It’s hard to remember a time when BobLibDem and I have agreed on anything.
But I’d like to point out this example of a cogent and reasonable analysis of the issue, one that does not require a villain behind every lamppost or in every voter’s heart.
Fair enough. I will point out, however, that this
is an example of an amoral voter, where true.
I’m not sure how the Clinton/Lewinski scandal got dredged up again here, but before history gets revised too much, it’s well to note evidence that the public did in fact “mind” Clinton’s actions - it just didn’t favor the harsher penalties he faced. See this site):
*ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 18-20, 2000. N=896 registered voters nationwide. MoE +/- 3.5.
“As you may know, a federal judge ruled last year that Clinton gave intentionally false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Do you think Clinton should or should not be charged with a crime and put on trial for this, after he leaves office?”
%
Should be 46
Should not be 51
No opinion 3 *
Not exactly a resounding vote for “no big deal, it’s just his personal sex life”.
Even if it is, that’s just one possible explanation; the existence of other possibilities drive a stake in the heart of BG’s claim.
And I would contend that until we define what particular benefits innure to the district, even that example is not definitively amoral. For example, suppose one of the benefits Delay is bringing to the district results in a highly positive moral good. The slight negative of his being accused of campaign finance law violations may not outweigh the highly posiitve benefit. After all, campaign finance law is not malo in se. It’s “wrong” by virtue of being against the law, not because it is intrinsically wrong.
When we know precisely what benefits are in play, and who they help, we can then characterize a voter’s decision on that basis as “amoral.”
You’re wonderful, Bricker, you really are. Ya big lug.
Your larger point is well-taken, however.
If that voter is also thinking “But all the *other * House members are doing the same thing for *their * voters, so the only way to protect my fair share is to do it too”, that still isn’t amoral, just underinformed and a bit lazy.
That doesn’t mean they’d actually vote for a Democrat instead, though.
You really don’t think there’s any larger purpose, any real value to the nation and to society, to having and obeying those laws? I do hope you don’t want to press that point, not in a thread about amorality.
I disagree. Acting on self-interest to the exclusion of other considerations is the quintessence of amorality, even if your actions are driven by a desire to “protect your fair share.”
Yes.
For example, suppose DeLay is dining out with a lobbyist at a Washington restaurant, when a fellow patron chokes on his calamari and DeLay successfully performs the Heimlich maneuver, saving his life. A highly positive moral benefit has accrued.
When considerations such as this are taken into account, it would be positively amoral not to re-elect DeLay.
Shodan, in post #67.
What is the moral rule, if any, regarding how you must weigh others’ needs versus your own? I assume you would never contend the only moral response is the total sublimation of your own needs in favor of others’; similarly, you’re certainly correct in saying that a complete refusal to even consider others’ needs is definitively amoral.
Fantastic. 'Cause that’s what “to the exclusion of” means. 
(Sorry I’m cranky…I’m struggling with refuting the simplest damn proposition from an awful, awful lawyer in a brief at the moment.)
First, Texas. As I’ve ranted before, Texas has a wildly disproportionate effect on American politics, it is the Saudi Arabia of America where the Wahhabist Capitalist sect rules. As we are governed by Texas, Texas is governed by money, money, and more money. Witness Phil Gramm, who was given some serious consideration as a presdiential candidate despite having the personal charm of a garden slug and a legislative history appropriate to an acolyte of the Church of Mammon. In Texas, money talks and you listen. You have the right to remain silent.
Tolm DeLay was an entirely reliable apparatchik, which is to say an embarassment to us all, a seeping pustule of political sepsis. His departure will signal the unstoppable tide of the people’s progressive movement sweeping aside the reactionary vultures and running dogs of the ruling class.
Goody gumdrops! Haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Ol’ Yeller!
As to friend Bricker’s apparent need for a strictly defined and meticulously parsed moral code, I recommend a rather famous ethicist, whose work, I’m given to understand, can be found in bookstores, motel rooms, and even some court rooms.
I’m all in favor of that… but it seems to me that it was more often than not folks on your side of the aisle resisting that particular tome from being cited as a universally-applicable moral guide.
Should have been more clear. Wasn’t referring to Ayn Rand. Sorry for the confusion.
Did anyone really expect that Clinton wouldn’t get hauled in here at some time?
Let’s see now …
Hitler expounded on “the Big Lie.”
Clinton lied.
and away we go.
Quite so. To be sent to congress, a man has to PROVE he’s a crook.
So, the Republicans will have selected a mental incompetent rather than an immoral scumbag…yeah, sounds about right.
This is one case where it was appropriate. When someone claims “if you vote for X you are not moral” it makes perfect sense to explore “are you also not moral if you vote for Y” when both X and Y are alleged to have broken the law. It needn’t have been Clinton, but he is, like, fairly well known and all. If you’d like we can use another example, but the principle would be the same.
Care to weigh in on the OP? Is anyone who votes for DeLay automatically immoral (or is it amoral, now)?
Amorality and immorality are vastly different beasts.
No.
Yes, I just lost track of which one we were talking about. Still, neither is applicable as an automatic label to a DeLay voter.