A significant reason that I find traditional partisan political discourse increasingly frustrating is each side’s unwillingness to comprehend that their opponent’s perspective is almost surely an honest one, rooted in firm moral beliefs. Lakoffian disciples believe that this is a problem of language, that they’re talking past each other. But it’s more than that. It’s two people with different moral norms, different imperatives, who don’t know that they have different norms. Many people who are pro-choice are also opposed to the death penalty, while many people who are pro-life are very much in favor of the death penalty. This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s just a function of different moral imperatives for each side. Philosophy professor Jesse Prinz writes a bit about this conundrum for Psychology Today. I don’t know that Prinz’s writings suggest anything that will improve the state of things, but hopefully we’re in the early stages of a long national discussion.
Comments are closed.
How would we deal with honest racism then?
Racism, to me, is a breakdown of moral beliefs, spurred on by generational issues and lack of education.
I guess what I am trying to say is, if I believe someone is true in their racism, sincerely racist, then I can believe that, but it doesn’t make it any easier to deal with that person. It takes a lot of inner strength to confront issues head on.
Hell, I don’t know what I am saying really. I tend to take people, whoever they are, whatever political party, at their word, until and whether they prove to me that they are not what they say they are. It’s just good life practice.
Does any of this make any sense?
Eh. Do we really overlook the fact that we have different moral norms? I don’t think we do. Prinz sets up the lazy conservatives are “stupid or evil” crutch well enough, but then completely whiffs it with the example of gay sex, and how liberals somehow fail to account for the value of purity. Of course liberals account for that value. And you know what? It falls under the heading of “stupid.”
Sure there are different moral beliefs. But honestly holding it doesn’t make it any less evil or stupid, in some cases. Jesse Helms was about as honest a racist as you could find – it didn’t make his beliefs any less stupid.
I know I’m taking the easy issues here, but Prinz took the easy route.
And if that long national discussion occurs, would it be a great experiment? :)
Ah, there’s the rub. Liberals chastened by the charge that they have no moral underpinning, and by an absolute lack of any standards of acceptable behavior, turn to their reliable old friend — “you’re stupid.”
Well done, MB. Enjoy your slouch toward Gomorrah. (Oh, wait… I quoted something by a conservative AND the Bible in the same sentence — that must be doubly stupid. Sorry ’bout that.)
I hear Gomorrah is nice this time of year…..
I need a vacation.
Watch that rubbing, Publius. I understood that’s what how the trouble in Gommorah got started in the first place.
But you do at least help by illustrating one of the things that *does* make it tougher to talk to each other. It’s the double stupidity of pretending that you’re deserving of any real response to something as absurd as “he charge that they have no moral underpinning, and by an absolute lack of any standards of acceptable behavior.”
I mean, you can *pretend* that you said something intelligent and grounded in reality, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to pretend along with you (no matter the yelping about civility that inevitably comes when we fail to do so).
Notice how Prinz ignores religion? As in the religious indoctrination that would have some fellow openly profess, “you can not be a Democrat and a Christian”. That is a true and direct quote from my world. Where do stupid people find the self-assurance to loose such nonsense? The answer is that we have allowed the mixing of religious irrationalities in the necessarily rational realm of governing a diverse people. Poor political hygiene.
It is well past time that we put a baggage limit on religious “beliefs” in public policy. Mr.Jefferson embraced the effort in his redactions of miracles and supernatural tales from his Bible. We should observe that tradition and insist that people keep their “moral beliefs” to themselves, and outside of the larger political debate. We can’t have a political discussion that begins with, “As a Christian, I…”.
Censorship and/or prior restraint as a means to ensure political civility and open discourse? Interesting. And here I thought you had at least some amount of a classical liberal education. Clearly not.
FYI, most Americans wholeheartedly support free expression of one’s ideas and beliefs, and we counter what we deem to be “bad” speech not with censorship but with more speech.
Since you invoked the name of Jefferson, are you lobbying for a muzzle award?
Keep this up and you just might win one. Good luck!
That’s right, Bubby. Don’t you dare suggest that it’s unhelpful to approach society in a way that doesn’t involve telling everyone who doesn’t believe what you do that they’re going to be tortured for eternity.
“Most” Americans are ignorant to the Establishment Clause,so I wouldn’t be surprised that many might also be a little sloppy when applying their religious beliefs. You don’t have the luxury of that excuse.
I really don’t care what you believe, and I thought you were smarter about this. But then again, belief is baggage and that stuff has a way of owning you. You are no more capable of “free expression” about your belief in legalized discrimination of homosexuals, than you are of any of the other things you believe were commanded by your Lord. After all, it really isn’t “free expression”, it is the Will of YOUR God, or so you say. My God says otherwise, but neither is talking.
Our God did all the talking He needed to do. It’s called the Bible. Try picking it up sometime.
Anyway, that’s a nice attempt at defending your penchant for squelching free expression. At the very least, I give you credit for being open about your fascist tendencies.
Publius, would you define my deciding to not call you a douchebag in these posts a “penchant for squelching free expression”? I imagine not. No, I refrain from calling you a douchebag not because I don’t believe you are (because truly, I do), but because I don’t really think it helps the ongoing conversation. You seem to confuse (among so *many* things) restraint and restriction.
I.Publius: Out of curiosity, do you consider various Ecumenical councils an appropriate editor of God? Or do you take the whole of the Apocrypha to be your “word of God”. Or only things that are Biblically written down as “and then God said…” And was that from a primary or secondary source? And in what language would the proper interpretation occur? Can it be said without a doubt that the English translation of the Bible is infallible? If so, which version? And then factor in historical interpretation and the oral tradition of Semitic peoples to the list. Save the invention of a time machine, what is absolutely true?
I’ve yet to meet a human editor who does not leave some of themselves in anything they edit and readers take what they may from any text. Therefore this becomes a matter purely based on personal belief and faith. Those personal beliefs and faith need not be compromised to participate in a political discourse that does not resort to flinging dung at each other.
For a Nation conceived as one in which religious tolerance and freedom would be held in high regard, there seems to be an arc of thought occurring that encourages the stifling of thought and expression. Groups carve out great ravines between staunch points and let those who would exist in the middle fall into the dark below.
There is no freedom or tolerance in that setup.
In regard to the initial article and discussion, this relates to the ABC News Story about the potential for us being hard wired from birth to lean towards one side or the other. There’s not a right or wrong, just a different biological mental approach to certain subjects.
Whatever happened to Voltaire’s famous axiom, “I don’t agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” or of the ability for people to honestly debate? I may not agree with your beliefs, but the manner in which you participate seems inflamatory at best. It would seem that the veil of digital anonymity brings out the poorer qualities of us all.
Waldo,
I am sure you have kept watch on the new class of Sorensen people. I just wanted to let you know that one of Jefferson Forest’s YD kids, Caitlin Saloka, has been accepted to the Youth Leadership program. One of the first things she said is that you had been a speaker to the group in previous years and she was excited and hoped to hear you speak this summer
Agreed. Case in point: Bubby’s remarks @ 04/06/2008 1:02 pm.
My only comments on this blog entry — which is about political discussion, not biblical history (make your requests on your blog, and I’ll check it out and we’ll have a nice chat) — were directed at Bubby’s desire to stifle free expression, simply because he disapproves of what some people say in public.
Of course, that’s not true at all, as anyone with the capacity to scroll the page can see.
And I’d say that willingness to engage in outright falsehoods for even the smallest of purposes is a bigger obstacle to ongoing conversation than the things cited in the linked article.
So saith the one who chooses to call an adversary a “douchebag” when all else fails. ::rolls eyes::
So, to review, we have a demonstrated lie, and instead of any real response, the liar makes some sad attempt at equivalence over the impropriety of calling him a douchebag.
And this coming from someone pretending to have some concern over moral grounding. Like fish in a barrel.