Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The paradox of Liberalism: Morally relativist yet hysterically judgmental

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Here's just one more opinion, but it may be a little different. I deny the existence of a paradox, because I deny that Liberalism is morally relativistic.

Moral relativism is a tool used to advance Liberalism, as can be seen in this thread. The moral positions of their opponents are attacked with "Your positions are not based on anything objective. By taking your position you are proven to be close-minded, intolerant, bigotted, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, and I'm sure you can put in a few more words.

But when a value the Liberals hold is in question, it must be accepted, because it's fair, loving, modern reasonable, obvious, and all the other words you so often see. They have "objective truth," and anyone who disagrees is judged. That judgment provides people with cover to punish those who disagree. Getting rid of, or frightening, their opponents is certainly all to the good for Liberalism.

Of course, it's terrible for modern society.
edit on 26-7-2012 by charles1952 because: bracket problem




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


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


Yeah, because that is what I meant, that he was a conservative. I don't care what party he belonged to, it was the conservative stance on gun control that enabled the massacre. Deny your own ignorance buddy.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


I would say it was the liberal theater policy at fault. Declaring their own "gun free zone", without taking the responsibility to protect those law abiding people that comply with their policy. If you want people to not be able to protect themselves in your building, you should have to follow certain guidelines, such as private hired armed security, metal detectors on all the entrances. Also full financial responsibility should your security measures be thwarted and people are injured or killed on the premises.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


I would say it was the liberal theater policy at fault. Declaring their own "gun free zone", without taking the responsibility to protect those law abiding people that comply with their policy. If you want people to not be able to protect themselves in your building, you should have to follow certain guidelines, such as private hired armed security, metal detectors on all the entrances. Also full financial responsibility should your security measures be thwarted and people are injured or killed on the premises.


so your a conservative asking for a privately owned police state

why not have TSA officials and military present on all public property
edit on 26-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


If you want people to not be able to protect themselves in your building, you should have to follow certain guidelines, such as private hired armed security, metal detectors on all the entrances.


Yeah, lol, that is exactly what we need. Armed security guards and metal detectors in all public facilities, give me a break. You really would rather live in a world like this than a society with reasonable gun laws??? I will give up my easy access to assault weapons and my extended mags to prevent armed security guards and metal detectors everywhere I go.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Note that English is not my first language so please bear with me.

I will first try to think like you do. it's true that liberals are suckers in the U.S.. They say "yes" to capitalist globalization that destroys citizens that become consumers, and culture that becomes market. The Sub Primes and Clinton-McCain is what comes to my mind here. Clinton and Obama certainly deserved to make a little bit of a social, but next they leave the forces of free market to do just what prevents social reforms. Obama, whose campaign was largely financed by the free market finance, has dissected his health reform, and prevents any international control to regulate the abuses of finance. How can you say "social protection" and "Money is King"? This is antinomian! But besides that, Obama lost control of the policy because he has no power over money and money is source of power, and at the same time, tells us "human right" and talks of morality. All this moral because societal morality is the only thing he can do since he has no power. In France, the liberal leftists, the socialists, do the same thing. You saw Holland say "I'll protect you" while he does nothing against liberal economic globalization that shamelessly kills the people. It's disgusting! At least he should say : I will not do anything not to deceive all who listened blissfully and naively. The liberal left is worse than the conservative right because it says protect when it does not protect, while the Conservatives are saying "this is the law of the market, good luck." They are honest and do not moralise to hide their inability as the Liberals do.


And that's where the Liberals are normative on a societal level, and therefore not economic. They don’t do this in economics because they are weaker than the economy. They drop their pants in front of her. However, about social issues such as voting rights for foreigners, weddings, school programs and everything about the way society lives, they are Normative excessively to hide their impotence. The left liberals have always normalized by the way, even when they had economic power. The Liberals are those who made the Revolution of 1789. They invented the universal freedom and human rights.
We must distinguish progressive liberals and liberal conservatives. You are probably with the law of the market. Right ? That is a conservative liberal. You want the free market (Liberal) of all constraints. As a conservator you also want to preserve the tradition. In this regard, I would call BS. Do you not see that it is your market without law that destroys traditions and that tradition (cement of society) impedes the free market law because the market wants society atomized and wants it highly individualistic.

It is because there is that individualism that there is a social vacuum that is filled with products from the market. With a traditional society there was no market without law. The Quiet Revolution that destroyed the Catholic tradition of Quebec society, has left emphasis on the market. In France, it's the same with May 68.
You want tradition but you destroy tradition by your lawless market. This is contradictory. And if you're intellectually honest, you cannot stand in contradiction. Make a choice: free market without tradition or tradition without free market. What? The 50s in the United States had the market + tradition you will say. Let me point out that at that time, it was not 30% maximum tax for the rich, but 90%. Since you are a conservative liberal, you do not want a lot of taxes. But the high taxes for the rich is the only way to preserve free market tradition. This is the only way to keep the market as lawless as you would like. Open your eyes and look at the situation of the economy! As if by chance the economy is collapsing when the rich have never paid this little tax since the 20s. The tax allows the redistribution of wealth that allows people to consume more allowing the market to produce and the economy to be active. You, you want a minimum of redistribution, but this minimum is not sufficient for sustained consumption essential to your market.

Liberalism and libertarian! Nothing more stupid ! Make money (liberalism conservative right) to enjoy (left progressive liberalism (no interference with enjoyment)). Do you not see that you are like hand in glove with the liberalism that you are criticising? You are for the enjoyment of money! Your market needs the consumers and sensualists product to function. They consume the products of the liberal economy that you advocate. So you criticize the liberal left that you find normative, but their standards are to promote the free enjoyment by progressivism, this is what supports the market that you love. You criticize people you need. You spit in the soup.

Out of characters-continues in next post
edit on 26-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-7-2012 by DCLXVI because: (no reason given)
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 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Yes the Liberals are normative. But do not confuse everything. There are multiple form of left liberalism. And here I use the word "left" as a synonym of "progressivism". The Enlightenment, a philosophical movement of the 16th, 17th and 18th was the original liberalism. It was not a current of pure ideas free of all malice, that does not exist. It was however a current preaching freedom. This movement gave the French Revolution who invented human rights, so to speak the truth in opposition to the soup that we are currently serving. The Human Rights are a norm, the social protection of post-war, the welfare state, is a standard, freedom itself is a standard in the natural world, the strongest enslaves the weakest. Laws that protect are standards. The oldest piece of legislation we have, the Code of Hammurabi, started like this : "so that the strong never enslave the weak." A world without standards is a lawless world. A world without standards, it is the law of the jungle. A world without normative utopia is a world where mankind is not progressing in his dignity. It is a world without revolutions that make life more pleasant for the vast majority of people. The Liberals are normative? Fortunately!

you will see that there is in the root of conservative thought a strong naturalism. Market forces are like natural laws to Adam Smith. Traditions you want to preserve are as an extension of human nature. For you, the standard goes against the nature that makes your market and your tradition. You are wrong at 50%, because man is half nature and half culture.

If you're conservative, then naturalist, it is through culture. It is through social determinism, in your social environment, that you're conservative.
You criticize the leftist liberals, but you have the same defect as them: yours is nature, theirs is culture. If everything is culture for them, they are necessarily relativistic, as a culture, it is only a temporary social production, contrary to nature which is eternal. The left liberals hate nature because "man is a wolf to man". Therefore standards to prevent this war of "all against all". They also hate nature because ideologically, it leads to a conservatism which means that nothing changes.
You are right to criticize their relativism, because everything is not worth while. Their relativism may also destroy what they believe in, human progress. But relativism is not the liberalism of any left. There are left-liberalism to standards that are protective (standard and protection go hand in hand) without being relativistic. One may want standards because we have unalterable principles. The mixture is then judgments about facts that go against our principles. If there are unalterable principles that we want to impose by law normative, it is not relativistic. And let me tell you that this normative bias, expression of the principles, is very identifiable.

It is not identifiable in those who call themselves liberal in political discourse. It is obvious that the Liberals left and right are relativistic, normative whichever suits them the sandstone of circumstances and without logic. And they're like that because it's you who won politically. It is the market that did. You criticize your own children when it was you who raised them. But you did not raise any liberals left. Yours, are in fact conservatives like you because they are not opposed to liberal capitalist globalization. Instead, they fight it with social liberty.



But this liberality has its origins in social Enlightenment which was a gift to freedom, not enjoyment.
Too much freedom (enjoy) kills freedom (freedom) as one becomes a prisoner of his consummation impulses coming from liberals and conservatives in their market.
You cannot say the left liberals are hysterically judgemental because they are not left liberals, but conservatives like you. They are at the other end of the market system that you defend because they make use of market products such as freedom. They are consumers and not citizens. They are your camps.


The true left liberals. For them freedom is not in the enjoyment, as for your friends who call themselves left wing liberals when in fact they are conservatives like you, but in the absence of addiction to market . Thus, they are not relativistic since oppose the principle of market freedom.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


I said in all places that decide to take away our right to self defense and declare themselves gun free zones...... Big difference. I smell some straw.

If you take away the right to self defense, it should be your responsibility to protect the law abiding citizens that comply.
edit on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:09:15 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
to the OP ,,, most conservatives are moral relativists,..,,.,..,,

murder is wrong,,,,,, if someone kills another they deserve to die,,,,,

get out of america if you dont like it,,,,, we hate terrorists and illegals,,,,,,,,,,,,, US is the most prone nation to being in wars and occupying other countries,,,,

we dont want government telling us what to do,,, this is the land of the free........... gays you cant marry,,,,, women you cant have abortions.....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
My liberalism is not based on moral relativism, but on humanism, or utilitarianism. I agree with the OP that moral relativist liberals that claim all cultures are equal etc. are contradictory.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by FailedProphet

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


Ahhh...you bring up excellent points, however there is also something you are failing to recognize.

The lefties and liberals do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy nor do they have a monopoly on unjustifiable and ungrounded world-views. Ironically, your perception that adherents to your side of the ridiculously obsolete linear view of the political spectrum forms conclusions that "...are anchored in something identifiable, and at least make an effort to be self-consistent". In fact...this is evidentiary very same hypocrisy and bias which you are identifying as being endemic to liberalism. Here are some examples of how incoherent much of the right-wing's "arguments" are:

1. Irrespective of one's own political views it is demonstrably false that there is anything consistent with an individual who "believes" in the bible...yet is also simultaneously in favor of the death penalty and military action of any kind for any reason whatsoever. I have read the Bible several times and I have yet to see one which indicated that "Thou shalt not kill" came with an asterisk and a table of exclusionary conditions. Ditto for being against the idea of for-profit health care. Overall, Jesus seemed pretty clear on the idea that humanity has a moral obligation to heal the sick and injured. Likewise...if he thought charging interest was bad...what the hell do you think he would have to say about a $28 box of hospital Kleenex?

2. Precious few "conservatives" remain consistent about their beliefs in the Constitution. When Bush shredded the Constitution with the Patriot Act, it was excused in the name of "catching the (hypothetical) terrorists". When Obama shredded the Constitution with the NDAA...they all acted surprised for some reason. The reality is that most (not all) "conservatives" will look the other way if a white Texan commits treason by directly subverting the US Constitution. Same idea with the "war on drugs"...how is it that so many "conservatives" supported Reagan's lunacy on this when it is CLEARLY unlawful for the Federal Government to tell you what substances you may choose to consume or not consume? Prohibition required A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT...why didn't the "war on drugs" and mandatory minimum sentencing require the same?

3. How many "conservatives" would find the idea of the Federal Government regulating their sexual activity and reproductive habits appalling...yet simultaneously think abortion and gay marriage should be outlawed. Guess what? If the Federal government has the power, authority, and legal precedence to tell you that you must give birth to a given fetus...THEY ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO FORBID IT. It's a two-way street...if you don't want to see a possibility of forced abortions for a fetus with a genetic defect someday...you would do well to keep your nose OUT of what other people are doing with their fetus....right? Again...whether or not you think it's "murder" is pretty much irrelevant...the question is whether or not you want to give the Federal Government authority over your reproductive habits knowing that they might very well choose to excercise that authority in a manner that you DISAGREE with someday.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post 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?


There is a flaw in your thinking.

There is a difference in condmening people who try to promote their own culture as "the best", moral, or "right" and condemning people who don't "sign off" on liberalism.

I don't think "lefties" care if you "sign off" on liberalism...they won't condemn you for that fact alone...but if you want to try to promote the falsehood that your own culture is better than someone elses...then they will call you out on it.

It's a subtle difference...and you seem to like to generalize...so I'm not surprised you missed it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


I'm not sure I qualify as a liberal though I certainly lean left on most issues. While I lean left I'm far from a moral relativist. I don't subscribe to the idea that morals are absolute but I do think that moral "facts" can be determined using a combination of reason and empathy. Moral absolutes are typically handed down by an authority, they are rigid and cannot be amended - a moral system that can change is the only kind that can evolve.

Morality is a complex subject with far too many nuances and dilemmas to be decided by a once and done absolute, objective versus relative subjective label.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Gonna take a poke at this -insane- rant.

You ask why a liberal can be relavatist on things of art and other creative ventures (philosophy), but then become "hysterical" when others become relativists on factual science based issues...

aka, if I think a painting is fine, why then can't I respect your thoughts that brown people should be back in chains...

simple really, you pass legislation that has a physical effect, turning your perception into everyones reality.
A liberal enjoying art isn't going to pass a bill demanding everyone enjoy a painting of something, but when cons take views, they try to make it law. Because your a bunch of draconian nazi's overall.

how do you justify that then?

Your ops is funny...the examples you give itself are based on measurable things that have no wiggle room for interpretation.

And as stated before, a gross simplification and blanket stereotyping. Unable to see complexity. No wonder this mindset (social conservatism) is quickly dying out. Look at what happened to your social conservatives during the primarys...complete rejection...not good when you have to hide your agenda until your in office...sort of shows its not desired. Go back to the 50s.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 

FailedProphet, rare is the erudite thread.
*applause*

If I may, liberalism requires a target, a topic, a goal.

Conservatism does not.

Liberalism needs a target because modern liberalism is based on being anti-(pick your topic). Liberalism can't stand by itself. It needs a constant enemy in order to thrive. Any debate with modern liberals begins with a criticism on their subject of debate. There is not a stand-alone stance (that I am aware of) that liberals hold.


Will enjoy this thread.

Cheers

beez
edit on 27-7-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


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

no, he wasn't.
unless you believe anyone photoshopped into a pic = part of something...in that case, our biggest concern is Bert from seseme street
Read something
Not to say people in occupy are incapable of doing crazy stuff..but this particular lie is just that...a spinning lie made by the most knuckledragging idiots of the pro-wall street apes.


Liberals don't use the same thought processes that conservatives do, that doesn't mean they are less intelligent or anything of the kind.

Of course not.
After all, every article preformed by proper scientists have proved that liberals have a higher intelligence than conservatives.
one of many, many sources, many studies


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.

Absolute trash. total bunk.
Must have been said by Rushbo or something, because my dad got that chain letter also.
No, we use logic and straightforward numbers..there is no feeling here, there is hard science.
We don't "feel" the environment is in a bad way...we see the numbers of greenhouse gas emmissions, we measure the glacial ice caps.
We believe in equal rights for people, regardless of gender, race, sexual identity, etc. This is equality as in the core of it.all of it based on genetic predisposition...we don't "feel" which groups should get rights and which shouldn't.
This is the most backwards and incorrect statement you lot are making..your wanting to be the thinkers...your not. Stop pretending.
Name one thing, one subject, where feelings is running the liberal movement in opposition to the "thinking" conservative (oxymoron imo)



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.

Assumptions are used by everyone..such as, I will assume people will want to get out of bed tomorrow..I will assume a meteor won't smash into the world tomorrow and kill everyone...so might as well get ready for work. Your starting to go all over the map now.



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,

What the hell you talking about? Will people get a free lunch when possible? of course...but you know what, someone making 100k a year won't feel jealous that some dirt poor person is getting food stamps and quit his job so he can get food stamps.
Here is where assumptions do come into play
We assume someone wants to get laid, therefore will want a bit of extra money for nice clothes, a car, a decent home, etc...aka, get a job. This assumption has been working quite well as it is based on a biological desire that drives humans in general..like assuming a person will want to stop stepping on a bed of glass


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.

No snip.
But we aren't the world police.



For example, liberals love communism,

And conservatives love fascist theocracys.
What tripe, just gonna snip the next paragraph due to it being..just stupid

In the end, I seen you were trying to give a moderate view of the differences between conservatism and liberalism, but in doing so, you couldn't have been further from the truth...I figure you either truely have no clue what liberalism is, or are trying to write a narrative that completely distorts the view. I suspect you are victim to endless chain letters and talking head liars about what liberals must be...and then filled your head with fabrications.

But you know...if it makes you -feel- like you know what liberals are all about, then more power to you...for me..its all about the facts..and fact is, you are dead wrong on...every point you attempted to make.

Bet you won't revise your view based on new evidence though..because it feels right to you..doesn't it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
There is not a stand-alone stance (that I am aware of) that liberals hold.


Equal rights, Science, Environment, Religion (aka, keep it out of government), Big projects (Nasa, etc. Things a nation has to build, not a company), Personal liberties.

Problem is, there are almost no liberals in power at the moment..just the choice of one neocon, or one centerist...none to the left. When Ronald Reagan is an example of a leftist now, that means both sides have moved to the right so far that a proper leftist simply has none that represent his/her interest.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:54 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?


I'm not sure there is a paradox in modern liberalism as much as a bias towards any cultural group other than Caucasians.

Particular Caucasians can escape this bias however if they fall into a victim group of some sort. For instance, being a homosexual or a feminist.

When was the last time a modern day liberal argued for the rights of Caucasians?

They do it for every other group after all.


Just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals.

These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.

Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Origins of Political Correctness


Arguably, there is no paradox in modern liberalism, merely an inherent bias against Caucasians.




edit on 27-7-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by beezzer
There is not a stand-alone stance (that I am aware of) that liberals hold.


Equal rights, Science, Environment, Religion (aka, keep it out of government), Big projects (Nasa, etc. Things a nation has to build, not a company), Personal liberties.

Problem is, there are almost no liberals in power at the moment..just the choice of one neocon, or one centerist...none to the left. When Ronald Reagan is an example of a leftist now, that means both sides have moved to the right so far that a proper leftist simply has none that represent his/her interest.


Personal liberties?
Could you expand?
Is that the same as individualism that the Tea Party espouses?

Curious.

Also, I harken from an ideology that some (Misoir) would call "classical liberal". Do you see a difference between the classical liberal (conservative) and modern liberal?

Thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM
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?


How about this, then? You just labeled half of the world and completely judged it in a post about hysterical judging, implying that our morals are crappy because they aren't based on a questionably immoral root...i.e. old-fashioned or Biblical(anto-black, anti-rock'n'roll, anti-homosexual, anti-everything modern).

So tell me: how is the right-wing any better than the left-wing? Isn't this the kind of divisiveness we need to fight? But you just took your knife and hacked straight down the middle in an attempt to prove that your opinions are actually facts, by dividing the people of the world and setting them against one another. Is this how you usually prove your arguments? By starting a fight that will inevitably be derailed at a number of junctions and continue so long no one remembers what the actual question was?

You need to work on your diplomacy, sir. Engaging intellectual discussion is not commenced by leaping onto the table with bared teeth and not-so-subtle snarls. We are all equals here; you should act like it. Otherwise, you will get exactly as you give, and that never ends well in maliciously-initiated discourse.

So here's my very politely phrased question, again: what makes right-wing any better than left wing? As they say, it takes all kinds. Variety is the spice of life.
edit on 27-7-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join