I suppose this post would also be suitable in the Politics forum, but I figured it would engage more people here. I was on Myspace today going through the pages of this Democratic group I'm a part of. This guy reponds to one of my replys with this: "morals, traditions, and values are four letter words to liberals" Now I know this is an idiotic response, but this guy is an ultraconservative jock who doesn't accept disagreement. I was raised with fairly traditional morals, save the concept of questioning authority which was taught to me in religious school. If someone is liberal in significant ways, does that neccesesarily mean that you've given up many moral precepts? I mean I have ideas about morality that many would find uncommon. To sum them up, I believe that morals should be upheld, but not always enforced. If you hand somebodya map, and they tell you that they can find the destination quicker, there really isn't much you can do to presuade them the other way. Encouraging morality, giving people examples of morality, creating standards of morality are all fine, but should people really be castigated for having different moral standards? In the end, thoughts are different than actions. Conservatives claim that they are more moraly sound, but often times I've seen conservatives who are in essence burnt out because moral enforcement has turned into suppresion of instinct. The Catholic Church abuse scandal is a very severe example of the sometimes destructive nature of morals. I'm not an anarchist or anti-government millitant, and I certainly feel that morals promote the general welfare of a society, but is there not a fine line between being wholsome and being harmful?
Wait. Wait. We've assumed one thing here: That morals are good, naturally evolved aspects of human nature. They aren't. Merely conditions a society imprints upon the individual. I am not saying they are bad, but see them as they are: cultural indoctrination, leading an individual to follow a 'code' of inner authority. We are not pure, we are not all good hearted. Selfishness is as much a part of human nature as love. Having a moral code is merely sweeping the dirt under an eloquent carpet. To be 'good', one must have something more than morals. Is it possible for human nature to evolve?
Good and Evil are nothing more than ideas. The truth is that both are just different standpoints: if I were to think in terms of good and evil then I would probably think I am good person on the right path, and that those who follow a different or opposite path are evil. Conservatives have one set of morals. Liberals have another. While it is quite possible that one is right and the other wrong, neither can claim that the other is evil or has no morals. In my case I consider myself liberal, and hold views that many conservatives would find immoral. I am in favour of gay marriage for example. I am also in favour of legal abortion (not because I like the idea, but more because I don't see how criminalising it is going to stop it happening, plus by driving it underground peoples' safety is compromised). The same reasoning applies to my stance on drugs. To many conservatives these three ideas are completely immoral, yet I consider them more moral than the alternative. Of course you are in the States, where from what I can gather, liberal is itself a four-letter word in many respects. In a more liberal society (or at least one more tolerant of liberals) you may find that the same argument (that liberals have no concept of morality) levelled at conservatives. Best way to deal with it? Don't sink to their level by assuming that they have no morals. Just smile and provide an argument instead of resorting to cheap attacks (N.B. I'm not accusing you!).
