Does your morality and ethics define your political beliefs?

csbrown28 said:

Happiness (or suffering) is not subject to any single persons interpretation of it, a persons perception of happiness has no bearing whatsoever on morality.

Click to expand...

That's the cardinal disagreement between liberals ("libertarians", in modern American English) and virtually everyone else. Happiness and suffering are products of our highly individual personal minds. Y having sex with X is the very definition of his happiness. The only problem: X doesn't want to have sex with Y. In her view, it would be a RAPE - "suffering", and then some.

Cyrylek said:

That's the cardinal disagreement between liberals ("libertarians", in modern American English) and virtually everyone else. Happiness and suffering are products of our highly individual personal minds.

Click to expand...

All that is meant by "our highly individual personal minds" is that we have subjective experiences. Does that make any difference whatsoever when determining the morality of a particular action?

You used rape as an example, X wants to have sex with Y, Y does not want to have sex with X. Is there no way out of this dilemma? The answer is simple, negative experiences outweigh positives. As an example, if you are married, imagine treating your wife like a queen, giving her everything that is within your power for 29 out of 30 days of each month, but on the 30th day you are cruel to her. You beat her, call her names, subject her to humiliation. Do you think most reasonable women would trade 353 days a year of being treated like queen, for 12 like I just described?

Pain and suffering outweigh potential positives. So when faced with the happiness the rapist would experience, and the suffering endured by the victim, one only has to do a little bit of moral calculus to figure this out.

Yes and no.

My personal ethics and societal ethics come from different considerations.

What is right for me or for individuals may not be right for society in general.

Take economics for instance, there is a reason why micro and macro economics are different disciplines.

csbrown28 said:

All that is meant by "our highly individual personal minds" is that we have subjective experiences. Does that make any difference whatsoever when determining the morality of a particular action?

Click to expand...

It makes all the difference. Our "subjective experiences" in their sum total is all reality that human race had ever experienced.

And yes, of course "negative experiences outweigh potential positives" - but they are still individualized, personal "negatives" or "positives" - right?

tacomancer said:

My personal ethics and societal ethics come from different considerations.
What is right for me or for individuals may not be right for society in general.

Click to expand...

That's the crux of it. That's the notion we liberals ("libertarians") absolutely refuse to accept, for better or worse.

tacomancer said:

Take economics for instance, there is a reason why micro and macro economics are different disciplines.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is. To say it very crudely, the former is an attempt to describe economic interactions of actual human beings ; the latter - a politicized pile of mumbo-jumbo called upon to justify whatever the powers-to-be want to do at the moment.

RGacky3 said:

BTW, its IMPOSSIBLE to not have your political beliefs defined by your ethics, since your ethics are the ground for what political goals or end's one has.

Click to expand...

Not true, for example, my personal "ethics" are anti-abortion, but my politics are pro-Choice. My personal ethics are actually pretty racist/bigot, but my politics are inclusive. What I prefer in my personal life, is for me, I do not politically advocate for others to be the same as me. Even the areas I would consider myself to be proud of, clearly not the latter mentioned above, I would still not expect others to be same or have the same values/ethics.

Cyrylek said:

That's the crux of it. That's the notion we liberals ("libertarians") absolutely refuse to accept, for better or worse.



Yes, there is. To say it very crudely, the former is an attempt to describe economic interactions of actual human beings ; the latter - a politicized pile of mumbo-jumbo called upon to justify whatever the powers-to-be want to do at the moment.

Click to expand...

That is certainly a way of looking at it. But yeah, I would agree that this is a major difference in perspective.

Summerwind said:

My personal ethics are actually pretty racist/bigot, but my politics are inclusive. What I prefer in my personal life, is for me, I do not politically advocate for others to be the same as me. Even the areas I would consider myself to be proud of, clearly not the latter mentioned above, I would still not expect others to be same or have the same values/ethics.

Click to expand...

But I think you are confusing your racist/bigot feelings with your vastly superior personal ethics/ moral system. As I was arguing in the beginning of this thread, these are very different things.

My grandmother, for example, was an anti-Semite. In the sense: she had an intense negative emotional reaction to people of Jewish appearance. She lived through "interesting times" in the 1920s-1930s in the Soviet Russia, and every time "they" came for her sibling, or parent, or husband, the "komissar" in charge was ethnically Jewish.

At the same time, she never, ever endorsed the discrimination of Jews rampant in the post-war USSR. She even had organized - at considerable risk for herself - a "neighborhood fundraising" for a Jewish family that was refused the exit visa for Israel and fired from their jobs.

In her mind, there was no contradiction. This is what I feel. And this is my moral duty. Old school.

Cyrylek said:

But I think you are confusing your racist/bigot feelings with your vastly superior personal ethics/ moral system. As I was arguing in the beginning of this thread, these are very different things. My grandmother, for example, was an anti-Semite. In the sense: she had an intense negative emotional reaction to people of Jewish appearance. She lived through "interesting times" in the 1920s-1930s in the Soviet Russia, and every time "they" came for her sibling, or parent, or husband, the "komissar" in charge was ethnically Jewish. At the same time, she never, ever endorsed the discrimination of Jews rampant in the post-war USSR. She even had organized - at considerable risk for herself - a "neighborhood fundraising" for a Jewish family that was refused the exit visa for Israel and fired from their jobs. In her mind, there was no contradiction. This is what I feel. And this is my moral duty. Old school.

Click to expand...

I disagree. My ethics are personally related and I act on them in my personal life, my moral values are publicly related and are acted upon in my public (ie voting and promoting). Ethically though, I see myself reacting as the bigot/racist often enough to know that I am one, like it or not, to a certain extent. However I am pro-LGBT in voting and advocating, regardless of my personal bigotry.

Summerwind said:

I disagree. My ethics are personally related and I act on them in my personal life, my moral values are publicly related and are acted upon in my public (ie voting and promoting). Ethically though, I see myself reacting as the bigot/racist often enough to know that I am one, like it or not, to a certain extent. However I am pro-LGBT in voting and advocating, regardless of my personal bigotry.

Click to expand...

Interesting. So, you are saying this is not just about emotions. You actually have two different sets of conscious, rational moral attitudes: one for the "private use", and another - for the "higher societal level" - like "voting and promoting"?

I am all for being large and containing multitudes, but wrapping my head around this one is really a challenge.

Cyrylek said:

Interesting. So, you are saying this is not just about emotions. You actually have two different sets of conscious, rational moral attitudes: one for the "private use", and another - for the "higher societal level" - like "voting and promoting"?

I am all for being large and containing multitudes, but wrapping my head around this one is really a challenge.

Click to expand...

I guess I figure
1. I don't want to be in the way of progress just because I'm of a different time and place.
2. I want the next generations to succeed with more peace than ours, so I have to recognize the way there even if I recognize I'll not likely make the trip.
3. I don't have to be perfect, to vote for the best options for the country, the state, and community, my family, and friends.

Summerwind said:

I guess I figure
1. I don't want to be in the way of progress just because I'm of a different time and place..

Click to expand...

Why do you think you are in the way of progress, not in the way of barbarism?

Both the Nazis and the Soviet Communists presented themselves as certified agents of Progress - some inevitable, scientifically proven, futuristic drive nobody should ever question. In reality, they were just monstrous murderers on an unprecedented scale, making Genghis Khan look like Mother Teresa.

I sort of understand what you are saying: I am diseased with the prejudices of our collective past, but I want my grandchildren to enter their lives uncontaminated. Noble. But it doesn't work like that. Our grandchildren are just as likely to invent their own hatreds as our grandfathers. Perhaps next time around it will not be about the level of pigmentation in your skin or your nominal income, but about whether you subscribe to one internet social network or another - who knows?

The only way to make things better is to affirm in the strongest possible terms what the greatest minds of humanity - from the Ancient China to the Ancient Greece and all around, from times immemorial were screaming into our ears: "Do not do onto others that which is hateful to you. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentaries" (Rabbi Hillel, Babylon, some 40 years before Jesus)

AGENT J said:

1.) ??? i think you mean defines and no im not mocking you god knows im a horrible typer myself. But i dont think that alwasy is an ethical question in a country like the USA.

constitution, bill of rights etc etc

these cant be ignored to be a good politician IMO.

if somebody has a religion of blue birds and blur birds say all red heads, black people, women and left handed people are not second class citzens is not being a good politician.

Now i understand what you are saying, lots of blue birds might think its great but it would just instantly prove they dont understand the country.

2.) i agree they will crossover but its always secondary, not primary. SO of course one can talk politics and not ethics, the limit of eitheic in many cases will be upholding the rules of government or not. Person ethics can be left out a lot. Like i said my PERSONAL ones many times are meaningless.

Click to expand...

The constitution is based on ethical foundations, as is the bill of rights ... the bill of rights IS an ethical statement.

All man is created equal, life liberty and persuit of happiness, all of those things are ethical concepts.

Summerwind said:

Not true, for example, my personal "ethics" are anti-abortion, but my politics are pro-Choice. My personal ethics are actually pretty racist/bigot, but my politics are inclusive. What I prefer in my personal life, is for me, I do not politically advocate for others to be the same as me. Even the areas I would consider myself to be proud of, clearly not the latter mentioned above, I would still not expect others to be same or have the same values/ethics.

Click to expand...

That divide is itself an ethical one, i.e. my personal preferences should be different from my political stance.

The REASON you are inclusive or pro-choice, is most likely based on some political philosophy, which is ethical, i.e. one thing is preferable to another.

Cyrylek said:

Interesting. So, you are saying this is not just about emotions. You actually have two different sets of conscious, rational moral attitudes: one for the "private use", and another - for the "higher societal level" - like "voting and promoting"?

I am all for being large and containing multitudes, but wrapping my head around this one is really a challenge.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why this should be a challenge though. Sorry for butting in, but this is an interesting conversational point.

What reaction(s) do you feel both emotionally and rationally when considering summerwind's comments? If you don't mind me prying of course (I am on this website precisely to understand how others think, not to get feel goods for arguing some perspective).

For most liberals having this separation and being able to look at themselves almost like one would consider a precious gem or a flower and stepping outside themselves is a pretty easy thing to do. At least this has been my observation. As for proponents of other political methodologies, I don't see happening much. I tend to see more a set of "these are my views and they should be applied universally" (which I want to get a better understanding of)

Bubuloo said:

Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I believe in the philosophy of Objectivism as espoused by Ayn Rand, and it influences my political leanings towards those of Libertarianism.

Cyrylek said:

It makes all the difference. Our "subjective experiences" in their sum total is all reality that human race had ever experienced.

And yes, of course "negative experiences outweigh potential positives" - but they are still individualized, personal "negatives" or "positives" - right?

Click to expand...

Just so I'm clear, are you arguing for moral relativism? If not, what is your stance?

Does your morality and ethics define your political beliefs?

Click to expand...

See signature.

tacomancer said:

I don't understand why this should be a challenge though. Sorry for butting in, but this is an interesting conversational point.

What reaction(s) do you feel both emotionally and rationally when considering summerwind's comments? If you don't mind me prying of course (I am on this website precisely to understand how others think, not to get feel goods for arguing some perspective).)

Click to expand...

I think you are supposed to butt in, any time you are interested in something.

If I understood Summerwind correctly (and subsequent posts confirm that I did, more or less), she is in possession of two separate sets of ethic codes. One - for daily use - contains bigoted notions, and she realizes it, without pleasure, but keeps the code anyway. Another is for politics, where she acts on the hope that other people - future generations perhaps - will be liberated from bigotry. This is not about failure to live up to your ideals, or hypocrisy, it is about actually having two very different well developed moral systems at once. I find it fascinating.

tacomancer said:

For most liberals having this separation and being able to look at themselves almost like one would consider a precious gem or a flower and stepping outside themselves is a pretty easy thing to do. At least this has been my observation. As for proponents of other political methodologies, I don't see happening much. I tend to see more a set of "these are my views and they should be applied universally" (which I want to get a better understanding of)

Click to expand...

If by "liberals" you mean the "liberals" in the American sense - our variety of social democrats - my observation is roughly the opposite, when it comes to the practical ability for reflection and cold logical analysis of your own beliefs: it almost never happens. But maybe I was just unlucky with my "liberals".

But it certainly is true that both social democrats and "conservatives" often behave as if they have one moral code for themselves in their daily life and another for "higher structures" of society. "I have no time for helping the poor, but the government should force others to do so", or "Murder of innocent people is the most horrible crime, but collateral damage in a war we started in place we don't understand - that's OK", and so forth. But I always assumed these are reluctant compromises, signs of hypocrisy, or else a result of confusion in their ethical code. It just never occurred to me that they may actually have two! - or more?

csbrown28 said:

Just so I'm clear, are you arguing for moral relativism? If not, what is your stance?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. I am arguing for freedom of choice as an invariant value. Sure, morality can be overruled by empathy sometimes (steal bread to feed hungry children), but we still need the rules, and I am opposed to making them situational or based on current consensus.

(The traditionalist religious morality, I should note, is inherently relativist, because it is based on authority of a hypothetical being whose wishes are always open to interpretation).

RGacky3 said:

The constitution is based on ethical foundations, as is the bill of rights ... the bill of rights IS an ethical statement.

All man is created equal, life liberty and persuit of happiness, all of those things are ethical concepts.

Click to expand...

you are free to that opinion but the very simple answer is, it still isnt my PERSONAL ethical statement.

thank you for proving my point. As a politician that will guide me more than anything. Not my personal ethics.

So again my personal ethics will take a back seat or may never play a role at all.

Cyrylek said:

Absolutely not. Quite the opposite. I am arguing for freedom of choice as an invariant value. Sure, morality can be overruled by empathy sometimes (steal bread to feed hungry children), but we still need the rules, and I am opposed to making them situational or based on current consensus.

(The traditionalist religious morality, I should note, is inherently relativist, because it is based on authority of a hypothetical being whose wishes are always open to interpretation).

Click to expand...

So then you are arguing for a form of moral realism (in which case we may be in the same chapter or at least in the same book)?

I too believe in a form of objective morality. Though it's interesting, you said that your morality can be "overruled", where as I'd say that no such violation of rules is necessary, just that one only need to observe the context in which a moral decision need be made. Simply consider the goal/s of morality and do the "moral calculus" and the answer should present itself. Since we agree that our experiences are subjective, it is possible to come to the wrong conclusion, either because a person lacked the necessary information to make the best decision, or was incapable, for whatever reason, to make the best decision. But decisions can be evaluated objectively with respect the the goals of morality and the circumstances under which decisions are made and in this sense morality is objective. It's just that one should not look at the same decision from different frames of reference in order to determine the morality of a decision.

IMO, it is the intellectual laziness or incapacity (unwillingness) to make reasoned decisions that makes religious morals so appealing. It requires little thought which is why, so often, that religion fails to make good moral decisions because circumstances change, but religion has no system for evaluating new information (expounding on what you said with regards to religion).

There is only one thing I'm having trouble with.....

You claim "freedom is an invariant value (I assume you're using the word invariant in the mathematical sense to mean something like non-changing). I see freedom as one of the cornerstones on which happiness and well-being are based.

I wrote more but deleted it, I should stop here and just say that you've explained that you don't mean freedom in an anarchistic sense, so you believe in boundaries. Your freedom to swing you arm ends where my nose begins. You obviously believe in freedom, but not without social restraint. Please help me understand the logic, the intellectual process that determines where the boundary between your freem ending and your neighbor's freedom beginning. The example with your arm and my nose is a remedial one. But I can think of many examples where the lines are a lot blurrier.

Not all moral questions have simple answer, which is why I advocate a sort of moral poperanism. Sort of the scientific method applied to morals. One only need to evaluate a decision and it's outcomes with respect to the ideas on which morality is grounded. We know that something that was "good" 1000 years ago, may not be "good" today. We know this because there are certain facts about the world thus there is evidence that the results of certain actions can change with respect to the circumstances.

I'm just not sure how "freedom" helps us determine the the right or wrong of an action at a foundational level.

csbrown28 said:

So then you are arguing for a form of moral realism (in which case we may be in the same chapter or at least in the same book)? .

Click to expand...

I guess I should say Yes. The freedom of choice in humans is a psychological/meta-biological fact, and treating it as the origin of the moral system allows to build a non-contradictory and non-subjective structure.

csbrown28 said:

I too believe in a form of objective morality. Though it's interesting, you said that your morality can be "overruled", where as I'd say that no such violation of rules is necessary, just that one only need to observe the context in which a moral decision need be made.

Click to expand...

I used to think so, and still think so - for the vast majority of cases. But life is just too complex to fit in any set of rules all the time. Sometimes we just have to "follow the heart" and break the rules - with full understanding that what we are doing is morally wrong, and with readiness to accept punishment.

csbrown28 said:

IMO, it is the intellectual laziness or incapacity (unwillingness) to make reasoned decisions that makes religious morals so appealing. It requires little thought which is why, so often, that religion fails to make good moral decisions because circumstances change, but religion has no system for evaluating new information (expounding on what you said with regards to religion).

Click to expand...

In short, yes. Of course, living religions do evolve, and grow sophisticated ethical philosophies around themselves. But at the core, this is the major problem.

csbrown28 said:

Please help me understand the logic, the intellectual process that determines where the boundary between your freedom ending and your neighbor's freedom beginning. The example with your arm and my nose is a remedial one.

Click to expand...

Actual disputes about real-life problems can be complex and confusing, but in a distilled form: My freedom ends whenever my choices mean that you should be coerced to act against your choices. (Variation: Whenever I use fraud to maim your ability to make informed choices).

csbrown28 said:

Not all moral questions have simple answer, which is why I advocate a sort of moral poperanism. Sort of the scientific method applied to morals. One only need to evaluate a decision and it's outcomes with respect to the ideas on which morality is grounded. ...[...]

I'm just not sure how "freedom" helps us determine the the right or wrong of an action at a foundational level.

Click to expand...

Well, of course we have to do our best to predict consequences of any decision and check them against our moral values, but, just as you say, in the real world any action may have a multitude of intended and unintended consequences. It is good to be smart and attentive, but the idea that you have to be a genius chess player to be moral in any actionable way is hardly satisfying. Most of us can see only that far ahead, and most of those who think they see very far are delusional or happen to be frauds.

The "freedom" helps in a radical way because you don't have to calculate probabilities of possible outcomes of your action toward Mr. X - you only have to ask X (or his caretaker, if he is a child or mentally disabled) if he wants to be subjected to your action.

Cyrylek said:

I guess I should say Yes. The freedom of choice in humans is a psychological/meta-biological fact, and treating it as the origin of the moral system allows to build a non-contradictory and non-subjective structure.



I used to think so, and still think so - for the vast majority of cases. But life is just too complex to fit in any set of rules all the time. Sometimes we just have to "follow the heart" and break the rules - with full understanding that what we are doing is morally wrong, and with readiness to accept punishment.



In short, yes. Of course, living religions do evolve, and grow sophisticated ethical philosophies around themselves. But at the core, this is the major problem.



Actual disputes about real-life problems can be complex and confusing, but in a distilled form: My freedom ends whenever my choices mean that you should be coerced to act against your choices. (Variation: Whenever I use fraud to maim your ability to make informed choices).




Well, of course we have to do our best to predict consequences of any decision and check them against our moral values, but, just as you say, in the real world any action may have a multitude of intended and unintended consequences. It is good to be smart and attentive, but the idea that you have to be a genius chess player to be moral in any actionable way is hardly satisfying. Most of us can see only that far ahead, and most of those who think they see very far are delusional or happen to be frauds.

The "freedom" helps in a radical way because you don't have to calculate probabilities of possible outcomes of your action toward Mr. X - you only have to ask X (or his caretaker, if he is a child or mentally disabled) if he wants to be subjected to your action.

Click to expand...

Cyrylek my friend, this has been an excellent and thought provoking exchange. I still feel a little unsatisfied as I'm not sure how you solve complex issues of morality using freedom as a foundation, but given the length of our exchange I'm willing to let it go at this point. Again thank you for sharing your insights.

Bubuloo said:

Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)

Click to expand...

Well the religious right thinks that morality, god and government are intertwined. While Socialists think that their form of government is more moral than anyone elses and that we are all greedy immoral bastards. My opinion though is that morality and governments dont mix. SO if you base political ideology on your moral compass whos to say that your compass is a good one? I just assume that everyone is immoral that is why we need a government. I also recognize that it is highly likely that other people view my moral compass that same as I do yours. In the end all what morals can do to politics is create conflict since everyone believes that their morals are the best.

Hell morals are over rated anyways. :shock: