Err, Unc. I think that was his point…that those conservatives who invoke morality do so because their sense of morality leads them to conservativism, and they respect liberals (like Hubert Humphrey, and Paul Simon) who do the same (Are liberals as a result of their moral convictions). He was actually disagreeing with Brian…Brian just doesn’t think so.
Also, Unc, in regard to Nuremburg, Brian said in his OP that conservatives believe in blind obedience to authority. Dlb, counters that by saying that every conservative he’s talked to brings up the Nuremburg trials…that a person shouldn’t obey unjust laws, and that blind obedience is a bad thing.
Unc, maybe I completely misinterpreted dlb’s post to be in direct opposition to Mr. Bunnyhurt’s thesis, but I’m under the impression that Nuremberg (as opposed to fascism) was invoked to prove the point that the coservative conscience goes against mindless obedience to dogma.
Of course, I could be way off-base, and BB could actually have an “apparent sycophant” in dlb… dlb, comments?
Nor would most fundamentalist Christians, who would see in this definition a description of a classic conversion experience.
Er, what Captain Amazing said.
Don’t really see anything in the OP worthy of a response, here.
I just thought I’d mention how pleased I am to see a liberal presence out on the front lines, refuting this crap.
Gotta give credit where it’s due.
Morally coded behavior is based on obedience to it (fear, control and guilt is invoked to insure this). The assumption of free discovery is that one ultimately values the process as a way to knowledge.
Under moral codes of obedience the mindset is typically that the ends (theorized) justify and determine the means (obedience). This encourages ends that go beyond life itself (afterlife) to justify the failure to experience life.
Under free thought, the means (freedom) justify and determine the outcome (ie, We know what we know, because we questioned or experienced it). One could argue that moral codes evolved via freedom, but this has never been the case.
Obedience is a theory-based behavior–that we assume the theory is correct and bend ourselves to its dictates–and if we don’t succeed, it is considered our fault, not the theory (obedience presumes not to question the theory–hence its perceived superiority and hoary antiquity).
Freedom governs by pragmatic utility, making no dogmatic assertions or assumptions about the outcome, because the goal is harmony and achieving one’s potential, which is its own reward. Something is deemed practical if the outcome is considered good. We can never foolishly or blindly assume the outcome, in this life or the next, especially if the input is slavish obedience.
Analogy: In one case, we are following a map to buried treasure, and all the cutthroat implications that go with it. In the other case, we are surveying the landscape for its natural bounties and cooperation is equally natural, not via corporal obedience.
Well perhaps I have entirely misunderstood dlb’s post. I guess he could have been refuting BB’s position. He did say “I don’t know anyone who thinks like this.” My apologies to you dlb for misreading your words.
An additional point about Nuremberg though. Captain Amazing has stated that dlb brought up the subject of the Nuremberg Trials. This is untrue. He merely brought up Nuremberg itself. Nuremberg, in addition to being the site of the famous war criminal trials after the close of the Second World War, was, in the years 1933 to 1938, the site of the annual convention of the Nazi Party. This is what I assumed he was speaking of, rather than the trials.
Brian, that last post of your has me completely perplexed, I’ve no idea what the fuck you’re trying to communicate.
dlb was disagreeing, of course, but his post made my point by agreeing to the same process. It is not a “which caused what” issue. I am likewise asserting that the morality of obedience defines the politics of obedience–core conservatism (which is to suggest that religious dogma tends to be political via obedience, which tends to enforce the same concept).
APB,
Is this conversion experience devoted to moral obedience, perhaps? You are suggesting that free thought leads to Jesus, how wishful thinking of you. Is this by failure of freedom, perhaps? What doesn’t lead to Jesus, by the way? Deviation from moral obedience? This is the self-deception I was talking about.
Uncle,
You are saying that liberalism guided by dogma leads one to invasive socialism? Good point. I never claimed it didn’t. Dogma (absolute authoritative doctrine) corrupts almost everything political.
Scylla,
I don’t see anything in your post worthy of a response here.
Hmm.
By way of introduction, I should note that I’m not sure what classification I would fall under. I don’t vote, so I’m sure that wouldn’t make me a conservative. I support conservative economic policies, however, so I’m also not a liberal. I believe a centrist government is more effective than a state’s rights government, and yet I feel that the government should largely stay out of everyone’s business. I neither readily accept pragmatic arguments that liberals often give, nor do I accept pragmatic arguments that conservatives often give.
I also do not know what liberal or conservative means, and the only way I know who is which is when that person proclaims themselves to be such.
That said, I do not feel that it is inconceivable to have a moral code which is not self-enforcing. I’d like to think that my personal set of standards are not so domineering; rather, they are a guide to outlined which behaviors are moral, immoral, or amoral; nowhere does the code say: You Must Be Moral!
Crayons don’t tell you how to color, and paint brushes don’t tell you how to paint; why should a moral code tell you which path to pick? Pick the path you want, the code just provides a frame of reference for valuating decisions.
Mr. BH I’ve feasted mine eyes and your OP is still self defining.
(aside - hi Scylla ironic as hell, isn’t it?)
Seeing as it was most emphatically not directed at you, I should hope so.
It corrupts far more than everything politcal.
“When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.” - Anaïs Nin
What is self-defining? I made few definitions. If you have not heard these definitions before, that does not make them invalid.
I am indeed suggesting that core conservatives (conservative on every issue) ill-define integrity to be what they want it to be for their own selfish rewards–which is slavish obedience and is in fact lousy character, IMO. This then allows them to organize and control people who they do not economically represent (most large families that need public schools and healthcare, for instance), and then demonize their opponents as lacking integrity, whoever they are, who have no such wrong definition.
I even suggest that one lacks character (and dignity) if they go along with it against their economic interests (which then defines it as a moral crusade for them). What the hell is blaming a victim other than corrupt moral rot? (Especially if the blamer is also a potential victim). By the way, this is not necessarily religious, religion influences one’s conservatism according to their status. The poorer a conservative is, the more religious they tend to be (~shudder~).
Note: I could have also said that religious conservatives will erase the distinction between dogma and state once they achieve enough power, but that is speculative, even though it is obvious.
You said somewhere in a link (regarding this self-defining stuff) that an OP (in GD, I presume) is “supposed” to assume the other side’s possible validity, or something like that. Is this not sheer self-defining nonsense? Can you seriously imagine debating against something you already acknowledged as valid? I wouldn’t bother in such case, I would take a poll or stay in GQ.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Same sort of stuff that you’re ‘debating’. And frankly, it bores me.
quite the contrary. If my opponent’s argument obviously has no merit, no possable validity, why would I bother? I suggest that you allow your opponents to frame their position, and then debate your stance vs. theirs. but that’s only if you’re looking for a serious debate.
But, not with me.
I only wish to engage in serious debate, as per usual, hence the gravity of the topic. Also, for the record, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is a valid question to ask a husband who has been shown to beat his wife in the past. I think I know what you are suggesting, however. You accuse me of not showing enough respect (a two-way dirt road in my book). I’ll file it under “Righteous Indignation.” Thanks so far.
Am I to surmise that conservatives can dish it out but can’t take it?
“Ah, shucks, Pa! I planted the seeds upside down ag’in!”
Is it just me or do those last two excerpts seem to give lie to the first?
try again, Mr. BH. I may be a lot of things, but “conservative” isn’t one of them. I disagree that you wish to engage in serious debate - it’s obvious from your OP that you merely wish a podium from which to pontificate. Carry on. (only reason I’m replying this time is to correct your additional erroneous assumption that I count myself as a “conservative” - as you’ll note in my first posting to this thread in fact.)
Brian, that’s not really what he’s accusing you of, I don’t think. I think he’s accusing you of not making sense and not paying attention to other people’s arguments. Part of debate means that you need to state a clear position, then defend it by pointing out flaws in your opponent’s arguments. You haven’t done either in this thread. You make statements that most people don’t understand, like:
“Obedience is a theory-based behavior–that we assume the theory is correct and bend ourselves to its dictates–and if we don’t succeed, it is considered our fault, not the theory (obedience presumes not to question the theory–hence its perceived superiority and hoary antiquity).”
I have to admit…I have no idea what you’re saying there. Please, Brian, restate your OP simply and clearly, and then it can be debated.
I’m pretty sure the universe is getting ready to implode again. Wring has apparently been accused of being a conservative, and I think I was accused of being a liberal in my recent Pit thread. 
Doesn’t everybody – conservative or liberal, devoutly religious or athiest – define their character by living their life in a way that they perceive is the right way to live it?
Regardless of the influence of other motivators (their politics, their church, their belief in the Bible, etc.), ultimately, it is an individual choosing how they will live, and basing it on what they think is the right way.
Bunnyhurt said:
**
And, as noted above, who doesn’t? Peace Corps volunteers in the worst parts of Africa could be said to be doing what they do out of a sense of integrity and character that includes serving their own selfish reward - which, in that case, is the personal self-satisfaction that they feel for trying to make a difference.
**
I think there’s plenty of “slavish obedience” to ideology to go around. As well demonstrated by yourself in the thread about how Bush did in the China crisis.
**
Let me see if I got this right – conservatives do that?