Imposing my morals

[bobblehead]

I was reading back over a past post and a poster accused another poster of imposing his religious morals on the rest of us.

I'm curious. Taking tax money to help the "less fortunate" isn't considered forcing your morals on others? I mean, if I want to help someone out because I think its the moral thing to do I will, but to FORCE that moral decision on me.....

The left talks about moral relativism a lot, but they have no problem passing legislation imposing THEIR morals on others.

[HowardRoark]

I was reading back over a past post and a poster accused another poster of imposing his religious morals on the rest of us.

I'm curious. Taking tax money to help the "less fortunate" isn't considered forcing your morals on others? I mean, if I want to help someone out because I think its the moral thing to do I will, but to FORCE that moral decision on me.....

The left talks about moral relativism a lot, but they have no problem passing legislation imposing THEIR morals on others.

Without somekind of standard as to what is right or wrong, how can there be ANY so called "morals?"

In the post modern world in which we live, it is rather ironic that the world "moral" is even used; especially by the Enlightened class.

Das Uber man will decide what is moral. Leonardo can tell is it is moral to drive a Prius. Why? Because he has access to the media and movies to make that a morality.

Sorry for bringing this up, but unless you acknowledge a higher being who has decreed what is right and wrong, there can be no right and wrong.

[mraynrand]

Sorry for bring this up, but unless you acknowledge a higher being who has decreed what is right and wrong, there can be no right and wrong.

Yes, at the very least you must have and external source of morals, and they must at least make some absolute claims. As Dostoevsky famously suggested through the character of Ivan in Brothers Karamazov: Without God, everything is permitted. Those around Ivan commonly then espouse the view that "everything is lawful." - the concept they got from Ivan. Denial of a higher power and absolutism is the first most important step in the long progression towards totalitarianism, which travels directly through a normative ethic.

[Scott Campbell]

This is PackerRats fellas. The answers to all life's mysteries can be found right here:



http://www.weirdspace.dk/HannaBarbera/Graphics/Huckleberry%20Hound.jpg

[texaspackerbacker]

Just as it depends on how you define "is", it depends on how you define "morals".

If the definition is limited to personal behavior, then, Bobblehead, you are technically wrong. However, if you define morals more generally as what is "right" versus what is "wrong", then you are right on target.

Is it more "moral" to transfer wealth i.e. steal from the "haves" to the "have nots"--relatively poor people who would suffer to some degree without the programs that libs love so much?

Even I have said, this is America; We can afford to make sure nobody suffers--the safety net that Ronald Reagan spoke of. Just like with all "moral" questions, though, it's a matter of degree--when is the line crossed between the "morality" of fairness and the "morality" of compassion? I'm not giving an answer; I'm just defining the question.