My post doesn’t mean that though. It’s a fact that there is no objective morality. So the statement that one must support a particular political party, of all things, to fulfill someone’s subjective morality is just a strongly worded opinion.
I don’t think I have ever seen you give such advice to those on the right.
Funny, that.
Sure there is. Murdering a kitten is objectively immoral.
Philosopher Sam Harris argues that throwing acid into the faces of young girls who are trying to study is objectively immoral.
Our basic morality is to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, care for the sick, comfort the grief-stricken, welcome the stranger and visit those in prison.
That this is disputed is testament to how far we have strayed from basic humanity.
You don’t think that, if you’ve deliberately claimed custody of a small child, you have a moral obligation to ensure that the kid’s provided with something to eat?
Vote against retention of likely Republican appointees…
Just because I don’t believe there is an objective morality doesn’t mean that I don’t have a set of principles that I act according to. I just am not arrogant enough to believe that my set is the one true path.
All moral conclusions are derived from axiomatic sets of principles. By definition, the set is unprovable and must be accepted as a given. Difficulties arise because different people and different societies operate under different sets and further difficulties arise because of how folks apply logic to reach conclusions of what is and is not moral.
Historically, it’s been problematic for folks to advocate that one particular group of people are intrinsically better than another group as the OP more or less states.
There are an uncountable number of ways that your morals/ethics could differ from mine, but as long as there is no direct conflict I’ve got no problem. It’s your path, dude-I hope you enjoy the trip.
The world doesn’t owe you a thing–it was here first.
It is certainly a challenge when going through the ballot and finding a list of judges there who are, in some nigh-infinitesimal manner, subject to my decision on whether to keep their jobs - and unlike any of the other people who have indirectly subjected me to much canvassing and rhetoric, I know diddley-to-the-squat about them.
I spent close to two hours researching in advance this time, finally deciding all but two should get the boot, but it was certainly not something I could have done when confronted in the ballot booth with the question as had been the case in prior, less shall-we-say politically critical elections. (for what it’s worth, being a member of the “Federalist Society” would seem to be quite the Red flag)
The honest joke of it all is my district has twice as many registered GOP as it does DEM with fewer Independents than either side; regardless, I voted the very first day of early voting in my state … for what little it is likely to matter in the final tally.
Historically, it’s been problematic for folks to advocate that one particular group of people are intrinsically better than another group based on immutable characteristics as the OP more or less never states.
Even the supremacy of mutable characteristics such as religion or ideology are problematic if it leads to things like religions wars of annihilation or secular, ‘virtuous’ movements such as post revolutionary France or communism. Declaring one thing to be intrinsically superior is not dangerous just on the basis of DNA.
It allows the power structure to appeal to emotion to enable tyranny and atrocities based on the self evident righteousness of the cause and the self evident deplorableness of one’s adversaries.
It isn’t liberals asking their leaders when they can start killing the opposition . . . it’s conservatives.
Left wing tyranny has been responsible for an order of magnitude more death than the holocaust. Don’t be so certain that rigid, intolerant, illiberal thinking can’t take hold in the Democratic Party. Power corrupts and the unquestioning devotion and demand of fealty to a political party rarely ends well.
Yes, if I want to see that I can just look at what the Republican Party has become.
I guess we should give octopus points for not saying that left wing tyranny was responsible for the Holocaust.
I’m not critiquing the parties in the US. I’m rejecting the premise that a particular party is owed fealty as a moral obligation.
The earth was here first, and owes me nothing. Society makes demands on me (laws, taxes, jury duty), but has obligations in return.
Morally, a society that lets people starve / die of preventable illness etc. is not okay.
…and fling out paper towel rolls, of course, amirite?
Second shout out. Hopefully you haven’t gotten too much guff from nosey, dumb blowhards in your endeavours.
If I lived in the US I would be sooo all over that, or even preferably, an electoral worker.
Apart from my despondency and what-the-fuck-are-you-doingness at seeing how precipitately the US is politically unravelling, I often wonder if there might be other dopers like yourself volunteering out on the front lines like that.
Kinda helpless feeling - watching this roughly 200 y.o. experiment in democracy unfolding - and not being able to do a single thing about it, regardless of such a contribution (if I had the pony chance) ultimately being just a drop in bucket in that arena.
The world doesn’t. Other humans do: as we do to them.
What we owe each other is a matter of considerable debate. I personally think it’s a good deal more than just agreeing not to actively physically attack each other. Some, of course, don’t even agree with that.
Yeah. I can understand why they’re forbidden to publish their positions; but as I know none of them personally, unless somebody’s been involved in the sort of relevant scandal that gets all over the news, I’ve got basically nothing to go on other than the party lines they choose to be listed under.
Of course it could. But right now it’s obviously taken hold in the Republican Party.
I take the OP to mean ‘right now, under the current political conditions in the USA’; not to mean ‘now and forever, no matter what and who they’re espousing at the time’.
Again, the Republicans right now seem to be going for the latter.