a little politics a little philosophy

Fred wrote - This is very funny but also very sad and I think it sums up the very difference in principled feelings that many have on this forum. No one can doubt that they have feelings and that they feel their feelings are important and no doubt they are but it does accurately point out how ridiculous it is to base one's moral convictions and political beliefs on such "feelings." Read on. The link is provided.

Quote:
With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by G-d, the Bible and religion, great numbers — in Western Europe, the great majority — have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are … feelings. With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, personal feelings have supplanted universal standards. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war — from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe.

The entire edifice of moral relativism, a foundation of leftist ideology, is built on the notion of feelings deciding right and wrong. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.



bob wrote - I suppose it would have been more accurate if the bumper sticker had said "War is not the answer except it certain situations" but somehow I think that sort of qualification might have detracted from the sticker's rhetorical impact. In any event, "feeling" is the an essential element of our moral sense and should to a certain extent guide our actions. It is entirely possible to be both moral and an atheist. In fact these days it appears to be almost a requirement.

Maoman wrote - bob wrote: It is entirely possible to be both moral and an atheist.

It's also possible to be liberal and a Christian. I'm tired of people assuming that Christians are necessarily politically conservative. Christians are liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. And you certainly don't need to be religious to be moral, or conservative.
_________________

bob wrote - I am not entirely certain how to interpret your post Maoman but please note that I made no assumption about the political leanings of Christians. I've known lots of Christians and in my experience they can be politically and socially either conservative or liberal. I think it has to be admitted though that western religions tend to breed rather a lot of intolerance. I think it stems from the fact that their adherants believe that they have recieved the very word of God. This leads to absolutist attitudes in areas of life where perhaps a greater degree of flexibility would be preferable. That is what I meant when I said that aetheism appears to be almost a requirement for ethical conduct.


Juba wrote - I think Fred knows that the slogan "War is not the A.N.S.W.E.R." was raised by the A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition and refers specifically to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq as not being the solution to international terrorism. I believe the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition encompasses both pacifists and non-pacifists, i.e. those who distinguish between just and unjust wars, opposing only the latter.
_________________

fred wrote - So while Saddam was killing 3 million, peace was the answer? While Milosevic and his Greater Serbia activists rampaged through the Balkans, Peace was the Answer? So while Hitler conquered Europe and killed tens of millions, Peace was the Answer, so when the North defeated the South in the American Civil War and ended slavery, Peace was the answer? So when the US overthrew the Taliban and ended the misery there that allowed 4 million refugees to return, Peace was the Answer? Help me out here I am confused.

bob - Fred do you actually believe that the war in Iraq will help to reduce the threat of terrorism? No, of course not. Not even you are quite that fanatical in your support of grinning mimby. So, considering what you learned from Juba's post, what is it that you have against the "War is not the Answer" bumper sticker? That it doesn't offer up a full and comprehensive analysis of the situation complete with historical perspective and commentary from those on both sides of the political spectrum? It is a bumper sticker for pete's sake. Extrapolating from it to make a judgement about the left in general is just, well, stupid.