Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+12 more 
posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Libbies and lefties, riddle me this: how do you resolve the paradox stated in the topic's subject line?

Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism. Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things." Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another. (Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?)

If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference? 

Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions. You might not agree with these codes, you might think they are wrong, but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent. 

But if cultural and moral relativism are so almighty in the leftist viewpoint, from whence comes the thundering righteous tone with which lefties condemn all who do not sign off on the blissed-out multikulti, pansexuAl vibeocracy?

Take your time answering. I have a feeling it will be a very long wait regardless.




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


Interesting subject but you are clearly biased so i will pass on this one.


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCLXVI
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


Interesting subject but you are clearly biased so i will pass on this one.


So in other words you realize it's an argument you can't win.

Gotcha.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


No, just don't feel like being told i am playing the left rhetoric game after i demolish your "argument" to pieces. And arguing against a sophist always drain my energy.

Asta la vitoria siempre.lol
edit on 26-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DCLXVI
 


Yeah, yeah, that's what she said.

I hear a lot of bark but I don't see no bite.

Surely if my argument was so demolish-able, it would be easier to simply demolish it, rather than merely talking about demolishing it, no?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet
reply to post by DCLXVI
 


Yeah, yeah, that's what she said.

I hear a lot of bark but I don't see no bite.

Surely if my argument was so demolish-able, it would be easier to simply demolish it, rather than merely talking about demolishing it, no?


Will you take it like a man?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


Might take me a good 45 minutes since you generalize alot, use false premises, not seem to understand fully some of the nuences that exist between doctrine and ideology. I will get on it now though.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I just came to see some demolishing.

I actually agree with some of the points in the OP. And I, not what you would call a liberal, though I'm not really all that conservative either.

Whatever, I just want to see how this supposed demolition plays out.

peace.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCLXVI


Will you take it like a man?


Not sure what that means to you, but you said you didn't want to get called out as a leftist. So as long as you can refrain from any personal accusations or assumptions about me or what you might believe "people like me think," go ahead. In return I will refrain from ad-hominims and arguments based on who you are as opposed to what you think.

Chase the ball, not the player, right?

Remember that the topic at hand is the paradox of leftism, not the faults of conservatism. So any argument based on attacking conservatism (or any other ism besides leftism) will be considered an invalid evasion. I'm lookin for an answer to the question in the OP, nothing more and nothing less.
edit on 7/26/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Originally posted by DCLXVI


Will you take it like a man?


Not sure what that means to you, but you said you didn't want to get called out as a leftist. So as long as you can refrain from any personal accusations or assumptions about me or what you might believe "people like me think," go ahead. In return I will refrain from ad-hominims and arguments based on who you are as opposed to what you think.

Chase the ball, not the player, right?

Remember that the topic at hand is the paradox of leftism, not the faults of conservatism. So any argument based on attacking conservatism (or any other ism besides leftism) will be considered an invalid evasion. I'm lookin for an answer to the question in the OP, nothing more and nothing less.
edit on 7/26/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)


There is a question that i need answered about this paradox of yours before i can keep writing an appropriate answer .

When saying Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental. Do you mean that all liberals are judgmental, that most of them are or that the ideology itself is a judgmental one that judge every other system of beliefs.

Just want to make sure what "hysterically judgmental" means to you.
edit on 26-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions. You might not agree with these codes, you might think they are wrong, but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent. 


Traditions doesn't make things moral or correct.

The bible condones slavery, sexism, and genocide just to name a few.

The Constitution was also used to favor slavery and sexism and genocide.

The federalist papers favored a aristocratic strong central government and a central bank, much like what we have today.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DCLXVI
 


My argument is directed at liberalism as an ism, not at individual humans, whose ideas and beliefs obviously vary significantly from person to person. I would not say all liberals are hysterically jusdgemental, no. But I would say that the language of liberalism contains a strong normative bias without beIng rooted in any identifiable or objective source for said bias. This is the nugget of the argument.

Th battery on my smartphone is about to die so it might be awhile before I get back to this thread, unfortunately. Rest assured I will return, however.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


All irrelevant. Pleas re-read the topic title and stay on target.

I'm not here to defend conservatism today. I'm here to probe the contradiction at the heart of liberalism.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


Very good thank you.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
You are right on. As a centrist and someone who doesn't follow either the Republican, Christian, or Liberal agenda, I can see how both sides have become severely delusional and judgmental. The reason the liberals take more damage from this, is because they are supposed to be the ones promoting truth and everything... but they don't realize that they have become just as much of a religion as any religion that worships a deity, and they are actually less tolerant of different viewpoints. It's pretty much a fact at this point.

It gets annoying when they try to promote some kind of agenda that they don't have empirical evidence to support, especially, or when they try to shut down opposing viewpoints that might have merit, with an almost religious attitude about it.

I can testify that there are still a lot of people out there who are sane, but as far as the media goes, and most politicians, and most radicals, they have gone off their rocker.

At the moment, I'm watching the right and left-wing media spew out obvious lies (total propaganda instead of real reporting) while the alternative media (mostly this site) tries as hard as it can without the resources or training to figure out the truth. That said, I think we are important here at ATS anyway, doing a better job than the MSM
edit on 26-7-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


I'm not really leftist but...not really sure moral relativism is a main view point of liberalism. They just don't care about other culture or culture changes as conservatives do. Hearing someone speak Spanish doesn't put them in a fit of rage.


Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism.


Nope. No individual belonging to a group that can organize its self as a collective should not have "privilege" over any other. Everyone should have the same civil and human rights. Any sort of institutionalized discrimination would be wrong and immoral.


If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference?


To end any sort of institutionalized discrimination.


But if cultural and moral relativism are so almighty in the leftist viewpoint


The only time I see cultural relativism really come into play from a liberal is when they are talking about foreign cultures. That a burka is just part of Islamic culture and we shouldn't worry about those countries. But that is just a non-interventionism ideology.

edit on 26-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet
Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism. Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things." Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another.


I don't see the problem here...



Originally posted by FailedProphet
(Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?)


You are confusing "liberalism" with "intellectualism". Most people who search out their own music and culture will agree that most pop-culture is crap. This includes most western culture. It's not just country music made by white guys. Pop sucks. Country sucks. Hip-hop sucks. This isn't a liberal view; it's a matter of taste. And, yes, I put modern hip-hop in same crap bucket that I put modern country music in.



Originally posted by FailedProphet
If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference?
 

See to me, the "endless, shrill, hysterical screeching" regarding race, gender, and sexual preference are coming from social conservatives. If we claim to have equality and we don't, then whatever is said about that inequality should not be counted as "whining".

Police still profile black folks, people still only complain about the brown immigrants and not the white ones, women are still not paid the same as men in the workplace, and gay people STILL can't freakin' get married IN THE 21ST CENTURY. My word, man... if you call that screeching, maybe you should live in a place that welcomes those inequalities like Iran.

I agree, some of it borderlines whiny but you can't dismiss it just because you don't want it to exist.



Originally posted by FailedProphet
Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions. You might not agree with these codes, you might think they are wrong, but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent.
 

So... as long as it's consistent and time-honored, it's cool with you? What about Shariah law? That's pretty consistent and its roots go back further than our constitution or even America itself. Does that justify it?

What's more time honored than concept of equality?! Most liberal concepts are more deeply rooted in the teachings of the bible than conservative ones. In that Christian bible, their Jesus even said that however you treat the least of your brothers, you treat him. This means you treat the poorest as you would Jesus. Who do you tink strives for that more?



Originally posted by FailedProphet
But if cultural and moral relativism are so almighty in the leftist viewpoint, from whence comes the thundering righteous tone with which lefties condemn all who do not sign off on the blissed-out multikulti, pansexuAl vibeocracy?


So... asking a conservative to allow equality and tolerance for any and all personal liberties is tantamount to taking a "thunderous righteous tone"? Do I condemn those who do not believe everybody should be treated equally? Well, yeah. Of course. Am I missing something here?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Libbies and lefties, riddle me this: how do you resolve the paradox stated in the topic's subject line?

Leftist philosophy is characterized by moral relativism: no culture or moral code should be "privileged" over another, and all are to be celebrated equally in the great multicultural stew of groovy relativism. Michelangelo'a art and the rock scratchings of the tribes of Upper Uffangi River are equally masterpieces, right? Just "different ways of looking at things." Same with moral codes: The Bible, the Qaran, and the 1968 Atheist Manifesto of the San Francisco People's Free Love Commune are all equally valid ways of perceiving reality. There can be no greater sin in the Liberal cannon than privileging one ethical code over another. (Unless you are talking about the evil no-goodnick rotten hegemonic shackles of traditional dead white male western culture, of course. That one goes at the bottom of the barrel every time, right?)

If this is the case, what provides the basis for the endless, shrill, hysterical screeching about race, gender, and sexual preference? 

Conservatives can usually point to well-defined traditions in which their morals and worldview are anchored. Some will point to the Bible, for example, while others will base their thought on strict constitutionalism, the Federalist Papers, or simply received, time-honored traditions. You might not agree with these codes, you might think they are wrong, but at least they are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent. 

But if cultural and moral relativism are so almighty in the leftist viewpoint, from whence comes the thundering righteous tone with which lefties condemn all who do not sign off on the blissed-out multikulti, pansexuAl vibeocracy?

Take your time answering. I have a feeling it will be a very long wait regardless.


The difference you've shown is that conservatives need to be shown how to be moral through a "well-defined tradition". Which means they inherently lack the ability to be moral without guidance. This insulting view brings much imagery to mind(drones, ignorant, sheep, etc.). We of course know this not to be true, so we disregard your entire condescending argument.
edit on 26-7-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


Failed,

I am pretty sure I get your question. How can liberals, a free thinking group I proudly associate myself with, claim to be so tolerant while at the same time be so judgmental? What you are not seeing is that it is your intolerance of the rights of others that we tend to be judgmental about. Sure, practice your religion, whatever it is...unless your practice infringes on me or others in my community. Practice your traditions, beliefs, hobbies, whatever. But again, don't infringe on me or the members of my community. Pretty simple really.

Quite frankly, I don't find this near as confusing as the many contradictory beliefs most conservatives walk around with in their heads everyday. Like say, "we want small government" but "we want the government to dictate who you can marry or whether you give birth to a child." You conservatives, lol, you only want small government when it comes to guns and taxes. You guys kill me. Well...not me, just 12 people in Colorado and a few hundred thousand Muslims. But I guess that is a topic for another thread.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


BTW, deny your ignorance. The colorado shooter was a known liberal/member of occupy.

I will answer your question. I will first admit I am a conservative though, that way we all know I am being objective, and not trying to hide my beliefs.

It is really quite simple to explain. I mean we all see it everyday. Liberals don't use the same thought processes that conservatives do, that doesn't mean they are less intelligent or anything of the kind. It simply means they arrive at conclusions through a different set of mental filters than us conservatives. Liberals see the world, not as it is, but as they feel it should be. Perfect world if you will. So their idealsare based off of a lot of assumtions, such as all people want to live peacefully and work hard...etc.

This leads right of the jump to disagreements between conservatives and liberals. For the most part conservatives see the world through a different filter, they know that people at the base level will not work hard if they don't havve to, they know a lot os people in this world will not live peacefully not matter what happens. And as such they put in place measures to coerce the masses.

For example, liberals love communism, now I don't mean mao china or stalin russia communism but actual pure unadulterated communism. The problem though is that it can't ever work, as humans are by nature lazy( nobody will work harder for the same thing as the guy not working hard) and selfish( very few will give all they own to another more in need of it than they) and violent( history. Speaks for itself on this one, no explanation is necessary)

So the "problem" ( I prefer to think of it as a solution) for a lot of people is they can't understand the otherside, because their minds filters do not share the same info accross all people. I believe it is absolutely essential that we havve discourse on this subject so that we may instead of seeing what we percieve differently, we could understand that neither is the answer and only by combining the 2 sides ideas do we arrive at a somwhat reasonable balance between the way the world is and the way we wish is could be.






top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join