Originally posted by: JS80
How do you measure/standardize your definition of "morals"?
I don't. I think to do so makes it less close to what I want it to be. I use many means for determining my opinion on an issue, and I don't use 'measurements' to do so.
Perhaps that's why I tend to explain my positions in the larger context rather than say 'because this ideology says it's the policy'.
Ultimately, I think morals are the foundation of our political positions, or should be - but I also think that some have better judgement than others. Some abuse the word 'moral'.
People who oppose the equal rights of gays to marry will use the word 'moral' for their position, as I do for mine that's the opposite.
The right answer on the political role of morals is to recognize their key role, not to try to say morals should be excluded because you don't like the morals even a majority hold.
Then the battle is where it should be, convincing the people who you disagree with on the issues, not preventing them from voting their conscience.
It's a hard road early on, imagine the loneliness of abolitionists when the constitution was created, or in the south a century later. Yet also look at how the protection of civil rights today rests more solidly on the conscience of the nation (following the leadership of JFK, King, and LBJ in particular) than it would on some other basis not requiring moral views.
And morals are what lead me to my views on the concentration of wealth that cripples the well-being of the majority of our nation, my views on the abuse of violence for gains, etc.
And morals are what lead me to the basic desire of my politics wanting freedom - political, and economic meaning the prosperity that is practical - for as many as possible.
In my thousands of posts you will consistently see them towards that goal, and away from the propaganda of those who unwittingly are fighting against such freedom.
I think such freedom is moral for the human race, while societal structure tends to allow a few to concentrate wealth and power and in effect dehumanize many others.
It's a spectrum, not a boolean issue, and gains and losses occur one small issue at a time.
When things are working as they should, we have unequal wealth in society, because unequal wealth *in the appropriate, moderate amount* increases the prosperity of society.
It's when the inequality serves not the society's need for productivity, but rather the needs of the few by exploiting their power as it has in most societies, that there's a problem.
Facebook
Twitter