Comments on: Moral relativism is in the eye of beholder

By: Federal Housing Administration Act

Federal Housing Administration Act — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:48:13 +0000

Federal Housing Administration Act…

I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet….

By: Pedant

Pedant — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:57:52 +0000

Bush displays extraordinarily malleable morals, to say the very least (”malleable” is being extremely generous), and yet still many self-identified conservatives absolutely lap it up. They absolutely love to call it “leadership,” in fact.

Mark my words, the GOP will pay dearly for it. As in, through the nose.

This is, and always has been, THE elephant in the Oval Office held by one Augustus Stupidus. The elephant in the room, so to speak.

Namely: he’s led the GOP straight into the land of moral relativism….and they don’t know it.

Yet.

By: beber

beber — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:43:03 +0000

Morals are culturally derived. They are not beamed down to earth from the Central Decider. Remember when homosexuality was wrong, and it was chic to smoke in bars and restuarants?

Everything is relative. Nothing means anything out of context.

By: Jed

Jed — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:39:00 +0000

Nathan,
You’re defining torture by the “Torquemada” standard, that ends in burning the victim at the stake. How christian of you.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:38:25 +0000

Phillip,

Please show me where Bush defened “torture?”

You can’t.

Do you know exactly what the CIA did? Exactly what was authorized?

Yet you proclaim that Bush defends torture?

This is the exact type of crap journalism that I have come to expect from the likes of you.

By: Jed

Jed — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:32:06 +0000

Bush of course thinks moral relativism means treating your family well.

By: Rage

Rage — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:29:41 +0000

The term “moral relativism” is typically used by the foaming right to criticize situational ethics , i.e. the notion that determining the morality of a situation depends upon the details. This is something everyone does–because it’s the only sane approach–but is typically absent from a crusade.

In this type of static mindset, of course torturing prisoners is fine, because they’re bad people and we should do anything to protect America from attack.

The static mind cannot process simple notions that (1) they’re not always “bad people” or even the right people, and, (2) doing “anything” means sometimes doing the wrong thing.

So it comes to down to indulging the worst prejudices to quiet the cognitive dissonance: evil Arab Muslim jihadist terrorists, all of them! Peace through superior firepower! Kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out! Concern about immoral conduct by our side becomes “supporting terrorists.”

It’s easier than thinking.

By: writerdog

writerdog — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:41:46 +0000

Yes.

By: lindainks55

lindainks55 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:32:36 +0000

Dog - makes his mind not just closed but slammed shut!

By: writerdog

writerdog — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:24:23 +0000

OK, I thought of something to say! Bush does have absolute morals and from those he has his own absolute truths. But because his absolute morals are far and away from the standard absolute morals taught by the likes of the Pope. It allows him to justify in his own mind what he see as the absolute truths. He is as assured in his mind that he is right that the facts and realities do not matter to him. For they are outside of the absolute morals and truths he believes.

By: writerdog

writerdog — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:02:57 +0000

I set here trying to think of something to say about Bush talking about absolute truth and Moral absolutes.
I finally conclude that either you have it or will never get the problem with this.

By: Political_mama

Political_mama — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:39:55 +0000

cons: pot, meet kettle.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:08:14 +0000

What was it bush said about helping people down on their luck or otherwise oppressed?

Something about “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.

I speak con. Let me translate. “If folks are hurting, it is their fault and if we help them we are only enabling them to do their worst”.

bush IS incompetent. But some of his speech writers should get an award for turning down into up.

By: CF2K

CF2K — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:01:18 +0000

Who is a bigger relativist than the Decider? It’s amazing to hear him use the word “dictatorship” without irony.

RFL,

And no one can argue with “cohesive logic” that we should protect the Constitution by destroying the safeguards built into it.

Relativist WingnutSpeak: “Cohesive logic” = “whatever supports my position and discredits yours.” Or, put otherwise, “heads I win, tails you lose.”

The suspects we’ve tortured provided us with no information of the sort. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it has. And THEN you will need to convince me that any such information is more valuable than the Constitutional protections you’ve trashed in the process of acquiring it.

By: RFL

RFL — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:50:26 +0000

“Most notably, he defends the use of interrogation tactics that violate human dignity by arguing that the ends justify the means.”

Political attack points are in the eye of the beholder.

No one can argue with any cohesive logic that interrogation techniques used to prevent future murderous suicide attacks are morally wrong.

Those who have an irrational political vendetta will do so to accomplish their own desired end.