NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the most fundamental difference between social Liberals and Conservatives is what role mores should play in our society. I think, so long as only consenting indivuals are effect, morals should never be required or expected in society. I belive this particularly becuase I believe the morals that would be declared would have nothing to do with reasonable goals for society.

Does anyone want to debate me?

I don't want to insult anyone, but I have found on this site that "Conservatives" in social arguments are really just parodies. I can usually judge them by the quality of thier language* or how reasonable their responses are, and I may decline to debate such people.

*I confess mine is less perfect, but I talking aolese.

One of the most fundamental difference between social Liberals and Conservatives is what role mores should play in our society. I think, so long as only consenting indivuals are effect, morals should never be required or expected in society. I belive this particularly becuase I believe the morals that would be declared would have nothing to do with reasonable goals for society.

Does anyone want to debate me?

I don't want to insult anyone, but I have found on this site that "Conservatives" in social arguments are really just parodies. I can usually judge them by the quality of thier language* or how reasonable their responses are, and I may decline to debate such people.

*I confess mine is less perfect, but I talking aolese.

Morality varies. Always has, always will. What ought to remain constant is the idea that everyone is entitled to personal liberty as long as it does not voilate the personal liberty of another. It's a relatively new idea too, but worth holding onto. The rest can go to hell.

Morality varies. Always has, always will. What ought to remain constant is the idea that everyone is entitled to personal liberty as long as it does not voilate the personal liberty of another. It's a relatively new idea too, but worth holding onto. The rest can go to hell.

Just as less people support warfare during peacetime, when I bring up a specific argument, some people will change their position, possibly without even realizing it.

For example, take gay marriage. Most Americans believe that gays should not get married because they believe marriage has a morally sacred nature about it and changing the definition will make our nation morally depraved.

Gays that are comfortable with themselves usually have a moral code that defines their love as just as legitimate as any other, and therefore should be represented by a legal union-- marriage.

Morality varies. Always has, always will. What ought to remain constant is the idea that everyone is entitled to personal liberty as long as it does not voilate the personal liberty of another. It's a relatively new idea too, but worth holding onto. The rest can go to hell.

That "idea" of yours is also a moral, did you realize that? Probably not. As you said, morality varies. Using your own argument here for a moment, what makes your moral that "everyone is entitled to personal liberty as long as it does not violate (corrected your spelling) the personal liberty of another" any more valid than an opposing one?

Simply because people's morals vary doesn't mean that they should never be enforced. Most of us don't even think of it this way, but if you look at it objectively you will realize it's true. Simple things we take to be basic "truths", for example, killing another person because of a personal vendetta is wrong, THAT is a moral. There have been many nations in history where that was not frowned upon at all, actually there are still people in the world today who believe that (personally I think it depends exactly how grave the offense they did to you was...)

The legal system is already an attempt to define morals and is linked to enforcement agencies. Morality, which as noted above is never universal, is more flexible than law and so there will always be some discrepency between the two.

Not all conservatives think we should legislate morality as law. Libertarians are conservatives and have a live and let live attitude about morality. I agree with them. If you don't like the way someone lives, then tough. You don't have to lie just cause someone else does, for example.

One of the most fundamental difference between social Liberals and Conservatives is what role mores should play in our society. I think, so long as only consenting indivuals are effect, morals should never be required or expected in society.
i totally agree. the only "morals" that should be enforced are the ones that ammount to "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." people should not be allowed to interfere with the lives and safety of other people, but beyond that morality is not anything the government needs to worry about.

besides, if you're going to go about enforcing morality then you have to pick which morality to go with, and i highly doubt anybody is prepared to accept MY moral system once i take over the world...

morality, or anything for that matter, should only be legislated when it shows harm to the safety and well being of society as a whole. Coupled with the state has no buisness in the personal affairs of individuals and consenting adults.

Not all conservatives think we should legislate morality as law. Libertarians are conservatives and have a live and let live attitude about morality. I agree with them. If you don't like the way someone lives, then tough. You don't have to lie just cause someone else does, for example.

Firstly, Libertarianism has nothing to do with Conservativism. One of my freinds, a Libertarian, believe that Liberalism in the 1700's would have more closely resembled today's Libertarianism, and thus the similarity of the name.

Sencondly, I specifically said "Social Conservatives and Liberals". Since few people object to breaking down single issues, like this one, into a unidimentional spectrum, it is permissible.

Not all conservatives think we should legislate morality as law. Libertarians are conservatives and have a live and let live attitude about morality. I agree with them. If you don't like the way someone lives, then tough. You don't have to lie just cause someone else does, for example.

Well, you're half right. Libertarians are fiscally conservative, but social liberals (i.e. legalization of weed, prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, etc, etc.) So I wouldn't catagorize them fully as conservatives. I'm a libertarian, but I lean left of center, and I'd sort of like to distance myself from the label "conservative" ;-)

Well, you're half right. Libertarians are fiscally conservative, but social liberals (i.e. legalization of weed, prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, etc, etc.) So I wouldn't catagorize them fully as conservatives. I'm a libertarian, but I lean left of center, and I'd sort of like to distance myself from the label "conservative" ;-)
yeah, i'm "libertarian" but am most certainly not conservative, since i disagree with conservatives as much as i do with liberals. i also disagree with the Libertarian party in America, though, so i don't really know what to call myself...

yeah, i'm "libertarian" but am most certainly not conservative, since i disagree with conservatives as much as i do with liberals. i also disagree with the Libertarian party in America, though, so i don't really know what to call myself...


I hear that. The Libertarian Party is a bit too radical in their idealogy, so to speak. My own views are a bit more moderate and varying. I think the general term libertarian still works. Afterall, not all liberals are Democracts, and not all conservatives are Republicans, etc.

As for the original topic subject; I think the idea of enforcing a particular brand of morality (i.e. Christianity, for example) is contrary to the ideals of Liberty. I mean, how could we consider ourselves a "free country" if we're forced to adhere to a particular set of beliefs (that we ourselves might not even share as our own)?

I hear that. The Libertarian Party is a bit too radical in their idealogy, so to speak. My own views are a bit more moderate and varying. I think the general term libertarian still works. Afterall, not all liberals are Democracts, and not all conservatives are Republicans, etc.
yeah, i am a lower-case libertarian, not a Libertarian...that's a weird distinction, but it's the best i can do :P.

It's strange, in Australia the 'Liberal party' isn't liberal at all, it's conservative.

We have big L Liberals and small L liberals. The party is Big L.

And the Labor party has everything from hard-left socialists, left of centre socialists, centrists, liberals, Liberals (like you'd notice) and even some hard-right conservatives. All the party's decisions are based on that of the factions (left-wing, centre left, centre, centre-right, right-wing). Which makes me laugh sometimes.

But moralists, unfortunately, shit me off something chronic, it's the classic tale, ultimately, of 'do as i say, not as i do'

One thing that will clear up a lot of sociopolitical confusion is if we ditch the dumb liberal-conservative axis. Instead, a two-dimensional system, like the Political Compass test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) uses is much better.

Basically, there's a social scale and an economic scale. People who are "liberal" socially would not support government regulation of morality (the test calls it "libertarian"), whereas social "conservatives" ("authoritarian") would. Economically, liberals support government regulation ("left") while conservatives support a free-market system ("right").

So, you people who have been calling yourselves "libertarians" would basically describe yourselves as liberal socially but economically. If you're still wondering, I highly recommend taking the test.

My results:
Economic: -4.38 (that is, 4.38 to the left)
Social: -7.69 (that is, 7.69 to libertarian)

Frankly, I don't care...

Virtue is the exception, not the Rule.

If the average man is natural, boundless, and amoral, then it just makes those of use who choose Virtue and morality stand out more... of course, you guys hate us for that stuff anyway, but like we care :)

Frankly, I don't care...

Virtue is the exception, not the Rule.

If the average man is natural, boundless, and amoral, then it just makes those of use who choose Virtue and morality stand out more... of course, you guys hate us for that stuff anyway, but like we care :)

It's called sanctimony.

It's called sanctimony.
Since when is Virtue a bad thing?

Since when is Virtue a bad thing?

when someone who has none, can use it as an insult against one who does.

Since when is Virtue a bad thing?

Never said it was, it's usually just something people tend to assault others with and let it be said such rulesets of morailty as religions haven't a very good track record with differentiating customary law from ethical behavior.

when someone who has none, can use it as an insult against one who does.
The guy mentioned Sanctimony, which is the technical term for "Holier than thou," which is anything but virtuous.
Again, I ask... how is Virtue a bad thing?

One of the most fundamental difference between social Liberals and Conservatives is what role mores should play in our society. I think, so long as only consenting indivuals are effect, morals should never be required or expected in society. I belive this particularly becuase I believe the morals that would be declared would have nothing to do with reasonable goals for society.


Question: Would you find murder ("unlawful" killing of other persons) an acceptable means of dealing with interpersonal disputes?

One thing that will clear up a lot of sociopolitical confusion is if we ditch the dumb liberal-conservative axis. Instead, a two-dimensional system, like the Political Compass test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) uses is much better.

Basically, there's a social scale and an economic scale. People who are "liberal" socially would not support government regulation of morality (the test calls it "libertarian"), whereas social "conservatives" ("authoritarian") would. Economically, liberals support government regulation ("left") while conservatives support a free-market system ("right").

So, you people who have been calling yourselves "libertarians" would basically describe yourselves as liberal socially but economically. If you're still wondering, I highly recommend taking the test.

My results:
Economic: -4.38 (that is, 4.38 to the left)
Social: -7.69 (that is, 7.69 to libertarian)

Good test, personally my own results are:

Economic Left/Right: 6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.85

My results seem to change a bit everytime I take this test though..

Last time I took it I got 7/6.3

Anyways back on topic, there is no point trying to explain morals to someone who has none. These people are simply depraved of something that is right and honorable. It would be like explaining color to someone who is blind.

Generally, I agree with the original poster; as long as what happens is between two consenting adults, the government shouldn't bother with it. However, the definition of the word "consent" is arguable. There are cases when a person has to choose between a couple of bad options ("I shoot you in the head or I shoot you in the heart"). Take prostitution, for instance. Although the prostitute may "consent" she is most likely forced to prostitution by her social position, she may lack the education to find another job that pays enough for food and a place to stay, and thus she has to sell her body or starve. I would hardly call that consent, thus I think the goverment should illegalise prostitution, even though it technically happens between "two consenting adults".

(and prostitution was merely an example, I don't want to hijack this thread for that)

By the way, I scored
Economic Left/Right: -9.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79
on the political compass test.

Morality varies. Always has, always will. What ought to remain constant is the idea that everyone is entitled to personal liberty as long as it does not voilate the personal liberty of another. It's a relatively new idea too, but worth holding onto. The rest can go to hell.
Thats not a new Idea, it is the right idea though.
Conservative here.

interesting test, thanks; landed bang on top of ghandi, and totally the opposite of thatcher, which can't be a bad thing...