Debate on Bricker's Moral Assertions [ed. title]

Great Debates
1

So over in this pit thread a mighty hijacking occurred in which our good friend Bricker started debating his general philosohpical/moral/political beliefs, but then hesitated to continue, reasonably, lest he be accused of doding the original point of the thread.

Thus, I have started this thread.

So, I put posted this post asking various tough questions, Bricker responded here, and I will continue to respond now.

But any other leftover debate type issues from that thread should certainly go here as well.

An important note, and one that goes to the very root of the issue: Even if we assume that FDR cynically lied out of his ass, what was he lying to do? What did the lying accomplish? It got the US to send financial aid and munitions to an ally. What did Bush’s (hypothesized) lying do? It got the US to unprovokedly invade and conquer a sovereign nation. When judging the morality of deceiving-people-into-doing-things, I think the sin is greater when the thing you’re fooling people into is (a) more intrinsically evil, and (b) something that people would be more violently and abjectly opposed to, if they knew the truth.

If you know I love puppy dogs above all else, and say “hey, donate $10 to this charity, they help puppy dogs”, when in fact that charity helps kittens, you lied to me to get me to do something. If you then say “hey, that guy killed a puppy dog!” and I attack and kill that man, and it turns out that in fact he did something that you personally objected to, so you personally honestly thought that killing him was moral and justified, but you knew (correctly) that I would not agree with that assessment, then you again lied to get me to do something, but in a much more immoral fashion.

Well, good to know that it’s at least a conversation worth having.

And the more serious the decision being made, the more important it is that one study the circumstances with due dilligence and intellectual openness. The problem here is not that Bush was wrong about something and made an incorrect decision. We’ve all done that. The problem is that he was making an INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT decision, the decision whether to take the nigh-unprecedented action of unprovokedly invading and attacking a sovereign nation, one which happens to sit smack dab in the middle of one of the more volatile and heavily armed parts of the world. I mean, that’s a BIG decision. Not one to be made lightly. So that’s a situation where it’s more important than probably anything else he’ll do over the course of his entire life to really positively certainly have the facts. And he didn’t have them. Not even close. So, to slightly simplify things, either he and his administration are incompetent, or they’re dishonest. And even if they’re neither, even if they just happened to be victims of circumstance where the most honest dilligent hard-working brilliant people imaginable would also have been fooled, well, the other frustrating (although perhaps less immoral) thing about it is that they seem so unwilling to honestly admit what happened. If they made an incredibly tough decision based on their absolute honest best assessment of the information (and I’ve just now realized that I’m conflating two issues they were wrong about, although it applies to both: (1) does Saddam have nukes? (2) how easy will it be for us to invade Iraq?) and were wrong, where are the apologies? The mea culpas? The resignations in shame? Instead, what we see is spin, spin, spin, revision, revision, revision.

(I realize my impartial and logical debate got a bit sidetracked into ranting there…)

So you’re saying that she shouldn’t smoke pot because she might get caught. Or rather, she should face long sentences so that others don’t smoke pot. And they shouldn’t smoke pot because…?

In other words, I’d assume you’d agree that there’s a pretty high standard (speaking morally and ethically here, not legally) to be met before you tell an adult “that product/pastime that you intend to enjoy in your free time is NOT allowed and you shall NOT do it and if you DO do it, we shall lock you up”. So, what’s the justification here? How is the world, our the nation, or my cousin, worse off when she smokes some pot? And how does that view of yours fit into your broader framework of values? Isn’t a keystone view of the Republican party individual responsibility? Aren’t they constantly bitching at the dems (sometimes with justification) about turning the US into a nanny state?

2

With all due respect, the thread title “Debate Bricker’s Morality” seems to hold the promise of some personally antagonistic conclusions – that is, one side of the debate seems to be the conclusion that I am immoral. I’m not sure that’s a good GD subject, and I am uncomfortable with it phrased thusly.

Perhaps you could request that a mod change the title to something less personally targetted at me. In GD, after all, the idea is that the poster’s arguments may be assailed, but not the poster personally. So with that model in mind, maybe “Debate Bricker’s Moral Assertions?” Or something like that?

3

Yes, I agree. Actually, perhaps something like “Debate [whatever term Bricker wishes to use to describe his politcal philosophy]” would be best–undoubtably this won’t be just Bricker v. you but people will weigh in on both sides. And I’m a little hesitant about threads which soley target one person, anyway.

4

Inasmuch as I believe in morals, it’s inherently correct to lie about something given that it will lead to a morally superior outcome. Since morality, as much as it exists, is pretty set in stone, anything that leads to that (less deaths, more happiness and less stress, etc.) is good.

However, ethically I am conflicted. Ethics is more firm in my mind, in addition. After all, everyone has their own version of (hard-set, ironically enough,) morals, whereas pretty much everyone can agree that it’s bad form to lie, to coerce, and to not fully disclose.

But what if an ethical breach can be used to thwart those who themselves commit ethical breaches, inasmuch as many governments lie, coerce, and coverup more than others? I really don’t know if it’s completely ethical to lie in this situation, but it’s ethically better than lying without such a purpose in mind, since the end result will be a more ethical world.

Now, is it more ethical to lie to reduce ethical breaches, or to not lie and not do so? If I had to pick one or the other I’d have to say that it is slightly less ethical to lie but it is more moral.

Should governments regularly do so? Should Roosevelt have done so to get us into WW2?

I’d have to say that on the balance, unfortunately the answer is yes: there were plenty of isolationists that were more than willing buy a little temporary safety at the expense of others’ liberty. The same thing goes for Iraq: if it were handled better, with true shock and awe and an overwhelming troop presense, it would have been worth it to lie to the American people about WMD. As it turned out it was a CF of the most massive proportions: the lie only compounded the gravity of the situation.

So the bottom line is: if you’re gonna lie to get us into war, at least have the expertise to succeed :slight_smile:

5

Agreed, the title seemed very wrong for GD.

Can we debate your view on drugs here?
I would like to know why you believe Pot should remain illegal and what you believe is so wrong with it?
I do not smoke, but I use to, my personnel experience and readings on the subject seem to indicate that there is no good reason to continue to treat Pot smoking and growing as a crime. Throw away the law and let it be a new cash crop for the American Farmer.

Jim

6

Sure. Sorry about that. I was trying to be descriptive, not judgmental.

(I mean, obviously, I am judgmental, but I’m trying to craftily conceal it :slight_smile: )

7

By which I mean, might mods, please change the title to whatever you and/or Bricker prefer.

8

I reported it for you.

9

On the drug issue, there are two basic questions and two subordinate questions:

  1. Is compelling people to refrain from using such-and-such a drug within the legitimate scope of government power?

1a. If so, does this principle apply in general, or only in cases where a given drug has certain properties?

  1. Does compelling people to refrain from using such-and-such a drug actually achieve the intended public policy objectives?

2a. If so, does the policy have undesirable side effects that outweigh the benefits of achieving those objectives?
My answers would be:

  1. Yes, if

1a. the drug in question is known to cause a significant risk of “berzerkerdom” (i.e. a psychological state in which the user is an uncontrollable danger to bystanders)

  1. Reply hazy – I note that scholarship in the years immediately after alcohol prohibition concluded that it just didn’t reduce drinking, but revisionist claims in the 1980s and later dispute this assertion.

2a. Yes (providing a revenue stream for organized crime, creating a subculture cut off from peaceful legal means of dispute resolution, requiring intrusive police measures for enforcement, breeding contempt for law in general as a result of the preceding).

10

I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. A president lying to the American people isn’t just committing the “sin” (using the term loosely) of lying, he’s also committing the sin of subverting democracy. An important part of democracy is that the populace know what elected officials are doing, and why, so that they can decide whether to reelected said officials. Thus, any lack of openness in that flow of information decreases the extent to which the people are, practically, self governing and sovereign.

Anyhow, Bricker, now that the thread is renamed (and sorry again for a poor initial choice of names), how about jumping back in?

11

As to the war:

I believe that in fact they did make an incredibly tough decision based on their absolute honest best assessment of the information at hand, and that decision turns out to have been wrong.

Now, if the issue of this thread is immorality, and if that belief is true, then you surely cannot argue that the war was immoral.

You’re right – the best thing would be for the administration to now be more upfront about the mistakes in information that led them to the now-clearly-wrong choices that were made. And while I fault them for not being more forthright in this arena, I do not agree that it retroactively translates into an immoral war as a result.

12

As to the weed:

Let’s first be clear here: I never said that the issue of pot use is a moral one. So, again, if the question in this thread is limited to moral issues, I am not making the claim that pot is intrinsically immoral.

However, I believe that the strict regulation of pot is within the valid powers of the government, and that such strict regulation is wise.

Why?

Consider motorcycle helmets. You may argue that it’s a “nanny state” that insists on motorcycle helmets – after all, the rider risks only his own neck (and skull) by failing to wear one.

But that’s not entirely true. We do not live in a country that will let a person die if they have no medical insurance and are injured in a motorcycle accident wearing no helmet. Ultimately, your tax dollars and mine will be used to pay for his care. Since that isn’t likely to change, I believe it’s correct for the state to insist on helmets.

So, too, with marijuana. I believe the overall costs to society from marijuana use are high enough that it is wise to forbid the use of the drug. Peer-reviewed studies also suggest that marijuana use leads to harder drugs (admittedly, these are not uncontroverted).

So – not a moral issue, but a practical one.

13

An honest question, then;

Do you support the reinstitution of Prohibition? Since alcohol has all the same properties of marijuana, and in some regards is in fact worse, why should it not have the same legal status?

14

If it is not too much of a hijack of a thread started to prevent hijacking another thread, may I ask (ideally Bricker but whoever wishes to essay an answer) if indeed Lend-Lease was founded on lies. From what I’ve read of the period’s history, I got the distinct impression that that was not the case.

Second, Bricker did an interesting summary of why he was/is a Republican, not by glittering generality but by specific issues, over in the Pit thread. While I could copy that here, I would like to offer him the opportunity of instead restating what he no doubt typed in some urgency as a response to others, identifying the issues that he sees as critical differentiations between the party platforms and philosophies, and perhaps briefly restating why he holds with (what he conceives of as) the Republican stance.

15

But it’s more complicated than just whether someone’s motives were pure. To quote you: “I agree that there comes a point at which incompetence becomes its own evil.”

I agree that it does not AUTOMATICALLY AND NECESSARILY “retroactively translate into an immoral war as a result”. But I think it gives us insight into their character, which might retroactively influence how we judge their initial decision-making. We have, to a certain extent, only their word that they (a) honestly believed that Saddam had nukes, and (b) put in the due diligence verifying and corroborating that belief. (It may actually be the case that there’s sufficient evidence that we could, simply based on the evidence, conclude that they were in fact either honest or dishonest in that claim. I’m assuming for the moment that evidence is insufficient, so it comes down to whether we trust them or not.) So, given that it comes down to an issue of trust, is their conduct post-invasion, and in particular their discussions of their decision-making, their consistency, their spin, their revisionism, their transparency, etc.; is all of that together something that makes us trust them more or less?

Or to put it another way, in the other thread, you’ve basically been saying “I vote for Republicans because their policies more closely align with my morals and ethics”. Which is fine. But why does that make you trust them? Why does the fact that GWB agrees with you on X, Y and Z mean that you trust what he says about the starting of the Iraq war?
Relatedly, it’s hard for me to see any way to judge Bush and co. as moral which does not immediately force us to also judge them as massively incompetent. Either of which are traits that we do not want in elected officials.

What type of costs are we talking about?
Also, might it not seem logical that whatever gateway effects marijuana has would be far less if it were legal? That is, if the same scruffy guy on the corner sells both pot and heroin, and if they’re both things that are in the category of “forbidden things my mom, and THE MAN, don’t want me to try”, then if I like pot, I might try heroin; whereas if marijuana is just as acceptable as smoking, then I would have no particular reason to go from it to heroin?

And, to echo RickJay, how is marijuana different from Alcohol? Tobacco?
And, while we’re on the topic, when my cousin smokes pot, is that immoral of her? Is it something she should not do? Why? Does it (to use a fairly simplistic and vague definition of “good” vs. “evil”) increase the total amount of ongoing human happiness and/or potential?

16

It has all the same properties? I’m not aware of any peer-reviewed studies that show alcohol use leads to harder drugs.

17

Are you sure? I thought that studies have established correlation, but I am unaware of any that establish causation. As far as correlation is concerned, there is a pretty high correlation establishing that people who have tried heroin first tried caffeine; correlational studies are notoriously unreliable.

If causation has been established, I’d like to see that.

Daniel

18

Nominations for SDMB Calculated Understatement of the Year for 2006 are now open. They are now closed, 'cause nobody’s gonna get even close. I wonder if friend Bricker was blushing when he hit the enter key.

By an astonishing coincidence, I was just watching a FoxGnaws scroll about studies which suggest that marijuana may have a role in preventing Alzheimer’s. Good enough for me, case closed. Hell, if you can’t trust FoxGnaws, who can you trust?

19

During the 1940 presidential campaign, Roosevelt repeatedly asserted he was committed to peace, and federal law prohibted the country from involving itself in the war. Nonethess, in September 1940 Roosevelt authorized the exchange of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland.

In January 1941, without the knowledge of Congress, Roosevelt hosted a series of British - US military staff talks, despite his administration’s public assurances that there were no “war implications” in the proposed Lend-Lease Act, passed two months later in March. In Bailey’s book Man on the Street, he notes:

Not sure what you’re looking for here. The list I offered in the other thread was not intended to be comprehensive, but it did give a fair cross-section of issues that all tilt towards the Republicans – that is, all the issues I mentioned there are generally supported by the Republicans and generally opposed by the Democrats. Someone did ask if I had had any examples that were not on the “religious right” list, and of course I do:

  • Minimum wage. The Democrats wants to raise it; the Republicans don’t, and I believe raising it would be a very unwise idea

  • Tax cuts. The Democrats want to roll back the Bush tax cuts. The Republicans don’t. I Believe the tax cuts were directly responsible for the economic stimulus of the past couple of years and I think it would be unwise to roll them back.

  • Environmentalism. I believe that, as a general principle, the Democrats resolve conflicts between the environment and business needs incorrectly, weighing the environment far too heavily in their calculations. As a general principle, I think the Republicans resolve conflicts too heavily in favor of business, but closer to what I would consider an ideal balance.

  • National health care. The Democrats want the government to subsidize health care coverage. I don’t believe this is wise fiscally. The Republicans seem to agree with me on this.

  • Social Security privitization. The Republicans have pushed the idea of permitting people to choose private investments with some or all of their mandated Social Security savings. I think this is an excellent idea. The Democrats oppose it

Beyond further such examples – not sure what you’re looking for.

20

Well, as I read it:

Escalation of Drug Use in Early-Onset Cannabis Users vs Co-twin Controls
Michael T. Lynskey, PhD; Andrew C. Heath, DPhil; Kathleen K. Bucholz, PhD; Wendy S. Slutske, PhD; Pamela A. F. Madden, PhD; Elliot C. Nelson, MD; Dixie J. Statham, MA; Nicholas G. Martin, PhD
JAMA. 2003;289:427-433.

This study seems to suggest it.