The Corrosion of Conservatism

[MaxVel]

1.) There are plenty of Christians who believe that morals are not subjective and who's concerns about Trump's vile character are hand-waved away by conservatives who...

2.) utilize some of the arguments of moral subjectivity to justify and defend Trump--namely using "the-ends-justify-the-means" ethical reasoning--as if we had to support an immoral fool to get our judges onto the supreme court.

1) I was talking about Carpe specifically, so your points are tangential to mine, at best.

2) I think you're naive and idealistic when it comes to politics. Sure, Christians could decide to only support candidates that fully meet their criteria of moral conduct in every way. And for those that choose that route, fair enough. But for those that want to get some things done, then there is no other way but to support flawed and sinful candidates who, to the best of their knowledge, will enact policies they want to see.


3) Do you insist on at least as high a standard of personal ethics and conduct in your spiritual leaders?

4) There are Christians whose honest assessment of Trump is not 'immoral fool'. They are not hurting their conscience by supporting him.

[carpedm9587]

You consistently post content that assumes your view of the morality of something or someone is one everyone should subscribe to; and that others who have different moral values and priorities to yours are actually wrong to do so. But under your view they're only wrong in your view, and right in their view.

So you seem to be confusing moral absolutism/objectivism with what I would call "universalism." The former says "there is a moral principle out there that all should subscribe to and they are wrong if they don't." I have never said anything like that (though I may be guilty of sloppy language - I'm a child of my culture and a lot of language is absolute when it need not be). The latter says, "the world would be a better place if everyone followed this moral principal." Moral relativism/subjectivism has no problem/conflict with moral universalism. Indeed, it is a natural outcome. I hold my moral position because I find it to be the best moral position there is. This is true by definition. In moral relativism/subjectivism, if I encounter a moral position I find superior to the one I currently hold, I will immediately adopt it. Ergo, the one I current hold I always view as "the best moral position." Obviously, I would see the world as "a better place" if everyone agreed with my moral position. That doesn't mean I think my moral position is an external, objective position everyone has to align to. It means I would like to see my moral position universalized because then we would all be operating according to a moral position I view as best.

Because someone else has a different moral position that they see as "best for them" does not require me to agree or even respect it. If it does not align with mine, I will perceive it as a possible threat - and as inferior.

So you use language that the majority of people assume refers to objective morality (eg calling Trump evil) without any qualifiers added to show that you reject objective morality. That's at worst deliberately deceptive (although I don't think you do set out to deceive) and at best imprecise and careless.

There is another dynamic at work here too, Max. It is the interpersonal moral framework. Most of the moral positions I hold I hold in common with most of the humans on the planet. That is no big surprise. Since moral frameworks arise (ideally) from the basis of what we value, and how we reason from what we value to how we should therefore act, and since the basic laws of reasoning are universal and we all possess brains capable of reasoning, if we share common values, and we reason without error, we will arrive at common moral conclusions. The vast majority of moral principles are commonly held - a form of social contract. So often we refer to that social contract when making moral statements. That does not make the social contract "absolute." It simply means it is "widely agreed upon."

Irrelevant. Since you don't hold that your moral values are binding on others that don't share them you're inconsistent in expecting others to care what they are.

No - for the reasons cited above, I will always be incented to find ways to have the people around me agree with and align to my moral framework. The more of us that align to the same view, the more protected that view becomes. There is no conflict here.

And the farther away they are from your particular moral and social community, the less relevant your moral views are to them.

That is entirely possible. Sometimes, discussion and argument make no difference and there is no way to reconcile differing moral views. Those disconnects are then resolved by means other than reasoning. It has always been thus.

So other posters who live in America but in a different state and in different professions, social circles and so on have at best some interest in your moral values, since you might possibly affect them in some small way. Posters who live in entirely different continents than you (like me) even less so, and so on. Under your moral worldview your moral opinions are about as relevant and important to me as what LaMarcus Aldridge's favourite after-game meal is.

Possibly. It depends on how interested you are in investigating moral ideas. Some are - some aren't. If you live so far from me, it is entirely possible that we'll have an interesting debate/chat, and then never think about it again. After all - one of the primary ways of handling disconnects is isolation/separation, and the distance introduces that naturally.

Why should (say) President Trump care about your moral opinions of him?

I very much doubt he does. And there is no "should" involved here, at least not that I have introduced. I hope I will get the attention of someone that disagrees with my moral view, and can influence them to "see things my way." If they don't, then other approaches come to play. In the case of Trump - I'll simply do everything I can to get him out of office and out of power, so his "moral view" has minimal impact on my life.

You're not some expert on morality;

Actually - I am. In a subjective/relative moral framework - I am the foremost authority on my own moral framework. And since I explore these concepts a lot, and share a significant part of my moral framework with those around me, I can speak in a fairly informed way on the moral framework of a significant part of my society/culture/country.

you're not particularly influential, you don't have power or wealth or any way to significantly affect his life, or the success or failure of any particular project he might have in mind. You aren't (in your moral worldview) calling him to hold to some moral standard that applies to him even if he rejects it.

These are all true. My likelihood of having any impact on the moral framework of a man I cannot talk to directly, who is in his 70s and probably set in his ways (which are probably the same kind of absolutist thinking many people resort to), and who runs in a completely different social/business circle is minimal. Out of curiosity - do you think your absolute/objective framework gives you any more of a chance of influencing Trump?

This is a problem particular to your moral worldview.

I'm not seeing a problem.

People who believe in objective moral truths are entirely consistent with that belief when they make moral judgments and call on others to hold to those values and beliefs. They are acting consistently with their worldview even if they are wrong about a particular case; or a particular moral value. They are acting consistently even if they are wrong about there being objective moral values. You are not.

Yes- they are acting consistently when they do these things. The problem THEY face is an inability to show that these moral absolutes actually exist, and are not just the thinking of "the herd," where "the herd" can be the writings of long dead men, a god that cannot be shown to exist, or the teaching of a particular religion/church (which is just another form of herd). There is no actual moral reasoning going on. All that is going on is trying to uncover "what the herd thinks" so it can be followed. So the only response to a moral question is ultimately, "because god says so," or "because it's in the bible," or "because that is what my faith/church/religion teaches." The problem is, if god does not actually exist (as I believe), then each of those is just a variation on "what the herd thinks."

You are not showing an inconsistency, Max. You are showing a misunderstanding of what relative/subjective morality means (at least as I practice it). That may be partially my fault. I am slowly realizing that relative/subjective is used in many ways by many people, so when I use the terms the person I am talking to goes to their particular definition of the terms, and does not actuall listen to what I am saying. Maybe I need some new words. Maybe I should call it "personal" morality or something.

[guacamole]

1) I was talking about Carpe specifically, so your points are tangential to mine, at best.

Yeah, no. The point being that if a conservative Christian critiques Trump's morality, you hand wave it away.

2) I think you're naive and idealistic when it comes to politics. Sure, Christians could decide to only support candidates that fully meet their criteria of moral conduct in every way. And for those that choose that route, fair enough. But for those that want to get some things done, then there is no other way but to support flawed and sinful candidates who, to the best of their knowledge, will enact policies they want to see.

Then that moral opportunism makes you a moral subjectivist whose objection to critique by another moral subjectivist is nonsensical. The idea of supporting a sinful and flawed person is not the idea in question; rather, it's the idea of supporting one as corrupt as Trump.

3) Do you insist on at least as high a standard of personal ethics and conduct in your spiritual leaders?

Do you?

4) There are Christians whose honest assessment of Trump is not 'immoral fool'. They are not hurting their conscience by supporting him.

" I think you're naive and idealistic when it comes to politics."

[guacamole]

Or do you consider certain sins to be "acceptable"?

Is there a level of sin you consider to be acceptable if your rationale is that we are electing a president and not a priest? After Trump, where do you draw the line?

[guacamole]

I agree. I have concluded that we never should have considered such things to be "disqualifying" in any absolute sense.

So rather than defend the moral stand we took on people like the Clintons and the Kennedys, you'd rather just retreat from the moral objection altogether? And Trump is the politician you'd base this on?

[carpedm9587]

So rather than defend the moral stand we took on people like the Clintons and the Kennedys, you'd rather just retreat from the moral objection altogether? And Trump is the politician you'd base this on?

Wow.... you like Trump almost as much as I do...

[guacamole]

Wow.... you like Trump almost as much as I do...

[carpedm9587]

[Mountain Man]

Is there a level of sin you consider to be acceptable if your rationale is that we are electing a president and not a priest? After Trump, where do you draw the line?

You first. You're the one who has set what I consider to be an impossibly high standard for a politician, and I wonder how you could ever vote for anybody in good conscience. So I ask again do you abstain from voting? Yes or no? And if the answer is no, then the follow up question is obvious: How does that not make you a hypocrite?

[NorrinRadd]

So rather than defend the moral stand we took on people like the Clintons and the Kennedys, you'd rather just retreat from the moral objection altogether? And Trump is the politician you'd base this on?

I have come to a fuller understanding of the fact that this is not, and never has been, a "Christian" nation. My "ideal" candidate will still be one whose words and lifestyle both evince faith in Christ, but that will not be as high a priority as in the past. I will emphasize policies and competence.

[guacamole]

You first. You're the one who has set what I consider to be an impossibly high standard for a politician, and I wonder how you could ever vote for anybody in good conscience.

Yeah, no. You set a standard for me that was impossibly high. Your words, not mine.

I will not put my stamp of approval on a candidate who has proven, repeat, serious moral failures -- like repeated infidelities, like repeated use of wealth, power, and privilege beneath the law to abuse others-- because people like Trump do not suddenly draw tight boundaries around their "personal lives" and say, "Well, now I'm being entrusted with vast responsibilities so I better clean up my act." On the contrary, their corruption permeates every aspect of their lives. Faithless in personal things and faithless in professional things.

So I ask again do you abstain from voting? Yes or no? And if the answer is no, then the follow up question is obvious: How does that not make you a hypocrite?

I do not abstain from voting. I vote for people who can demonstrate at least a modicum of self-control, self-discipline, and fidelity in personal and professional relationships.

[guacamole]

I have come to a fuller understanding of the fact that this is not, and never has been, a "Christian" nation.

I agree with you on this.

My "ideal" candidate will still be one whose words and lifestyle both evince faith in Christ, but that will not be as high a priority as in the past. I will emphasize policies and competence.

So in what sense aren't you a moral subjectivist/relativist then if you are willing to use immoral tools and means to achieve supposedly moral ends? Not trying to be argumentative, but trying to test you and see if there is any reasoning I would agree with.

Thanks,
guac.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, no. You set a standard for me that was impossibly high. Your words, not mine.

I will not put my stamp of approval on a candidate who has proven, repeat, serious moral failures -- like repeated infidelities, like repeated use of wealth, power, and privilege beneath the law to abuse others-- because people like Trump do not suddenly draw tight boundaries around their "personal lives" and say, "Well, now I'm being entrusted with vast responsibilities so I better clean up my act." On the contrary, their corruption permeates every aspect of their lives. Faithless in personal things and faithless in professional things.



I do not abstain from voting. I vote for people who can demonstrate at least a modicum of self-control, self-discipline, and fidelity in personal and professional relationships.

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

[carpedm9587]

So in what sense aren't you a moral subjectivist/relativist then if you are willing to use immoral tools and means to achieve supposedly moral ends?

This sentence seems to imply that "ends justifies the means" is a (necessary?) aspect/component of relative/subjective morality. Is that what you think? If so - I have to admit I don't see the connection, and I consider myself a relative/subjective moralist. Perhaps we are using some of the terms differently...?

[guacamole]

This sentence seems to imply that "ends justifies the means" is a (necessary?) aspect/component of relative/subjective morality. Is that what you think? If so - I have to admit I don't see the connection, and I consider myself a relative/subjective moralist. Perhaps we are using some of the terms differently...?

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

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

fwiw,
guacamole