"Social Conservatism is not completely bad. The support for a moral society, law and order, and a strong family unit are great goals to have. As long as these principles are secular."
I was with you right up to that nonsensical final sentence.
This implies social liberalism is opposed to such ideas. They just try to achieve those ideas in a different way
If you abstract it out that much, sure. That's basically just a recognition that humans generally deal better with stability than rapid change.
I disagree on the point of morality. I would be on board with this statement if it wasn't for that, seeing way too many want to legislate their version on morality over the rest of us.
In purpose though, do you not believe a nation should have a set of moral principles (ie don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't cheat, don't kill, don't commit corruptive business actions).
Not for crimes of consent. I believe adults should have the freedom to engage in activities at their own discretion. Permitting their activities have no victims. Morality is subjective and does vary form person to person and should not be legislated.
To we shouldn't punish stealing, corporate fraud, polluting, discrimination in the workplace, murder, etc?
"Permitting their activities have no victims."
If they committed a crime that has a victim, yes, they should be punished. If say, someone is smoking a joint in their own home, hosting a poker game, or making money through sex then no, they should not face any punishment.
So you do believe in legislating morality. Morality is just deciding what is right and wrong. And murder, corruption, fraud, etc are obviously seen as wrong by the public.
LOL, no. Those are only wrong because there is an actual victim. We should only have laws to protect people from each other, not ourselves. Because legislation of morality in the law can become just as tyrannical and predatory as violent offenders.
2/2 tonight krayze
Which is based on morality. The fact is, you believe that if there is a victim involved that makes it wrong. Your individual belief is that when someone murders someone or commits a crime when there is a victim then it's wrong and they should be
Punished. If there was no morality, as in we don't make rules based on what's right and wrong, then regardless of whether there is a victim is irrelevant. Because the action was not wrong.
Seeing that we can't come to terms of what is morality, then that enforces what I'm trying to say how morality is subjective. Knowing this, the rule of law should only be used to protect from each other and not punishing people based on feels.
For example, in many parts of the world, it is a criminal offense to be gay. This can lead to imprisonment, lashings, or even execution. This is entirely based on one groups morality. I know that's not here, but as used to show subjectiveness.
Here, we imprison our own citizens at terrifying rates. The majority of which had not one victim for their crimes other than potentially themselves. Is this practice of law the morality you speak of?
and this is where you run into so many probs, the word "morality" is used in so many, and often contradictory, ways that it becomes useless. there needs to be terminology that delineates between what each indiv, each group (religious or not) &
society as a whole deems right/wrong. then applying the correct term at the correct time will not undermine the other instances the idea is used.
Morality as defined: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
-"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
You believe morals are subjective, everyone has their own set of morality. That's fine. But in the end, your set of morals is what tells you that a crime with a victim is wrong. So by wanting to legislate to prevent this or punish those who violate
Your morals you are legislating morality. Morality be definition is your set of values that determine what is right or wrong. You have formulated that a crime with a victim is wrong.
LOL. WV, sorry bud but we have to agree to disagree on this. It happens.
WV, & that's why we need to differentiate between those "morals" we agree to *as a society* (aka the laws) & those that are specific to either individuals or individual groups. to legis according to either of the latter is against our core beliefs.
I gave you the definition of morality. Regardless of whether it's subjective or absolute, we all want to legislate morality. We view murder as wrong, so we want to outlaw it, we view theft as wrong so we outlaw it, etc. And regardless we each
Our set of morals to be legislated. For example, drugs, one person may believe drugs are immoral and therefore want to ban them, while others either believe it is immoral to restrict ones personal choice so they support legalizing the use of drugs.
Either way we support legislating morality. Laws are just physical decrees that society puts in place to prevent and punish wrong actions. Without morality, there is no basis for laws.
but you've just illustrated the problem both krayze and I are talking about. regardless of what an indiv or a group thinks/wants in terms of morality, it is what we add a society agrees to follow that should be legislated. if there is disagreement,
then imo we should err on the side of more freedom, not less bec *some* take issue.
and to be clear, krayze was very clear about where his issue lies - when the morals of the few are imposed on society, not what we all agree to.
Yes, societal morals. What we as a society deem is right and wrong as a whole. That's the basis of basic laws. But it's morality, maybe not of the individual but of society. Even freedom is a element formulated by society as moral. Restricting
Generally is seen as immoral by a society. So the preservation of freedom is another societal moral.
Wait why are independents saying no lol.
bec the underlying assumption is that social liberalism doesn't support a moral society (as in doing no harm and trying to do the right thing not in nec a religious way), law and order and strong families - which is completely false.
But that is the sole premise of social conservatism. Literally the building blocks. Strong Family Units, Moral Society, and law and order. Some are based on religion while others are based on secular reasons.
Social liberalism is the belief in equality, civil justice, and social liberties of the individual and that the government has a legitimate role in improving society through healthcare, education, and anti poverty measures. While Social Conservatism
Is based on the premises of tradition, morality, law and order, and the family unit. What I'm saying is that their is nothing wrong with these principles as long as they are secular in nature.
and that's fine and dandy and I agree. however the wording of the poll implies that social liberalism doesn't support those ideals bec those ideals may not be at the foundation of its core mission statement - which is false. the wording is the prob,
not the sentiment.
I was going to try and show how much social conservatives and social liberals agree and why broad labels are bad when in actuality it's just a few issues and different perspectives that separate us.
I agree, we are far more alike than not. sometimes it seems like people look for differences purposely. :-/