd.
For a deeper introspection, I should look back at the questions one by one, but my overall impression of the test is quite negative -- the questions were really off.
From a Kantian perspective, perhaps that may be viz. the relation between reason and sensibility but I find myself questioning why - when I become conscious or understand an experience - emotions dissipate. I assume that to be the result of our cognitive functions - the dual between conscious and subconscious experience, though the latter is still a form of consciousness we are just unable to articulate - and thus when we experience something we may not understand at conscious level, it inevitably drops to the subconscious state. We then begin to experience intuitive feelings and the emotions that follow when we encounter an experience that provokes our subconscious to communicate with us, but we are not aware of why - that is, we do not understand it at conscious level - and when we do, the emotions dissipate. It is why intuition - or our subconscious state - can also trick us, or as I said earlier 'psychological decoys' where a person can have irrational feelings of fear or cowardice only because they fail to understand at conscious level why they feel that way. When one transcends to a state of moral consciousness, they no longer rely on subconscious emotions or feelings of right or wrong, because they know what is right or wrong.
Thus, reason stands superior to intuition because our conscious state is more sensible than our subconscious state of mind, though they are clearly interconnected.
Quoting Sapientia
It depends on how you interpret loyalty; as said earlier, I am loyal to my country but my loyalty is through both my adherence to social, economic and legal requirements along with my constructive criticism of its flaws, whereas for some criticism is viewed as an act of disloyalty. On the contrary, if a person blindly follows and defends tooth and nail acts that can be constituted as immoral, their disloyalty is greater since they endanger the very object of their defence; and what happens when the blind lead the blind? What type of friends would you have if they performed a love for you but failed to care enough about the dangers of your flaws? I would hardly call them a friend. Loyalty is an act of love, it is not turning your back and disappearing but it is also not blindly defending tooth and nail. It is simply caring enough to want what would bring about the greatest good.
Let's see - maybe her future husband? Maybe, if the "two lads" have partners, maybe one of them? Maybe their conscience? Maybe their families? The web is so interlinked that sexual affairs ripple outwards and affect much more than just the people involved in consenting to it. Furthermore, there always are the spiritual effects which remain seared in memory, so it's no trifling affair at all.
Quoting Emptyheady
How quaint. If getting shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night is not immoral, how come you do not consider her marriage material? How can she be deficient if there's nothing morally wrong with what she's done? Clearly you think there is something seriously wrong with what she's done, or otherwise you wouldn't judge her character to be such that she's not "marriage material" - you take away with your left hand what your right hand gives. I dislike men who treat women like straw dogs.
Furthermore, you must distinguish between how the law should be - whether the law should permit getting shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night - how social norms should be - whether society through its mechanisms of peer pressure and eduction should permit such an occurence - and how morality is - whether or not such an occurence is immoral. For example, I believe that the law should be laissez faire, but I think social norms shouldn't be laissez faire, nor should society be uninterested in whether or not it happens - education should always be at work in preventing it. Morally the question though is settled - it is immoral.
Quoting Emptyheady
It may be his business, but this has nothing to do with the morality of his choice. His choice is highly immoral because he objectifies the woman in question, and chooses her not for what she's supposed to be chosen - doing the job right - but rather for her physical characteristics, based on his own selfishness. On top of this, he's also being unfair to the other person who is more capable. Now the immorality of his choice doesn't necessarily imply he shouldn't be legally allowed to make that choice. But it is important to distinguish the two. When you say laissez faire I suppose you're only talking about how the law should be, not about the morality of the choice at all.
Hey! Take it easy ol' dog.
:P (L) yay! haha
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
And here I thought I was a social conservative. I do make a fundamental distinction between my own personal views and my unwillingness to forcefully impose these on others through government action. A strange mix of practical conservatism and theoretical libertarianism, I guess. Economically I'm pretty hostile to unbridled capitalism. I didn't really like how many of these questions were framed.
Quoting Agustino
There are of course certain exceptions to my respect for personal liberty, particularly when involving issues which cannot be isolated from the 'common good.' In the economic sphere especially I'm as unsympathetic to socially irresponsible capitalists as could possibly be. Ethical, communally-responsible capitalism is commendable, or would be if it existed within a society of virtuous citizens inspired by more than a love of money and single-minded devotion to profits above all other considerations.
I think there are situations in which constructive criticism would not be enough: situations in which the right thing to do would be to retract or break off your loyalty. I'm only loyal to aspects of my country, not the whole thing, warts and all.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree.
Quoting TimeLine
I disagree. I don't think that love is the most characteristic feature of loyalty. It wouldn't even apply in some cases: for example, in cases in which an emotion is there instead of love, and which has some - but not all - features in common with love, and which isn't quite so strong a feeling. Honour and duty strike me as more characteristic or prominent than love, and I think that care would be more broadly applicable than love, with regards to loyalty.
I also don't think that you can rightly exclude "blindly defending tooth and nail" as a possible feature or consequence of loyalty. I think that an examination of loyalty which is as impartial as it can be would lead to an inclusion of the good as well as the bad. But I think that some people are biased in that they seem to desire for loyalty to be kept untarnished - or at least not as tarnished as it can be, in light of some cases - so they superficially make it so that loyalty will always match their ideal of it. In other words, wishful thinking.
You can't be part loyal. Loyalty is a choice, an expression of your moral position and so what you are saying is no different to what I said; by choosing aspects of your country is merely criticising other aspects that you do not agree with.
Quoting Sapientia
Love is a term I use to denote moral consciousness and loyalty can - along with honour and duty [or responsibility] - be expressions of our morality. I am quite firm on my belief that love is a choice and not some subjective, sweeping feeling [hence the consciousness] that, without reason, can be self-deceitful and even sometimes dangerous to our own well-being. Hence my previous remark on the superiority of reason over intuition. Concepts, such as pride, is an example of this danger; without reason, pride can lead us further away from intellectual and emotional progress, but within reason, can empower us to appreciate our individuality. Loyalty works the same way, that without reason can be dangerous.
It does not mean that because of our failure to apply our moral position consciously and correctly that somehow loyalty itself is flawed; the flaw is the expression and that is a individual choice.
Good, then we are done here.
Quoting darthbarracuda
How?
The test was a moral test though, so we're not done at all...
It's only loaded in that if you answer straightforwardly and honestly, it weakens the ideas you want to support. So you're answering politically instead.
What I said wasn't about being part loyal, it was about being loyal to parts - only those parts which deserve your loyalty.
I'm not merely talking about being critical of or disagreeing with certain aspects of my country, since it's possible to do that whilst being loyal to my country. But I don't think that justice would be served by universally taking that approach. Like I said, sometimes the right way to go about it would be to go further by retracting or breaking off your loyalty - or by not committing your loyalty in the first place.
I wouldn't say, like you did, that I am loyal to my country through, among other things, constructive criticism of its flaws. I wouldn't start with loyalty to my country and then proceed from there. I would start by considering various aspects of my country, and then try to figure out whether or not it is deserving of my loyalty. And in so doing, I've reached the conclusion that [i]only certain aspects[/I] of my country are deserving of my loyalty. So I would not say that I'm loyal to my country - unless the situation changed, which it is unlikely to do, since there will likely always be aspects which are not deserving of my loyalty, and which I could not include in a broader 'loyalty to my country', since they are the very reason that I am [i]not[/I] loyal to my country. I might be able to do so if all of the flawed aspects of my country were only ever as serious as to make constructive criticism the right response, but some of the flaws are too serious to warrant being treated in that way.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't agree with using the word "love" in that way. It's unclear without clarification and is likely to be misunderstood.
But I agree that those qualities can be expressions of our morality, if, by that, you don't mean to imply that they're necessarily moral, but rather that they're an expression of one's moral values.
The bottom line is that these qualities can be bad, immoral, a vice...
Quoting TimeLine
Well, I think that that belief is mistaken, firm or otherwise. Love isn't a choice. Love is indeed a subjective feeling - it can't be otherwise. Love can influence choice and can't itself be chosen. I do not, and cannot, choose who or what I love, or even whether to love. Love just [i]happens[/I] as a result of something or other.
But sure, you can love the wrong thing, you can feel a sense of deception about love, and it can sometimes be dangerous to our own well-being.
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, I don't agree with that. Both are fallible, but with respect to ethics, my intuitions tend to be more powerful than anything that my reason or anyone else's can come up with. If, intuitively, I find something right or wrong, then attempting to use reason to find a way around that can be futile. Furthermore, I think that our moral views are founded intuitively, and tend to align with and remain close to those foundations. Reason is the slave of the passions, not vice versa.
Quoting TimeLine
This is similar to what I was getting at earlier by bringing up balance, excess, and deficiency. And yes, reason plays a part in that. But we disagree over its overall significance.
Quoting TimeLine
I wouldn't say that loyalty itself is flawed. Nor, like others, would I explain this by saying that that is because loyalty in itself is a virtue, or that it is intrinsically good. I think that much of this ethical talk about loyalty in itself is false or meaningless.
It makes sense to take context into account, which can in some cases suggest loyalty as a vice; that to be loyal in these circumstances would be flawed. But it isn't as simple as being a choice, since it isn't a matter in which we have an entirely free will. Rather, our moral values and those emotions relating to them can and do have varying degrees of influence on our thoughts, beliefs, intentions, and actions.
No, it would only superficially appear that way. Loaded questions are a tactic used by sophists, and it wouldn't be wise to allow oneself to be tricked by those kind of tactics. I'm here for philosophy, not sophistry.
So you're claiming the question implies a fallacious argument?
I'm claiming that it's a loaded question:
Categorizing political opinions is, itself, value-laden by the very values it seeks to categorize. In some way by putting this or that thought in this or that category you forbid, permit, and extol such and such depending on who is doing the talking and the listening.
Well what definition of "sophistry" are you using?
:-d
Would you rather dance around where our substantial disagreement lies than properly discuss it? You could start by making explicit those assumptions implicit in your loaded question. I'm guessing it's something like: [i]anyone who doesn't act as if they were always fully in control of the way in which they react is an idiot, and is entirely responsible for reacting in ways that I deem to be idiotic[/I]. And the problem with that assumption is that it is blind to a wealth of evidence which contradicts it.
That's not something I'd agree with. I was sincerely asking you the question I asked. Maybe you believe that it couldn't be the case that someone would yell "Fire" where people do not panic and trample other folks, etc. I don't know. That's why I asked you. I believe that sometimes people do things like yell "Fire" where people do not panic and trample other folks etc. If there was an "assumption" in my question, that was it--that I believe that people don't always freak out when someone yells "Fire," but apparently you believe that that's not possible.
Okay. Perhaps I was reading more into it than was present. But then, you used the word "idiot" which I think is telling. You were judging their reaction as idiotic, which in turn seems to suggest that you hold them responsible to some extent, and that they could have acted otherwise. I don't think that that is necessarily true. So, my answer to your question would be that some people in that situation might not react in that way, but that the whole situation is far more complex than you seemed to have acknowledged, and that a simple "yes" or "no" answer would not convey this.
And, although not logically impossible, in practice, it is unrealistic that an entire theatre full of people would react in a calm and controlled manner.
Right. So it can't be simply that saying "Fire" is causal to some specific behavior. There has to be more to it than that. There have to be some other factors that make the difference to whether some specific behavior obtains or not in the wake of someone yelling "Fire."
I never suggested otherwise. If you look back over our discussion, you will see that.
My objection was against your not counting that - namely, someone yelling "Fire!" - as a causal factor - and a significant one at that - for whatever harm might ensue. Instead, you just listed [i]other[/I] factors - factors which wouldn't even make sense without that primary trigger to the events which consequently followed.
The problem is that if yelling "Fire" doesn't cause the behavior in every situation, how do we show that it's causal at all? Why wouldn't the other factors, whatever they are, be the causal factors instead?
Every situation isn't exactly the same, but most have things in common, and they tend to produce the same sort of result way more often than not. They do so to such an extent that the results are highly predictable. And the results can be explained by what we know about human nature, which includes natural reactions, and by what we know to be the probable cause of those reactions.
This isn't solely a matter for philosophy. Science can explain much of this. If you want to know about this sort of thing, I'd direct you towards the science, rather than invite you to philosophically speculate about it irrespective of it.
And besides, this is common sense. Most people wouldn't need a more in-depth explanation.
Causality isn't tending or probability. It's that if A obtains, then B obtains temporally posterior to it, unless there's evidence of something causally prohibiting B, where A and B are interactive via forces, they're spatially and temporally contiguous, etc.
I say, and this may be all talk and no trousers, but isn't that being part-loyal? So, you're part loyal not part loyal, partly?
Quoting Sapientia
This is not really an answer at all; how exactly did you conclude that being disloyal to your country would best serve justice? I may be wrong in my understanding, but I assume it is because loyalty - even one applied rationally and therefore capable of criticism and fighting injustice - can still potentially form bias somehow? Well, yes, but this bias is for the genuine wellbeing of the state, hence the capacity to criticise and fight injustice. You do not need to fight popular culture by being gothic. You really need to clarify your point and particularly re-think your "part-loyalty" a little more thoroughly, as you say here:
"And in so doing, I've reached the conclusion that only certain aspects of my country are deserving of my loyalty."
Whether it is or isn't, tending and probability clearly relate to causality, and are relevant to it. If knowledge of a cause is uncertain, then it can only be probable. And if B tends to follow A, in the right circumstances, then that is evidence that A is the cause of B.
I thought that I might get that response. I meant that I'm [i]fully[/I] loyal to those parts. The way that you worded it could be interpreted to contradict that, so I thought that my rewording was a better way of putting it.
Quoting TimeLine
I find your position rather confusing. It's like you want to have your cake and eat it.
Being disloyal to your country would best serve justice when the situation warrants it. You seem to think that you can somehow do this whilst maintaining said-loyalty - which is absurd.
Being critical is one thing, but fighting injustice is another. You can be both loyal to your country [i]and[/I] critical of it, if being critical of it is in the best interest of the country. But if the injustice stems [i]from[/I] your country, then you can't both fight that injustice [I]and[/I] be loyal to your country.
I don't need to rethink my "part-loyalty", as you call it. That quote of mine at the end of your comment is a clarification of, and consistent with, my position. And I stand by it.
If B doesn't always follow A, then it's evidence that A doesn't cause B. Something else does.
What I am saying is that we know that A is likely to cause B, which is likely to cause C, and so on and so forth. (Although that is still a simplification).
So, if we say that A is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, then that is likely to trigger a causal chain which leads to many people panicking and rushing towards the exit. And since we're only talking about likelihood, nothing is ruled out as impossible. It's possible that any number of things will happen. It's possible that everyone in the theatre will react as if nothing had happened, or immediately begin to calmly walk towards the exit in an orderly fashion, without panicking or acting rashly. But that is unlikely.
Whatever the actual outcome, A is the causal trigger, and the subsequent events arise as a [i]reaction to[/I] this causal trigger.
Your evidence isn't greater than mine. That a few people in the theatre might not react as everyone else does, doesn't outweigh the evidence in favour of what the likely result of shouting "Fire!" in a theatre will be. You have raised evidence which suggests that this probable cause is not a necessary cause for a particular reaction in some particular cases, but I haven't denied that. My point is more general than that, and it is more about likelihood than necessity.
Tbh the questions of these tests were kinda shitty... Agreeing or disagreeing with a statement is pretty crap (no neutral option) and being forced to select between two statements is even more crap.
Again, causality is not simple likelihood. It's inevitability, unless something is prohibiting the forces involved. You could say it's 100% likelihood if you like, but that's not what you're appealing to.
Well, this is just faulty logic; you are being disloyal to serve justice for your country when the situation warrants it, but serving justice for your country implies loyalty to your country. You are disloyal to injustice because you are loyal to justice and you do not want injustice in a country you care about.
A 'friend' could pretend to be loyal to me, for instance, but authentically they may only be friends with me because of my social position, what I offer them and how it helps them and their image. But if shit hits the fan and I get sick or fall from all the social graces, do you think that such a 'friend' would remain and support me through it? Nope, I am just a disposable object. A friend would care about my well-being, would criticise when I do something stupid, would protect as much as they would admire. This is loyalty. Those absolute loyal 'artists' do not actually give a shit about their country; they thirst after ideology or power, which is why we encounter holocaust deniers, for instance. They haven't a sense of justice in them. To you, it may confirm the failure of loyalty and this is to a degree true but like pride, which can compel a man to stubborn disregard of facts just as much as it can strengthen a sense of self-worth, it is relative to the intelligence of the individual. So, in the end it is not about dividing loyalty into parts but rather the level of individual ignorance.
Why are you attacking this straw man? My position has never been that causality is simple likelihood. I already clarified that for you.
I was talking about [i]knowledge[/I] of a cause, and likelihood is definitely relevant in that respect. It is obvious that in many situations we do not have certain knowledge of what caused something, so, in those situations, we can only knowingly say what it might have been, and, if there are grounds to, what it probably was and was not. (It's possible that what I think was probably the cause, was certainly the cause, or was certainly not the cause).
I'm saying that for those effected, given what is known, we can rightly conclude that, probably, the shout was a causal factor.
Also:
Closer to the centre than I would have thought.
Ah, I border Average Citizen and 420, according to your nice breakdown.
You've twisted what I said there by adding your own words to it and altering the meaning. So, even if that is faulty logic, you will have only succeeded in defeating a straw man of your own creation.
I was talking about being disloyal to my country [i]to serve justice[/I], not to serve justice [I]for my country[/I].
Quoting TimeLine
Look, in the situation I described, I said that the injustice stems [i]from[/I] my country. So I would not care [i]for[/I] my country, although I would care [i]about[/I] the state that it's in. My country would be the [i]cause[/I] of the problem. What I care for, and am loyal to, would be something else, like [i]my ideal[/I] of what my country [i]should be[/I].
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, I get that. That's not at issue. To continue with the analogy, the issue that I'm talking about is when you do something so bad that your friend should have nothing more to do with you, rather than remain loyal and give you a telling off or a bit of guidance. There should be a red line, and if it's crossed, then that's that. And you'd be wrong to try to make out that that act of disloyalty to you is somehow actually loyalty to you. That would be warped, and would seem like some sort of defence mechanism.
There's no shortage of examples which demonstrate the failure of loyalty, and that includes friends and country. Loyalty should come with conditions if it is to be worthy of being a virtue, and it should not be misapplied. If the latter entails only being loyal to some things, or aspects of a thing, and not others, then so be it.
Should a victim of persistent and severe domestic abuse remain loyal to their partner? I would say no, certainly not. Loyalty in this situation would be bad. Yet, quite astoundingly, some people seem committed to a position in which they must disagree.
I could quite easily come up with similar examples about friends or country.
. . . When you have examples of panic, say, not following someone yelling "Fire," you know that yelling "Fire" wasn't the cause of panic.
Are you claiming that these examples outweigh the counter-evidence? Because, in reality, there are so many examples of so many people reacting in this way to these sort of situations, that I don't see how you have a leg to stand on. There mere fact that there are exceptions, in which not everyone involved reacted in this way, doesn't prove anything against what I've claimed.
One counterexample falsifies a causality claim.
The people who react in [i]that[/I] way in [i]that[/I] situation do so for a reason, and those who don't react in [i]that[/I] way in [i]that[/I] situation (if there are any) do so for a reason. (These reasons have to do with casuality, and wouldn't make any sense without causality). That there may be those who don't react in that way in that situation [i]doesn't[/I] falsify my claim at all, since my original claim was just a generalisation, and my subsequent claims that delve further into the particulars were suitably qualified. What you [i]think of[/I] as a counterexample could be a counterexample against some sort of absolutist claim that I never made, or it could fail to be a counterexample because the circumstances in the situations that we're talking about aren't sufficiently similar, or it could be some other error in your reasoning or what you take to be true.
Most people in these situations react predictably, and we are able to predict how they'll likely react because of what we know. So you'd have to deny what we already know in order to argue against me. And you'd have your work cut out for you, since what I'm talking about is so well known that it has become common knowledge.
So, I'm waiting for this extraordinary counterexample of yours which defies everything we know about this. Although I think it much more likely that you've made a mistake somewhere along the line.
Anyway, it's about time you said something with a bit more meat on the bone.
That is exactly right, because you are loyal. You are intelligent. You are not inauthentic because the principle, the form of loyalty itself is what you adhere to and not the object, the person, the country etc. I am trying to tell you that you cannot divide that into parts, the objects are themselves divided but not loyalty. You serve objects for justice because of your loyalty to justice. Get it? :-#
What I am trying to tell you is that selectivity on part of loyalty is ignorant, which is why false people' so-called loyalty is interchangeable only when it benefits them. Being morally conscious, you do not view the world subject to this ignorance but rather model your ethical outlook by identifying injustice and positing solutions careless of whether or not it benefits you, examining the causal reasons on part of criminals, agents, institutions, governments etc. Wherever justice is required, you are loyal, so that would mean loyal to your country, to my country, to the world, wherever there are people.
To gain that level of moral consciousness would imply that those who serve justice - as I do - would never allow 'bad' people in my personal space and I was once guilty of that ignorance and paid the price for it. In the end, your examples are merely exposing the very issue I have with the 'parting' aspect of your argument - you are either loyal or you are not - and a dedication to just one object [i.e. a person] is the very same ignorance I am attempting to direpute.
When I seek to punish bad, I seek it only because of a very small hope that they may recognise their own bad actions and become aware or morally conscious since I do not believe that humans are innately evil. Just ignorant. When one is loyal to righteousness or justice, they are inevitably loyal to people, that is, the well-being of all people.
Yes.
Quoting TimeLine
Right. I'm not loyal to my country, like I said. You seemed be contradicting what I said.
Quoting TimeLine
What you are trying to tell me here seems no different to what I said when I said that I'm fully loyal to those parts.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, I suppose so.
Quoting TimeLine
I wouldn't say that selective loyalty necessarily indicates ignorance, or is necessarily a bad thing. But it is in some cases, like the one you have in mind.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, in a sense. It depends what is meant by that phrase. Your meaning is different and broader to what I take the phrase to mean. For example, if the context is Nazi Germany and you asked me if I'm loyal to my country, then I would say no.
Quoting TimeLine
I'm not sure whether we actually disagree, though, since I don't disagree with that. You are either loyal or you are not. That can be applied to particulars as well as a whole. In terms of my whole country? No, I'm not. I'm not loyal to certain aspects that are supposed to be representative of my country: government, people, culture, for example. I'm not much of a patriot.
No, you are loyal to your country because you are loyal to justice and that would mean what is best for the people within your community who are citizens of the state. Patriotism is different to loyalty, the former is the ideological attachment the ignorant have as Schopenhauer states: “Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resort the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”
I have seen this time and time again where men view women as objects that would benefit their image and only love the object if they comply to this image, trapped in an habitual cycle where they never progress and they are trapped because their lifestyles have made them dependent on this habit. Genuine love, however, transcends this objectification and a morally conscious man would fall in love with a woman because he admires her for the person that she is in principle and vice-versa, where together they support one another to better themselves. To get to this point would be to change everything about the former lifestyle and that is too difficult to change for many people, which is why it continues cyclically and why they remain in impoverished relationships.
Politically, it is the same where the ignorant are trapped in an habitual cycle that only repeats history and often at a disadvantage to others whereas those genuinely committed to justice love and admire what is just and good enough to consistently dedicate themselves toward progress. Because that habitual cycle is so rigid considering people have positioned their lifestyles that traps them in that cycle, diplomatically it is incredibly difficult trying to amount any change.
We don't actually disagree with one another but I think you misunderstand the primary component of my position, namely the division of loyalty. When you reach a level of moral sophistication, you transcend and adhere to the categorical imperative aside from your own or the benefits that this behaviour will have to you personally. Immature or ignorant people are loyal to specific objects only when it benefits them and disregard or abandon the object as though it were disposable - even other humans - when it no longer benefits them, because they see people as objects.
You are either loyal, or you are not. You are either morally conscious, or you are ignorant.
Okay, but whether it's a valid counterexample has nothing to do with whether you believe that it is. Yelling "Fire" isn't causal to panic, say, because it's possible to yell "Fire" and not cause panic.
That may not be how you're using the idea of causality, but it's how I use it, and it's the only sort of concept of causality that has any bearing on my ethical stances. Any other concept wouldn't be relevant to my ethical stances.
Okay, now you seem to be contradicting [i]yourself[/I]. You said that the form of loyalty itself is what I adhere to and not the country. Am I loyal to my country or not? Make up your mind. In the mean time, I'll answer the question for you, again. I'm not loyal to my country. And I'm not loyal to my country because, in many respects, either I'm not committed in the first place, or I would abandon such a commitment under certain circumstances.
Contrary to what you suggest in the quote above, neither justice nor the people within my community nor their best interests are equivalent to my country, so loyalty to any of the aforementioned does not entail loyalty to my country.
You're free to construe it in that way, but I don't agree with that.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, of course they're different. My point was not that they're identical, but that they're related. They're related inasmuch as patriotism suggests loyalty to one's country. Schopenhauer does a good job of highlighting the potential downside of this.
You don't say? That was a pointless comment. Obviously I don't believe that it is a valid counterexample for a reason, and it is that reason, rather than my belief (or lack thereof), which is relevant.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That's a [I]non sequitur[/I]. It's [i]not[/I] causal [i]only[/I] in those particular cases. It [i]is[/I] causal in others. And the cases in which it isn't casual lack relevance to my point, which is about those other cases. The particulars in these cases make them distinct in important ways, so you can't validly use the one to argue against the other in the way that you seem to be doing.
Quoting Terrapin Station
If your idea of causality is linked to erroneous reasoning, as your reply has lead me to suspect, then yes, I do indeed reject it.
I can clearly see why you would think that and even whilst writing I knew that the above-mentioned response was likely even with simplistic thought experiments of a platonic nature that attempted to explain my point, so I guess I will use a slightly different method.
You have the Form of Justice, what is morally fair that equally distributes rights and duties proportional to its function and without affecting liberty and social well-being. For me, it is righteousness and I undertake a lifestyle personally that attempts to exemplify the application of this quality of virtue. I say this because like Plato I believe the individual represents the State, and my application of virtue via a moral consciousness ensures I live a good life, just like how justice via a social consciousness facilitates a good communal life.
For Plato, the Form is harmony or at least conducive to and is the remedy for the evils in society; it is clear in the Republic that the dialogues example the inadequacies of political systems, for instance Thrasymachus' dangerous view that leadership is [rather contemptibly] an object for the strong that serves self-interest over the weak, making it clear that power can be exploited. The Form of Justice is the ideal that transcends physical reality and is a model represented by objects or instruments that illustrate this ideal state. From an Aristotlean perspective, it is a distinguished principle that one actively attempts to administer in reality and so teleological that determines an essence to the material world. Loyalty is associative viz., your relationships with people and is paradigmatic to justice; if you are loyal to the Form of Justice, you are loyal to all the people and objects that justice is member to. So, like the Form itself, the essence or ideal, and the instruments or objects that are subject to it, your loyalty to Justice corresponds to your loyalty to people or the objects that are subject to justice.
Legally, you are a citizen of your country and subject to a government that is responsible to represent the ideal Form of Justice. The selection of these executive representatives is debatable (can fascist governments represent justice?) but a country is not just the government if you accept that the representatives are selected by the people and that it is the people - not the government - that determine a country. And since you are loyal to justice, by extension, you are loyal to people, you must therefore be loyal to your country. Those representatives who oppose justice, oppose your country and the people it is supposed to represent because of Thrasymachian ideals that have subjected justice as an apparatus to power.
If you say you are loyal to your country only up until you see an injustice at which point this loyalty is no longer applicable, for me, that makes no sense because justice is applied by people and governments or all objects and instruments of our social reality, including your country. If these instruments are subject to injustice, it is injustice that you are disloyal to and what you seek to modify is the balance or harmony as the Form of justice exemplifies. If you were no longer loyal to your country, you would no longer be loyal to justice and you would simply abandon. That is why I stated that though I may have enemies, I do not seek to eradicate or hurt them but punishment in anyway is wholly under the hope that somehow they may recognise their misdeeds and modify their behaviour, however small that hope may be. I am committed to justice, which is why I oppose injustice; justice cannot be divided.
This is nowhere specified in Plato, this is your own typically modern import.
Quoting TimeLine
Plato didn't believe the individual represents the state, rather he meant that the divided State is an analogy for man's own divided soul. The three classes from his ideal state are references to three different parts of the soul.
Quoting TimeLine
It is interesting that the very presupposition of harmony means its absence. The very division of the State in three classes which live together harmoniously through the principle of specialisation where each one has his specific function underscores the disunity that is found in the soul and is only overcome through the dialectical activity of Reason. In other words, harmony isn't a given, per Plato. This is in opposition to, for example, Daoism, where harmony is a given, and it is disturbance of that given which leads to disharmony.
The whole Republic is not about external politics, but about the inner politics of the soul. That is the whole Platonic secret. When read in this manner, all of Plato's contradictions disappear.
The key point of our disagreement is semantic: about what it means to be loyal to your country. I still prefer my own interpretation. And I don't think that that's through failing to understand your point, however many times, or however many different ways, you reiterate it. I think we just disagree.
For one thing, I think that my meaning is more easily understood, as demonstrated with my example of Nazi Germany. Whether you focus on government, people, or culture, all three of these key aspects which are taken to represent a country predominantly conformed with Nazism, which is not something worthy of loyalty. Hence, if asked the question of whether or not I am loyal to my country, in that context, it would make more sense in my mind to answer no, as I think that most people nowadays with the benefit of hindsight would naturally do.
I use that same kind of reasoning to answer no in the context of my actual country, at the present time.
To answer otherwise in the example of Nazi Germany, as it seems you would do (and, for that matter, as it seems you would do [i]in any other context[/I], since, for you, the context seems to be irrelevant - you'll always divert the focus onto something else, like the best interests of your fellow countrymen, for example), and yet share the same opposition to Nazism, would require a convoluted explanation which conflicts with the approach that I prefer, which is more about whatever comes naturally without overcomplicating things.
The social contract theory was suggested in the Republic.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545279?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
And at least my modern "import" has a fixed sensibility that proves my dedication to virtue, unlike:
Quoting Agustino
Do you want me to get started on the profound inanity, viciousness, and lack of humility in the abovementioned comments that expose your own gender-bias and subjective inadequacies? I hardly think you are in a position to remark about liberty and my use of it.
Plato had absolutely no notion of social contracts. Furthermore, Greeks didn't have a developed notion of individuality to begin with... These are just being read back into Plato. If you don't believe me, head back to the Republic and show me otherwise. In fact, even Plato's use of the state as an analogy of the soul is in part based on the fact that the Greeks didn't have a developed notion of individuality and hence couldn't understand except by reference to the community.
Quoting TimeLine
Maybe but it also demonstrates that you're not being intellectually honest with regards to what other philosophers have actually thought and will manipulate their thoughts to fit your own ends.
Quoting TimeLine
LOL!! You are free to take my jokey comment seriously if that's what you think is the right thing to do, however it would be somewhat silly to assume that the comments someone makes half-jokingly in a thread that had already been sliding off topic actually means anything with regards to how they are as people. That would be like assuming that I'm an idiot because I posted that Rakesh video to Heister LOL! Everyone has an outer and an inner personality, it's silly to judge someone by what they say when they're just joking or not talking seriously.
Makes perfectly good sense to me.
There are numerous examples of patriots raking their country over the coals, being scathingly critical. And there are situations where people acted treasonously against their country, in its best interests (the plots to kill Hitler, for example, or Germans who did what they could to contribute to Germany's defeat--most of them were executed).
Several Americans have performed acts many considered treasonous: Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers), Deep draft dodgers and deserters in the Vietnam War, and all sorts of people who become antibodies in a sick body politic.
Haven't you done just that when the joke has been about something you disapprove of, like abortion? Or, do you no longer have a gripe with the likes of Amy Schumer?
I will concede to that mostly because you are right in that your interpretation is certainly more easily understood, and because I appreciate that you are one of very few who see the form of justice in a broader context and as it should be rather than from an egocentric benefitism.
Quoting Sapientia
When it comes to this conformism, however, as I expressed earlier is a failure to understand loyalty genuinely or authentically. So continuing the previous thought experiment, the man incorrectly applying loyalty gives it to a woman because she represents the perfect object for his image and social position, indifferent to the principles she upholds as long as she is attractive. He only loves this object if she complies to the image he requests for his social standing and after a length of time he forms a habitual cycle that he becomes dependent on the object and thus fixed in his ignorance that the idea of changing would mean to completely change his entire lifestyle and everyone in it, which is just too difficult. He is so afraid that the idea of awakening him to his delusions - that is separating himself from society toward individualism - would be viewed as an act of aggression from an enemy. A genuinely loyal man would give his love and loyalty to a woman herself and not to the object she represents, for who she is and the principles she upholds despite the effect it will have to his own image or social standing.
Erich Fromm wrote about this in the Fear of Freedom, what he distinguishes with freedom from' and 'freedom to' - unlike me who uses authentic/genuine with the unauthentic/false - whereby they sense a destructive moral isolation where the individual adheres to Nazism or escapes to authoritarianism to avoid their own individuation. As Nazism is both static but also dynamic in its adaptation of society, it provides a class structure that strengthens into a habit - or automaton conformity - where people retreat to a sado-masochistic dependence and the idea of anything different becomes so threatening that it is viewed fearfully as the 'enemy'. They are unable to separate concepts like justice because of this and so they are considered ignorant. Only a genuine individual can remove themselves or their ego from the concept and see Nazism vis-a-vis Justice with the former thus defying all that justice stands for.
As you say, that's going against their country, but in its best interests. I'm loyal to [i]the best interests[/I] of my country, but [i]not[/I] loyal [i]to[/I] my country - insofar as it is not itself in accordance with, or is against, those best interests.
[I]That[/I] I'm loyal to the best interests of my country [I]entails[/I] that I'm not entirely loyal [i]to[/I] my country, since my country isn't entirely in accordance with, or working towards, those best interests.
I'm not sure whether you meant to agree with me or raise a point against me in your reply, because I'm not sure what exactly you were referring to when you said "Makes perfectly good sense to me". (By one interpretation, you could have been disputing the last sentence in that quote of mine). If the latter, then I don't think that you have in fact raised a point which goes against what I said, because of the distinction I've highlighted in the two paragraphs above.
The fact that you are asking this only proves that you know little of Plato and having me 'prove' this to you despite the adequacy of the link to enable your own effective investigation into the subject only proves that ignorance appears to be a choice since you clearly have the aptitude to look it up yourself. The social contract theory is a representation of the nature of justice and the obligations individuals agree too; the individual compliance to laws is exemplified in Crito and whether or not our modern understanding of freedom and individuality has been fed back into our interpretation of the dialogues, I hardly think that his individual choice to drink hemlock as part of his decision to comply with the jurisprudential expectations of his time is anything but. In addition to this are opposing views of freedom that nevertheless illustrates a key role in his thoughts on justice such as that of Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges in the Republic.
Quoting Agustino
It is not my fault that you know little of Plato and if you want to project your own inadequacies by purporting my intellectual dishonesty, so be it. It is no different at you screaming and defending tooth and nail that the sky is purple after I have said that it is blue. Good luck with that.
Quoting Agustino
I have no time for childish boys who are so afraid of facing their intellectual and emotional failures by pretending once exposed that 'they were just joking'. You can shove your LOL's where it hurts.
I disagree with the sentiment "my country, right or wrong" because I don't think the idea of "country above all else" deserves that kind of fealty. "Nations" and the elites that run them pursue various goals. Some of the goals are in the interest of the the nation as a whole: public health measures, sound currency, navigable rivers and ports, and so on. Some are not: failure to regulate commerce, for instance--banking, mining, slaughterhouses, and so on. A failure to monitor international affairs and defend the country against real enemies would be against the national interest. Engaging in corrupt financial dealings by members of the government (or anybody else, for that matter) is against the best interests of the country.
There are contradictions, of course. What I may think are improper national policies may be somebody else's idea of criminal acts (like revealing the existence of massive CIA spying on domestic communication). Inflation is very bad for some people, great for others. For whom should inflation be managed? Etc.
Well there's a few things here. First of all, I'm not a public person - an educator by virtue of the number of people I reach and who imitate me - the way Amy is. Second of all, Amy isn't just joking, she actually does adopt those pro-abortion positions. So the problem is that she's using jokes as a way to educate others to think like her - it's a means of persuasion. That's what I disagree with. Now in my case none of those two conditions apply.
I never asked you to prove anything. I just asked you to show me where Plato approves of social contract theory.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't think that link is adequate. I myself have read Plato, and have studied Plato scholarship, including anthropological resources about Ancient Greece (Eric Voegelin's Order and History for example). Now I understand that the Greeks didn't have the conception of individuality that we have today, hence theories which are possible today, would have been unthinkable for them.
Quoting TimeLine
Glaucon actually advocates a view which is similar but not identical to social contract, namely that people associate under law, and accept the law, because without being bounded by the law (what Hobbes would call the state of nature) is worse than accepting the limitations of the law (the Leviathan state in Hobbes's parlance). Now Plato argues decisively AGAINST this conception of justice. Justice is an end in itself, not chosen based on utilitarian consideration as in social contract theory.
Quoting TimeLine
Okay, well obviously you are taking it seriously, and it has caused you upset as otherwise you wouldn't bring an irrelevant comment from a different thread in discussion over here, nor would you throw these invectives my way. Now while I am sorry for upsetting you, I have to ask what exactly has caused you upset?
If you said, for example, "most men are brutish idiots" I wouldn't be upset, because I don't identify as "most men". So why do I get accused of gender bias for making an observation? In fact, if you are rational you'll see that my comments entail no position on women whatsoever. I simply made an observation. This observation could have a thousand and one explanations, including, for example, that most women aren't permitted to develop their intellectual side in society because of oppression... but since you rush through with judgements you will of course miss all those possibilities.
As for me being "exposed" you're talking as if you took out some "secret video" of myself saying something terrible and bringing it out in public - exposing me. But you did no such thing - I freely said what I said in public - there is no "running away" when exposed, because I exposed myself to begin with. There's no being scared of talking about what I said... I'm willing to talk about it if you want. However what you're doing is much alike what some people would do when they hear me talk to a close friend and calling him, for example, "a retarded idiot" - he doesn't mind it, because he knows I don't mean it seriously. It would be preposterous if someone came to me and said "Oh how vulgar you are, how dare you talk to your best friend so and so" bullshit. Then they will take words I have used, and give them a completely different intention than I actually gave them. They'll just be good politicians, but nothing more. Even close people for example - say my girlfriend - called me idiot and stupid frequently - not as insults, but in a joking way, that we both laughed and enjoyed. I don't see what's wrong with this, but if you do, then please enlighten this "childish boy" O:)
This makes no sense and you certainly need to clarify your position vis-a-vis Hobbes. Our state of nature - which according to Hobbes is famously solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short - is neither just nor unjust [13.13], which is why he believes that the passions should be channelled by the fear of an authority that would ultimate control them. If Plato argues decisively against 'this conception of justice' as you have put it, how exactly is that wrong? And why have you brought in the concept of utilitarianism?
I am not sure whether you are versed in political philosophy.
Quoting Agustino
I choose to keep company with those fearless enough to genuinely admit to their errors, confident that I am rational enough to respect - and even admire - such an honourable gesture. We all make mistakes, but what makes a rational agent is one who works towards and adheres to the values he expects in others. I have encountered some pretty vicious men but never once have I said that 'all men are vicious' not even 'all the men I have met' because I am respectful enough to know the fallacy with such hasty generalisations; but to go as far as mocking their 'almond sized brains' and other clearly sexist remarks? Then, to add insult to injury you say:
Quoting Agustino
Grow up.
Yes the state of nature is brutish bla bla, correct. So people accept the limitation of the law, only because the state of nature is a greater evil - that's social contract. The social contract is essentially utilitarian - it asks what is the best thing for the greatest number of people? It sees the law as ultimately oppressive, but a necessary form of oppression.
Now according to Plato - accepting the law and justice occurs because these are goods in themselves, not as a means of escaping a greater evil - not as a utility, or a limitation undertaken because of fear of a greater evil.
Now seeing social contract in Plato is like seeing communism in Plato - both silly misinterpretations of the Republic happening when we inject our modern way of thinking and seeing into Plato.
Quoting TimeLine
Well I would admit my errors if there existed any. There are posts which are erroneous, but I don't consider that one to be one of those posts. If you find one which is erroneous, I will admit to it, as I have admitted many times in the past...
Now don't get me wrong, I would apologise if I thought I made a mistake - it's human to make mistakes and commit errors - but I just took that as a joke, never intended it to be taken as otherwise. I'm sorry to see that you took it in a different way though...
Quoting TimeLine
Why is it a hasty generalization? I never said all women are so. I said "most", based on those I have met. Almond size brain is a joke - clearly. It obviously doesn't refer to the actual size of their brain, but a metaphor for lack of intelligence. The curious thing is why you don't interpret it as a joke. In addition in that comment I said that it isn't lack of intelligence which is most upsetting, but other character traits, which I doubt you'd consider virtuous.
And what's wrong with a hasty generalization in the kind of talk that was going on there? That wasn't serious philosophy, nor was I trying to make a point there... It was just playful conversation, not much thought goes into it precisely because it's not serious. Now if you take the non-serious as serious and therefore draw serious conclusions on it, who is making a mistake? This is exactly one of the problems of this kind of political correctness you advocate. A writer I like, Max Picard, once wrote that Communists aren't even human, despite their professed morality, because they don't even understand a joke - everything is so serious for them.