Always entertaining to hear liberals, (the world's foremost adherents to moral relativism), attempt to define morality for others. Equally amusing to watch a liberal attempt to describe conservatism. It's like listening to a man who was born blind trying to describe the color purple.
How typical of a liberal academic to also be completely *blind* to faith and spirituality as a defining principle and foundation of human morality. Notably this was not among his "5 pillars" of morality. Not really surprising though, considering that religious faith is probably as far outside his personal experience as the color purple is to the blind man.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-23-2016).]
Great TED talk, there are so many. I do suspect that many here will not be "open" to it though.
The idea that both are right and necessary is a hard pill to swallow for many. A lot of conservatives believe that all change is bad and liberals are retarded, while many liberals believe that the current system is completely broken and conservative are backwards idiots. The truth is that both groups need each other, it's ying and yang, not right and wrong.
Ying and Yang, two parts of a whole, both necessary to each other. These are all very inclusive ideas, a drastic departure from the years of "If Congress won't act, I will," "Elections have consequences. I won," "I have a pen and phone," to the classic, “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
It's certainly a seismic shift from the last 8 years. Trump may bring a renaissance of diversity and cooperation this nation has not seen in a long, long time.
A lot of conservatives believe that all change is bad and liberals are retarded, while many liberals believe that the current system is completely broken and conservative are backwards idiots.
I actually think very few believe that. The media tells us we believe that because it sells. The illusion that people believe the extremes is what makes the argument. People think they need to create and promote the polar opposite to counter the fringe ideas on the other side. But there is right and wrong, that never goes away. Usually people aren't nuts, but ideas can be.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-23-2016).]
The idea that both are right and necessary is a hard pill to swallow for many. A lot of conservatives believe that all change is bad and liberals are retarded, while many liberals believe that the current system is completely broken and conservative are backwards idiots. The truth is that both groups need each other, it's ying and yang, not right and wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to watch!
I agree and part of the problem I see is that some people on both sides feel some kind of need to judge the other side as absolutely wrong and against all the ideals thy they themselves hold dear. We see it on OT all the time.
Ying and Yang, two parts of a whole, both necessary to each other. These are all very inclusive ideas, a drastic departure from the years of "If Congress won't act, I will," "Elections have consequences. I won," "I have a pen and phone," to the classic, “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
It's certainly a seismic shift from the last 8 years. Trump may bring a renaissance of diversity and cooperation this nation has not seen in a long, long time.
In regards to interacting with eachother. Listen. That's basically the best point I think he had in the vid. Drop the preconceived notions and listen. IMO this isn't the environment for that to happen. One on one it could be. When there is an audience of people waiting to join in or comment it wont work. Forums, Facebook, etc. they wont successfully argue something like politics or religion. They can, if the reader / participant takes all of that into consideration, treats everyone as an individual, and doesn't fall into the traps themselves.
Thanks for sharing the vid.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-23-2016).]
In regards to interacting with eachother. Listen. That's basically the best point I think he had in the vid. Drop the preconceived notions and listen. IMO this isn't the environment for that to happen. One on one it could be. When there is an audience of people waiting to join in or comment it wont work. Forums, Facebook, etc. they wont successfully argue something like politics or religion. They can, if the reader / participant takes all of that into consideration, treats everyone as an individual, and doesn't fall into the traps themselves.
Thanks for sharing the vid.
The phrase I use in regards to that is always "Listen, don't wait to talk".
Currently both the left and the right refuse to listen, and just wait to spout out their argument. The left calls the right racists, and the right calls the left elitists.
We saw it in the debates this election. Trump interrupting Hillary, Hillary laughing at things that Trump said..all it did was solidify those who already had their minds made it up, it didn't persuade anyone.
My hope is that the RNC doesn't do what the DNC did for the past 8 years. Regardless of the fact that the DNC won(and I agree with many of their positions), they disconnected themselves from much of the population. I also don't want the DNC to do what the RNC did for the past 8 years. The RNC lost, and refused to work with the DNC at all on almost any issues in the government.
Both parties caused the stagnation, and I fear that is going to happen again over the next 8 years. The RNC is going to take the moral high ground, get disconnected(like the DNC just did), and the DNC is going to act like children and refuse to work with them(like the RNC just did). It is easy to see why so many people f'ing hate politics, and the whole electoral college doesn't help. Hopefully the economy not getting any better will wake up Americans that Democrats or Republicans don't necessarily know the right way to fix it, but working together will get us progress towards a real solution.
There is no such thing as a moral high ground. It is either moral or immoral. What many refer to as high ground is just their expressed opinion of ideal outcomes. A real moral poisition would rarely produces happy responses on either side of the political isle.
If you have to explain how your position IS the moral high ground, it's probably not.
There will be no significant change for a couple of generations yet, I fear.
The RNC will not stray far from the Christian Right, even though the country as a whole has become mostly secular. I won't go off on a religious tangent, but barring the Second Coming, I think their core in that demographic is dying out. Literally. And I consider myself a Christian, but on some issues I simply can't get on board the Party Bus. Some of their ideas are not wrong. Some are. But they won't admit that any Democrat idea or ideal is a good one. They will fight any change tooth and claw. The Constitution is a great document and it deserves to be protected. It is also a living document and there are provisions to amend it.
The DNC - in my opinion - fuels itself on dependency, creating voters by enticing them with "help", "inclusion", and "safe spaces", and though I will admit that their overall goals and dreams for this country are admirable, they are blind to the fact that they can't legislate how people feel. Passing more laws and creating another agency is a good show, but all it does is create more jobs for more political hacks. Make more rules and people will break them - it's human nature. Much of their social platform is laudable and arguably more Christian than some of the radical Right - not that many would admit it.
Both parties are guilty of stacking the Supreme Court in their favor since it became obvious that they can now make law instead of only interpreting existing laws. Both parties ignore checks and balances and use Executive Orders to bypass Congress and pass their own legislation. Both parties have more interest in their agenda than they do in the people they supposedly represent. Politicians exist to be re-elected. It should not be a career choice.
Both parties caused the stagnation, and I fear that is going to happen again over the next 8 years.
The thing is, look at his comparison to ying and yang... stagnation, gridlock, these things are to be expected and not inherently bad. While they are in office doing the gridlock dance, all of us could be talking and listening to eachother.
It is either moral or immoral. What many refer to as high ground is just their expressed opinion of ideal outcomes. A real moral poisition would rarely produces happy responses on either side of the political isle.
.
I agree.
I found it interesting he started to get into "religions" in this video while trying not to, and his seeming point about it was to say it was a good tool, but at the same time implied that ultimate relativism was the answer. Kind of empty. Which is to say essentially "there is none". Well sure, if you removed everyones foundational beliefs in anything or nothing there would indeed be less disagreement, but we are not robots, you cant switch us off. (Well maybe if we were all high)...lol
To be fair, hypocrisy abounds throughout our political spectrum. Neither side is blameless.
However, leaving aside the tit for tat examples and accusations, I can't recall any violent rioting by the right in '08 or '12. Tea Party demonstrations, yes, but they were almost exclusively about the ACA. Burning flags, cars and other destructive actions are solely leftist behavior.
The question is, why?
Maybe we could get a reasoned response from one of the forum's liberal contingent.
I found it interesting he started to get into "religions" in this video while trying not to, and his seeming point about it was to say it was a good tool, but at the same time implied that ultimate relativism was the answer. Kind of empty. Which is to say essentially "there is none". Well sure, if you removed everyones foundational beliefs in anything or nothing there would indeed be less disagreement, but we are not robots, you cant switch us off. (Well maybe if we were all high)...lol
Everything gets soo deep
Your observation is very good. Jonathan Haidt is indeed a liberal *moral relativist*. His Ph.D. dissertation is a clear testament to that belief.
MORAL JUDGMENT, AFFECT, AND CULTURE, OR, IS IT WRONG TO EAT YOUR DOG? Jonathan D. Haidt
Moral relativists like Haidt, and other liberals, are most comfortable when religion or faith is taken out of the morality question and morality is placed into a very simple and coarse "situational" and / or "cultural" context.
By making morality a relativistic "moving target" the modern liberal is then free to pick and choose what is "moral" and what is not at the moment, completely unfettered by any fixed principles or beliefs.
Accordingly, you get statements such as: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" from a liberal.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-23-2016).]
Accordingly, you get statements such as: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" from a liberal.
To be fair, King Charles considered our Founding Fathers to be traitors and would probably be called terrorists in today's vernacular. Perspective can change what you call something but it doesn't change what it is. By definition the American Revolution was fought by rebels and traitors to the Crown. That was the point.
A Catholic priest and Protestant Minister were arguing about who has the moral high ground while a sinner by faith accepts Christ and His salvation. Someone ask the sinner how he came to his decision. I am a comon man just trying to do the right thing and those 2 can not agree what the right thing is, God Help us.
A Catholic priest and Protestant Minister were arguing about who has the moral high ground while a sinner by faith accepts Christ and His salvation. Someone ask the sinner how he came to his decision. I am a comon man just trying to do the right thing and those 2 can not agree what the right thing is, God Help us.
Well put. You might note that I have said "religion or faith". That separation of terms was purposeful.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 11-23-2016).]
