Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?Page 3 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
I like the overview definition that this fellow Haidt presents, but I have not seen that he is correct that "conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally."

At least in politics, and in many public pronouncements, large groups who have at least CLAIMED to represent conservatism, such as the American Republican Party, have clearly demonstrated that they value loyalty to party above and beyond harm/care, and/or that they do not value fairness or reciprocity at all.

I would not say by any means that all Republicans are like that, but there have been plenty of very egregious examples over the last three decades showing this imbalance.

By the way, to the fellow who thinks I am pure anti GOP or pro DEM because I point this out, I again note that I am picking on the GOP here, because Haidt is said to have claimed that conservatives were morally balanced and complete, while liberals were not. Had he claimed that Liberals were the pure ones, I would have pointed out THEIR transgressions proving otherwise.

I would say instead that both liberals and conservatives cherry pick the moral intuitions, and vacillate as to which of them they will discard or plant a flag in on any given day, or about any given subject or incident.

In fact, as an argumentative tactic, morality is most commonly brought up by either side, as a way to AVOID answering to all of the facts of the situation, and to simply push for a decision in their favor in spite of ALL reason.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 52
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 10:20:56 AM
I'll play for one more post. I think bucs, has it about right on morals.

Since most or many of you embrace christianity, or at the worst, probably experienced some religious training or education.(sunday school for the christian set)

Most were taught, or at least it was mentioned the "golden rule". Do unto others, what you would have them do unto you.

While that simplistic platitude would seem easy to follow. It allows for a lot of leeway. What is acceptable to you versus someone else? Then of course, we have those who embrace lying, something we see daily on these threads with regard to how dates view and treat each other.

So what would that do to said rule? I can do unto you, until you catch me in a lie?

Nope, morality is found within each individual, by what they will or won't do, based solely on their individual beliefs. Not some words in a book, or list of top ten, or what the minister taught anyone.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 53
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 10:38:31 AM
Igor, if you check out the video presentation at Ted dot com, the graph based upon Haidt's empirical research supports the conclusion that conservatives express a higher level across the five parameters of morality, where as liberals are higher than conservatives on just the two parameters.

Of course morality is relative to values and values can change according to context. I expect that people who bought into Hilter's Nazi fascist extremism could justify their actions ... and if they had conquered Europe, they would have believed it their duty to keep the lesser people enslave to their God-given superiority.

I can't think of an equally extreme liberal state. Perhaps because under radical liberalism, no one takes enough personal responsibility to make anything happen?
 TuffGuy666
Joined: 11/22/2011
Msg: 54
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 11:26:56 AM
The proper gauge for judging which political views are better depends on what values (morals) you start out with. Since values vary significantly from person to person, the politics (which are merely a means of enforcing values) are naturally going to differ from person to person.

You say to-may-to I say to-mah-to. Let's call the whole thing off.
 PittsburghVixen
Joined: 6/27/2009
Msg: 55
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 11:52:49 AM
I used to moderate a Politics forum on another website (the website is a social/dating and not a political site, but as with PoF there are forums for all different topics) and I must commend you all so far for being courteous and not personally attacking each other. I used to have to constantly remind people to "Attack the topic, not the poster" - not that it helped with some folks, who would then earn the dreaded banhammer

So please do maintain your so-far civil discourse, and congrats to you all.

[/hijack]
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 56
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 11:56:20 AM
"the "golden rule". Do unto others, what you would have them do unto you."

The exegesis - or the greater meaning of the Golden Rule, is do for others what you would wish them to do for you. Or in a practical application, if you wish people to be fair and honest with you, then be fair and honest with other people. And the Golden Rule is pretty well standard in any culture and higher philosophies... It is not exclusive to Christian-Judeo ethics.

"While that simplistic platitude would seem easy to follow. It allows for a lot of leeway."

Sure, it allows - even expects that the individual will make conscionable choices.

"What is acceptable to you versus someone else? Then of course, we have those who embrace lying, something we see daily on these threads with regard to how dates view and treat each other."

And what would happen if everyone lied, and cheated, and stole, and envied, and disrespected, and... what sort of culture would we have? Where would the stability of your family be if was normal that your wife could whore around and some guy just come and occupy your home? Without morality, we would descend to the functionality of a pack of baboons or dogs. Like it or not, morality is arguably what distinguishes humanity from other animals and we abandon it at our peril.

"Nope, morality is found within each individual, by what they will or won't do, based solely on their individual beliefs. Not some words in a book, or list of top ten."

And would you not feel the least bit put out if someone stole and wrecked your car, and then some judge said too bad because you weren't guarding it well enough. Would you feel that things were the least bit unfair? You see... that list of rules, that top ten as you called it, help us live within our creation, live amongst ourselves, and life within ourselves.

Generally, people who fail to abide by the rules/morals of a culture are called psychopaths. We tend to lock up the worst of them because they are so dangerous to the general well being of the community.

Stealing isn't wrong because it's in the Bible, it's in the Bible because it is wrong.

Now back to our regularly scheduled forum.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 57
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 12:22:28 PM
Gent, thank you for elaborating on my post. Yes indeed, the worst of crimes are a curse of our society, I think I'm fairly sure we could all agree on murder, certain kinds of theft. Where we disagree, or let's say differ, is this thread is about politics.

"And what would happen if everyone lied."

Well now there is the meat of it. Whether you wish to cite democrat or republican, liberals or conservatives you've got to admit, they have told some whoppers!

Again I'm not going to feed the troll and cite specific ones. But there is a lot of liberties taken with the truth in politics. Worse on these forums, or the internet where truth is a sparse commodity, when telling tales about the parties, because you may sway a few voters in the direction of your choosen candidate.

Yes you can feel free to admonish me, for not citing murder, theft or other immoral acts in my post. But my point was particularly about lying, and in turn it's place in politics.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 1:52:54 PM
The way conservative and liberal are normally used in the U.S., the main disagreement is about the role of the federal government. Conservatives believe it should be strictly limited, and liberals want it to be expansive.

About a hundred years ago, people who wanted more centralized government were usually called progressives. The progressive movement began in the decades after the Civil War, and its leading lights had picked up their ideas while studying in Germany.

Progressives were concerned with things like women's suffrage, prohibition of alcohol, eugenics, prison reform, public education, and limiting the excesses of capitalism. They looked to state legislatures or to Congress for some of these things. But to get others, they couldn't rely even on federal laws, because the Constitution didn't authorize them. In those cases, they had to work long and hard to amend the Constitution so it did.

Fine by me. There were cases of playing fast and loose with the Constitution, but the general tendency was still to respect it as our highest law. Under the stress of the Great Depression, though, the tendency to ignore the Constitution really picked up steam.

When Franklin Roosevelt became President in early 1933, the Depression was already very bad. The country was in a crisis, and most people felt something had to be done--fast. Only the federal government seemed to be up to the task. Roosevelt quickly pressed Congress for laws which gave the federal government unheard-of powers to regulate the national economy, and it passed them. The programs these laws created were called the "New Deal."

The Supreme Court resisted at first. It even shot down the National Recovery Act, the centerpiece of the New Deal which set up a Soviet-like system of setting prices throughout the U.S. economy, as an unconstitutional grant of power to the President. But later in FDR's first term, the Court did an about-face and began to uphold one New Deal scheme after another. (One of these was Social Security, even though several justices who voted for it probably considered it unconstitutional.)

And so the trend to interpret the Constitution more and more broadly to justify more and more federal power has continued, almost unbroken, for 75 years now. Each decision which expanded that power became a precedent for other decisions which expanded it even further. It seemed like however far the Constitution had to be stretched to authorize some federal law or action--practically to the point of rewriting it--five justices could be found to do the stretching. Reading some decisions--Roe v. Wade is one of the worst of many--the "reasoning" doesn't just make you raise an eyebrow; it makes it hard to keep from laughing.

When you do that too much, though, you call the legitimacy of the law into question. Is a thing really authorized by the Constitution, which spells out the terms of what powers the people of the U.S. have agreed to let their government have--or does it just reflect the personal preferences of five lawyers in black robes? Or putting it another way, is a federal law or regulation or action really legitimate and fair, or is it just some arbitrary dictate? Because if it is, it has no place in a free country.

So no, conservatives don't want to restrict federal power because we're mean, or stingy, or are lackeys for the rich, or racists, or whatever else the slur du jour may be. Most of us, at least, want to restrict it for the same reasons the men who founded this country did. For starters, that kind of concentrated power is a threat to individual freedoms, and also to our prosperity.

To ignore the social agreement we live by is move away from a civil society and toward rule by the arbitrary dictates of other people. Tyrannies don't always take the form of Stalin's USSR, but even soft tyrannies are an invasion of the most basic rights of the people. And no one should take that lying down.
 getanet
Joined: 6/10/2011
Msg: 59
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 2:27:49 PM

I used to moderate a Politics forum on another website (the website is a social/dating and not a political site, but as with PoF there are forums for all different topics) and I must commend you all so far for being courteous and not personally attacking each other. I used to have to constantly remind people to "Attack the topic, not the poster" - not that it helped with some folks, who would then earn the dreaded banhammer

So please do maintain your so-far civil discourse, and congrats to you all.

vixen,

I think enough people have FINALLY seen through the smokescreen of our political follies and realize neither party is on "our side." People used to be able to identify more with their two "choices" but have grown weary of the promises, and of course, the broken promises from BOTH "sides." When they're all beholden to the same corporations, why do we expect anything really "different" to come about by pulling that lever at the booth?? I think THAT is why people are not bickering about politics as much anymore. They're finally realizing there isn't much worth bickering about. Time to look forward and find solutions. They won't be found with the bottom feeders in Washington.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 60
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 3:01:00 PM
Just some observations about match post.

I guess the supreme court had a change of heart after it shot down the National Recovery Act, since it allowed Nixon to place price controls on oil. So it seems they go their own way, also demonstrated by social security.

Now as for the Progressives(the liberals of old) I'm sure some find folly in some of the concerns they championed. I doubt women had a problem with the suffrage part of it.

More of concern to me, and this would fall directly in your constitution versus states rights argument, is education. Social engineering has long been one of the issues, that falls between liberals and conservatives, in particular education.

I've noticed as federal subsidies to the states have dwindled in the recession, one of the first things cut are educational budgets. Isn't this no longer a state problem, but a federal one, with our standing in the world, and trying to draw jobs here, as opposed to seeing them go to other countries?

Further in poor states, if this is one of the first things cut, are we supposed to have dumb states and smart states? Wouldn't that then follow, that states with less educated populations might not be able to follow the complexities of international issues of war, fair trade, and manufacturing? This might well effect the outcome of federal elections.

I guess my point is, that the world we live in, is far more different today, than what it was when the constitution was written, and certain things thought to be the sole province of states, may now affect the whole nation.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 61
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 3:16:56 PM
To ignore the social agreement we live by is move away from a civil society and toward rule by the arbitrary dictates of other people. Tyrannies don't always take the form of Stalin's USSR, but even soft tyrannies are an invasion of the most basic rights of the people. And no one should take that lying down.

Matchlight, in your view, do statists pose more of a threat to liberty than theocrats? I ask because you have stated that you believe the Constitution is strong enough to discourage theocracy, but you seem to believe that its ability to oppose statism is in doubt, even though they are very similar threats.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 3:18:26 PM

I guess my point is, that the world we live in, is far more different today, than what it was when the constitution was written, and certain things thought to be the sole province of states, may now affect the whole nation.


The world is only different in scale and technology. People are still people and behave predictably as they have for a very long time.

That is what the foundation of restriction is based on. The acknowledgment that individually people are good, if trusted with liberty and law they will generally try to be good, when power becomes consolidated even good people go bad.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:02:02 PM
So it seems they go their own way, also demonstrated by social security.


Another way to look at it is that the country was in such deep trouble, and FDR had been elected with such a large mandate, that he had enough power to bend the Court to his will. The proposal he floated in early 1936 to pack it with 12 justices, while forcing three who had been resisting him to retire, also got the Court's attention. Three months later, it put its seal of approval on Social Security. The balance of power among the three branches shifts at times. There was a period right after the Civil War where Congress was strong enough to make the Court dance to its tune, and did.


I guess my point is, that the world we live in, is far more different today, than what it was when the constitution was written, and certain things thought to be the sole province of states, may now affect the whole nation.


That's exactly why the men who wrote the Constitution dedicated Article V to the process of amending it. But they purposely designed amendments to be hard to make--not surprising, because it's in the nature of any constitution to be fairly rigid and fixed. So amendments require first a 2/3 majority vote of both Houses of Congress, followed by the approval of 3/4 of the states.

So the 51% simple majority that's enough to change a state or federal law is not nearly enough to change the Constitution. The progressives of the early 1900's were forced to recognize that limitation, because federal courts at that time were not so ready to make the Constitution say whatever the latest grievance group to come along wanted it to.

But especially during the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has become too willing to do that. That's the outrage of abortion law, for example--abuse of power. I don't have any strong moral objection to abortion. I would vote for regulating it very little in my state. But it's not for me to try to impose my views on a majority of voters here, or in any other state. I respect the right of the majority in any state to decide that issue for itself, however ridiculous I may think their views are.

Each state should be able to restrict abortion not at all, restrict it more or less, or outright ban it, as a majority of its residents see fit. There is just no federal constitutional right involved--or at least if there is, the Court never explained the basis for that right. In fact the Court no longer claims abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. It's also abandoned parts of Roe, although it's stopped short of overruling it or admitting it was wrongly decided.



Matchlight, in your view, do statists pose more of a threat to liberty than theocrats?


Yes--it's not even close. The notion that theocracy is or ever has been a threat in this country is nonsense spread around by people who dislike religion. Under the Articles of Confederation, states had had their official religions, and a state's residents had to support its church, usually by forcing them to attend or pay a tax. This had caused a lot of social ferment, just as it had in England.

The problem of what official religion the new U.S. should have, if any, was thorny enough that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 couldn't resolve it. So they set it aside for the time being, but a couple years after the Constitution was adopted, the issue was settled for good. The first clause of the First Amendment, the "Establishment Clause," prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." In modern English, that means the U.S. can't set up a national church.

That makes a national theocracy almost impossible--just as it was meant to do. And state theocracies too. A state actually could have had an official church until 1947, but no longer. In that year, the Court held in Everson that the Establishment Clause applies to state governments. After 220 years of sitting at the pinnacle of the Bill of Rights, the chances the Establishment Clause will be repealed by amendment are roughly the same as the chances Joe Biden will be appointed to the Supreme Court.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 64
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:25:16 PM
But the threat of theocracy is so much more insidious than simply establishing a national religion. I am talking about manifestations beyond that: a president deploying troops into harm's way because God ordained it, a president guiding his foreign policy through one of a variety of interpretations of the Book of Revelation, a general anti-science agenda-- with the science of evolution being first on the chopping block (it is already taught in a weak fashion, IMO), or any number of things guided by blind faith.

All that is required to get away with any of it is a bit of plausible deniability-- claiming reasons other than personal faith. You are talking about theocracy through the front door while the back door is wide open-- much as it is for statism. Or, perhaps I use the term theocracy too loosely and what I really mean is the possible election of a religious zealot to various positions of political power.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:29:53 PM

But especially during the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has become too willing to do that. That's the outrage of abortion law, for example--abuse of power. I don't have any strong moral objection to abortion. I would vote for regulating it very little in my state. But it's not for me to try to impose my views on a majority of voters here, or in any other state. I respect the right of the majority in any state to decide that issue for itself, however ridiculous I may think their views are.


Since this is one of those sticking points for people, I’m wondering about the view of abuse of power here. If one state bans it and another allows it and people cross the border for it doesn't that move it into federal territory?

Alcohol would have the same problem right? It would be portable so going from one state to purchase and bringing it to another is pretty much impossible to stop. Gambling could be seen the same but people will travel to gamble, spend money, then go home. Not really any harm done so it’s just a morality issue and easy to stop. With abortion, that just opens too many bad doors and an awful underground economy that would be unstoppable. I don't see it as outside of federal authority and I've never studied it and don't know much about it. Over ruling a state in this case makes sense to me on many levels. The alternatives still happen with it legal, I can’t imagine the alternatives if it were made illegal everywhere.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:35:05 PM

All that is required to get away with any of it is a bit of plausible deniability-- claiming reasons other than personal faith


And you have to understand that there is no way to stop this. No law could prevent someone from doing something they decided on doing and not telling you the reason why. There could literally have been a burning bush (haha pun) and it no law on earth would stop it. So, what you can't see can't be stopped. It would be like creating a law stating that ghosts are only permitted between the hours of midnight and 3 am.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 67
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:45:56 PM
Aries, you both prove my point and miss my point simultaneously.

Proving it, in that I believe we have to be vigilant against politicians with theocratic leanings because we cannot simply make that illegal (as Matchlight touts), and that it does pose a similar threat like statism.

Missing it, in that I am not proposing that any law be made, just stating the threat as real.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 6:06:09 PM
Flyguy,

Well, when they walk out and replace the flag with the cross and say tell you to divert your eyes to the floor when he speaks... that could be a sign.

Yes, it is on the list of bad things we shouldn't let happen but wouldn’t the same thing be for racist, sociopath, megalomaniac and any number of other disorders that would be bad to follow.

It is ok to have religious belief and a foundation for your spiritual / self. Also, people tend to say stupid things and that doesn't make them off their rocker. Praying for winning a football game and giving credit to god is up there. But that is socially acceptable and it is meant to mean what it means and nothing more. I'm sure if pressed I bet the coach would give credit to training over divine intervention.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 69
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 6:13:30 PM

racist, sociopath, megalomaniac...

When it comes to a theocrat, the above are almost redundant.

It is ok to have religious belief and a foundation for your spiritual / self. Also, people tend to say stupid things and that doesn't make them off their rocker. Praying for winning a football game and giving credit to god is up there. But that is socially acceptable and it is meant to mean what it means and nothing more. I'm sure if pressed I bet the coach would give credit to training over divine intervention.

Agreed. Case in point, Carter was one of our most genuinely religious presidents, but he was also very far from being a theocrat.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 7:10:42 PM
Liberalism is morally superior to conservatism, because liberalism wins. Liberalism always wins eventually.

Equality, the idea that all people are equal in the world. There is no special class which deserves privilege over every one else or anyone else for any reason .
Justice, the idea that all people be treated with fairness, no matter who they are .
Liberty, the idea that all people may pursue their own lives as they see fit.
Reason, that knowledge and human intelligence is superior to ignorance and blind faith.

Equality, justice, individual liberty, reason, these are all liberal ideas.
All of human history is a study of the progress of these liberal notions.
They are morally superior to inequality, ignorance, injustice and repression.

Now who supports equality, justice, liberty and reason.... and who doesn't ?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 7:49:11 PM
I find the concept of moral superiority to be distasteful, whether driven by political philosophy, religion, or whatever else.

And I don't find the Republican party to be conservative in the way I value conservativism nor do I find the Democratic party to be particularly liberal.

I'm registered independent, but more often than not vote for Democrat candidates. My political perspective gets me labeled 'liberal' by many who consider themselves 'conservative', but I prefer to think of myself as primarily driven by ethics that include respecting diversity and working to provide a better future for all inhabitants of the planet, including but not at all limited to human inhabitants.

I think most people adopt their political perspective for one of two reasons, or a combination of the two. Those reasons could most easily be characterized as "what's in it for me?" and "what's right?".

The second reason is where morality is most commonly expressed, but when "what's in it for me" is expanded to include "what's in it for me and my loved ones" it's easy for someone to feel morally justified in defending whatever approach they think will best help them to provide for their family.

Whenever I find myself engaged in political debate, I notice all participants argue from both the personal impact and greater morality perspectives. I don't think liberals nor conservatives have a corner on the morality market. Other's ethics may well differ from mine, but I find it hard to make the leap from there to anyone claiming moral superiority.

I've heard it said that Democrats like to tax and spend, Republicans like to borrow and spend. I don't find either approach conservative. Nor do I find massive military spending and invading countries that haven't attacked us conservative. Or scoffing at the concept of conserving our natural resources, or rejecting science, or mandating to individuals who they can marry or that they have to carry a fetus to term.

But I also don't find making everyone buy health insurance to be liberal, nor gun control, or laws against prostitution, drugs, or gambling. For the record I favor basic health care for all, but not the way we're headed with it. I support some form of gun control and think we can manage the ills of prostitution, drugs, and gambling better through legalizing them than leaving them outside the law.

And my personal ethics include both conservative and liberal values, at least as I define them. I'd like to think that I'm more driven by "what's right" than "what's in it for me", but I do fiercely defend my right to live my life the way I choose, which happens to include not looking for handouts and living within my means. It also includes striving to tread lightly on the planet and honoring other people's right to make choices that might be different from those I might make.

So my simple answer to the OP's question is no, neither liberalism nor conservatism is morally superior, and hopefully the above helps to outline my reasons why.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 8:12:00 PM

Equality, the idea that all people are equal in the world. There is no special class which deserves privilege over everyone else or anyone else for any reason .
Justice, the idea that all people be treated with fairness, no matter who they are .
Liberty, the idea that all people may pursue their own lives as they see fit.
Reason, that knowledge and human intelligence is superior to ignorance and blind faith.

Equality, justice, individual liberty, reason, these are all liberal ideas.
All of human history is a study of the progress of these liberal notions.
They are morally superior to inequality, ignorance, injustice and repression.


Equality leads to democracy which leads to tyranny
Justice is usually in the eye of the beholder
Liberty requires fighting to keep

Superman doesn't live here anymore.

Your using classical liberalism and don't seem to equate the price paid for these things to be as high in value/blood/life as they really are. "Who doesn't?" You mean, "Who doesn't want to die for ideals?" Plenty of people believe these things are lost in America today. Your case for morally superior is very far from absolute especially with equality.
 timetogo3223
Joined: 9/29/2011
Msg: 73
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 8:14:50 PM
WV...


So my simple answer to the OP's question is no, neither liberalism nor conservatism is morally superior, and hopefully the above helps to outline my reasons why.


Thank you for your opinion.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 10:10:33 PM

If one state bans it and another allows it and people cross the border for it doesn't that move it into federal territory?


No, of course not. If a Colorado couple goes to Nevada for a quick divorce, does that make the divorce proceeding a federal matter? Buying booze in another state and bringing it back to your own would only raise a federal issue if there were a federal law against it--which I'm sure there isn't.

If something in the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate abortion by law, I'd like to know what it is. The 14th Amendment says states can't deprive a person of liberty without due process of law. Starting in the 1920's, the Supreme Court began to create an implied right to personal privacy, based on this due process clause.

The idea was that a state law which infringes too far on personal privacy deprives people of a liberty--their right to be left alone by government--without due process. In other words, the Court is deciding that what the law does is unconstitutional because it's basically unfair.

In a series of decisions, the Court included within this right to personal privacy several fundamental rights related to marriage and the family, e.g. the right to rear and educate your children; to keep an extended family together; to marry someone of another race; to reproduce; and to get and use contraceptives.

In these cases, the Court was saying that some rights, even though not explicitly named in the Constitution, are fundamental. That means, in the Court's words, they are "so deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," and so "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if [they] were sacrificed."

With the possible exception of Griswold, the 1965 decision on contraception which set the stage for Roe, the Court supported its holding in each of these cases with a carefully reasoned argument. But in Roe, it said, in effect, "We have said there is an implied constitutional right to personal privacy, and we have held in decisions L, M, N, O, and P that this includes fundamental rights A, B, C, D, and E. And today we say it also includes the right to abortion."

Just like that--a "because we say so" decision, not supported by any legal reasoning. The Court in Roe never bothered to explain how abortion could be a fundamental right, when measured by its own standards.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?
Posted: 11/27/2011 10:27:36 PM

No, of course not. If a Colorado couple goes to Nevada for a quick divorce, does that make the divorce proceeding a federal matter? Buying booze in another state and bringing it back to your own would only raise a federal issue if there were a federal law against it--which I'm sure there isn't.


yeah, I'll just stop here because this is where it leaves common sense and heads into actual law...

Probably my over interpretation of TV where once something crosses a state line it becomes a federal issue. :) I do computers not law.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Liberalism or Conservatism Morally Superior? And Why?