Where do you stand on other controversial issues?

The Constitution says nothing about banning endorsement: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Having a small statement that reflected the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans on the currency or in the pledge at one point is hardly endorsement anyway. "In God we trust" has been on the coins since the 19th century. Putting it on paper currency and in the pledge during the '50s was designed to instill nationalism during the Cold War by emphasizing the Judeo-Christian tradition that the Soviets banned. (And yes, there's a lot more to the story than that of course.) Do I agree with those things now? Not necessarily, but it's been around for long enough that it's a relic. Purging the government of all historic religious symbolism seems like a step towards revisionism that's rather needless in my opinion.

Just a curiosity, but do people get wound up about "God Save the Queen" in the UK and Commonwealth nations?

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I don't think the morality is subjective, I think the semantics and definitions surrounding life get very subjective.

 

You're right i did do that, but i think i can draw another logical line anyway.

The definition of life is the fundamental linchpin upon which the morality of the issue is decided, isn't it? If the definition of life is subjective, how could the morality be anything but subjective?

With regard to the 'in god we trust' issue: just over 50 years is hardly a relic, that amounts to about what... just over a 20% of the age of the country itself. Mccarthyism shouldn't be forgotten (lest it be repeated), but it shouldn't still be encouraged either.

Another concept i struggle with stems from the fact that it was also placed into the pledge of allegiance in 1954. If i understand correctly, children are required to learn it and recite it every morning at school. I want to teach my kids to trust their country (to a point), and if their country is telling them every day that they and their country are both 'under god', i think i have the right to object to that. You may see it as needless, but i wouldn't want my children to be subtly indoctrinated like that.

---------- Post added 18th Jul 2012 at 11:03 AM ----------

Good question. That is not the anthem here, but it was until 1984.

Now that IS a relic, nigh on 400 years old. I have less issues with that one for several reasons, not least of which is that it doesn't imply subservience like 'under god' does.

 

Yay semantics! *roll eyes* The definition of life is subjective, but that doesn't mean I don't feel conviction about it and wish others would agree with me. I realize I have an unusual stance for my age group (and it has a backstory that I really don't feel like explaining).

I'm not opposing your right to oppose it. I just think some people are being way too sensitive about it. Kids aren't required to learn or recite it. They have the opportunity to sit it out, which is more and more of a popular choice these days. I went to a very diverse high school growing up, and I've had these discussions before with classmates of all kinds of religious backgrounds. Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist, they all either politely sat the pledge out or simply omitted the "under God" phrase. Their indication to me was that they understood where it came from and respected it enough to not get offended by it. The agnostics didn't care either way.

Anyone who feels the need to b***h at me, please do so through PM.

 

But you also said "I don't think the morality is subjective". Can you see the contradiction therein? As in, i have no problem with someone feeling conviction about a subject and wishing others would agree with them, but not stopping there and going on to claim that the morality isn't subjective i think is going too far.

And on the sitting out option: Oh, that's good then! That allays that concern, but i still don't feel that the subtle implication should be in there in the first place, considering it's coming from government. I think that's about as far as we can go on that one

 

Abortion? This is a woman's choice to make not the government
Death Penalty? ALL FOR IT (as long as there is foolproof evidence)
No fault divorce? Fine tith that
Stem Cell Research? Go for it! The more research into curing diseases/conditions the better.
Pornography? Nothing wrong with it an long as children are NOT involved
Affirmative Action? Eliminate it
Medical Marijuana? If done, the THC should be extracted & put in pill form .. then sold/regulated as any other medical drug is (and require a real prescription)
Marijuana legalization? For true medical purposes..ok
Gun Control? Background checks/etc are great (as would requiring a gun safety class/test) before buying. But if it comes down to keeping guns from normal law-abiding people, then I'm against it
Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)? Honestly doesn't bother me
Obamacare? Should be gotten rid of ASAP... people should NOT be forced to pay for a service provided by some large corporate entity... not mention something they cannot afford. For this reason alone Romney is be the better choice even with his other bad things....
Personally I can't vote for Romney because of his other issues
I wouldn't vote for Obama if someone was holding a gun to my head (and felt the same before it won the previous election too
If any change is done from the current healthcare 'system' it should be more along the lines of what Canada has...

 

Abortion? Pro-Choice. I don't believe the government has any authority over the bodies of its citizens, nor should the government be involved in making moral decisions on behalf of the citizenry.

Death Penalty? Opposed. I do not believe the state has the right to execute its citizens, especially with an imperfect justice system.

No fault divorce? In favor. The government should have no say in how people dissolve their contracts; I'm also in favor of more flexibility in individual citizens creating their own marriage contracts through things like pre-nuptial agreements.

Stem Cell Research? In favor. The government should have no say over the type of scientific research conducted, unless it can prove that such research is a significant risk to the health and wellbeing of the citizenry.

Pornography? In favor. The government has no right to legislate morality.

Affirmative Action? Necessary. In an ideal world Affirmative Action would not exist, but given the history of the country it is a necessary measure to promote equal opportunity among all citizens. Ideally, at some distant point in the future measures like this can be repealed as they'll no longer be needed.

Medical Marijuana? / Marijuana legalization? In favor. I support full legalization of marijuana and other drugs. Like abortion, the government has no right to control the substances citizens put into their bodies, nor legislate moral issues.

Gun Control? Moderately opposed. I believe in the rights of all citizens to purchase arms, but there are limitations and common sense regulations which can provide better security to all citizens that does not strip individuals of their rights. In an ideal world, the government would have virtually no say over the purchase of arms; unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.

Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)? Opposed. I believe in a strong separation between church and state. I believe staunchly in secular government, divorced from religious views and religious moral litmus tests. I believe both the church and the state benefit from this arrangement; as the church is ultimately corrupted by the politics of the state, and the state is corrupted by the religious views of the church.

Obamacare? I'm opposed to the mandates, as I don't believe the government has the right to assert that individual citizens must purchase health care from private insurance companies. However, I am not opposed to the government offering solutions to obtain universal coverage and target specific problems in the health care system.

 

but isn't that the whole concept of criminal legislation? Murder is legislated against on moral grounds, for example

 

I spoke to a jurist who believes it's possible to construct laws that are not based on morality, but I never found her claim convincing. Mainly because she was proposing that laws should be based on harm reduction which is essentially what my morality boils down to.

 

[/COLOR]

Okay, I was basing my statements on the basically universial moral that killing is wrong, and abortion can be considered killing, based on how you view life.

 

My views are slightly more complicated and don't really fall along the right / left or liberal / conservative paradigm.

However, the answer to your first question is yes, that is the traditional view by liberals and conservatives when it comes to criminal legislation. I am largely opposed to most victimless crimes, and therefore would throw them off the books.

When it comes to murder it is not illegal because murder is morally wrong, it is illegal because we're attempting to defend the right of would-be victims to live. Their liberty and freedom to live would be under assault by someone else, and therefore it is necessary to intervene to stop them.

Even when it comes to crimes with victims and the perception of "justice" my focus isn't on creating a "justice" that is more about "retribution / punishment" as our current system is; or even deterrence. I believe victim based crimes need to be handled according to the crime committed; the motivations involved, and the safety of society with a strong focus on rehabilitation and reentry into society. Those who prove to have some serious mental issues and therefore can never be released back into society (such as Serial Killers), must therefore be taken care of by the state and kept in isolation away from society.

My views have nothing to do with fairness or moral reasonings. It is based upon a philosophical view of government and society. The ideal government favors, promotes, and defends liberty and freedom. However, in my view individual liberty and freedom is frequently set in opposition to order, stability, and the desires of the majority. The job of a government then is to find an equilibrium between these forces, with the ultimate goal of favoring more liberty and freedom over time - the balance should constantly be shifting in that direction.

That's pretty much my philosophical view in a nutshell.

 

Abortion?
I am for a person's right to choose. I don't think I could ever have an abortion, but I think it is absolutely necessary to let the option be available to everyone.

Death Penalty?
I think it should be reserved for cases where the criminal is a repeat offender, or has done horrible things and it is a FACT that they did it. I think it should be used with extreme caution and care, but I am not against it per se.

No fault divorce?
People should have the right to split up.

Stem Cell Research?
I am all for it, especially since it can be done so many ways now.

Pornography?
I am all for it! As long as everyone consents to it, and there is care taken to make sure everyone is safe, it's fine.

Affirmative Action?
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Medical Marijuana?
I am completely for it!

Marijuana legalization?
Taking money out of the hands of drug cartels and putting it into the economy would be lovely. All for it!

Gun Control?
I think better background checks need to be run, but I am fine with people having guns.

Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)?
It wasn't there to begin with, and it shouldn't be there now!

Obamacare?
I think that it would work, with tweaks. The general idea is a nice one, but I am curious as to how it'll turn out.

 

isn't that a moral issue as well? What motive do you have to stop that happening besides the moral implications of not doing so?

I find it hard to imagine truly escaping morality when it comes to legal legislation.

 

Not if you define morality as benevolence (good) and malevolence (evil).

I value the pursuit of liberty and freedom, not because it is inherently right or wrong, but because a society in which people are free to live their lives as they see fit is more desirable than the alternative. The alternative, of course, being a society in which people are oppressed and cannot live their lives as they see fit. I'd also argue, that a society that values liberty and freedom is more stable and secure than a society that does not.

When you exercise morality in law it is done to punish people who are viewed as less than moral. It creates an inherent dichotomy between those who are judged to be moral (upholders / creators of the law) and the immoral (breakers of the law). Therefore one wields the force of the state to punish the other. We could discuss the philosophy of morality, but I'm going to largely side step that for the moment.

What is important to understand, is that those in power are the ones who wield the force of morality. In a dictatorship it's the dictator; he or she gets to say what is moral and what is not. In a democratic society (a society in which I would judge to be more favorable to liberty and freedom), the government is in theory an extension of the collective will of the people. And by that I mean the collective will of the majority.

This means under democratic governance those who do the oppression are the majority set against the minority. To give an example; the majority of people in society identify as heterosexual, and many of them view themselves as morally superior to those who are homosexual. They use their numbers and views of their moral superiority to create laws that oppress homosexuals (DOMA, DADT, Sodomy Laws, Anti-Gay Adoption Laws, etc.).

I oppose that, not simply because I'm gay, but because they cannot prove how allowing gays to marry, enter the military, have sex, and adopt children creates noticeable instability in society. Therefore, liberty and freedom should be favored over the wishes and desires of the majority of people.

To take an issue that is more touchy and less likely to be supported on a forum populated by those of us who are LGBT let's take prostitution as an example.

My personal view of prostitution is that it degrades an individual by turning them into an object, a commodity to be bought and sold. I find it sad that someone would put themselves in that position. Someone who is a liberal might agree with that point of view, and in an effort to "protect" the prostitute from himself / herself create laws to make prostitution illegal. Someone who is a conservative might view a prostitute as a moral degenerate who deserves to be punished for her immorality and removed from the streets, and therefore creates a law to make prostitution illegal.

Despite my personal view of prostitution, I don't feel it holds any place in government. What I may personally believe has absolutely no relevance to someone else. The government shouldn't exist to protect people from making poor choices, and if there is to be any punishment at all it is to be a result of the consequences of their own actions. This negates both the standard liberal and conservative arguments for making prostitution illegal.

So, what do I do in regard to prostitution? Well, first I ask the question whether or not the legalization of prostitution destabilizes society. Since the answer to that question is no, I then look at the various issues that would stem from its legalization that might be of public concern. There are issues that involve prostitution and concerns over public health and safety. Legalization of prostitution would make it easier to address those issues, as it brings a black market commodity out of the dark and into the light of the law.

So, for the safety and well being of the public I'd regulate prostitution the same way we'd regulate any other commodity bought and sold - such as eggs, milk, and meat - I'd do what is necessary to make it safe. That means mandating that safe sex must be used, regular STD testing on the prostitutes must be performed, etc. The goal of such regulations would be to reduce the spread of STD's throughout society.

Since there would be no moral judgments involved, the government wouldn't view prostitutes as moral degenerates that deserve whatever is coming to them. Work safety laws would be created just as for any other work environment, to ensure their safety and wellbeing. This reduces the chance of them being raped, abused, or taken advantage of in some fashion. The goal of such regulations would be aimed at protecting their right to freedom and liberty.

Ideally, some maneuvering could also be made within the new law to reduce or eliminate the sex slave trade. This would also promote liberty and freedom by freeing individuals who are enslaved, making such a business unprofitable (as those who seek out sex-for-pay can more easily determine who is legitimate and who is not), or easier to target by law enforcement.

In the end a debate over a new law or a change in law shouldn't be over whether it is good or evil, whether it is fair, or any of that. It's about whether or not it restricts or promotes freedom and liberty, and if it restricts freedom and liberty how can it then be justified. The only legitimate justification being that it creates some sort of instability in society. If such a new law or change in law would create an instability within society, then the debate centers around whether or not the risks of instability is worth the immediate gain of more freedom and liberty. Ideally, a compromise would be reached, with the goal of incrementally moving the society toward greater and greater liberty and freedom rather than immediate and destabilizing changes.

 

• Abortion- Depends. Support it if it is done for medical purposes or rape and incest. I don't like it when its just casually used as birth control.
• Death Penalty- Absolutely against it. There is always the chance that someone might be innocently convicted. So why risk murder?
• No fault divorce- Bleh. Its the 21st century.
• Stem Cell Research- Bleh. Its the 21st century.
• Pornography- Whatever tickles your fanny.
• Affirmative Action- Against it.
• Medical Marijuana- Pro.
• Marijuana legalization- Absolutely. Regulating the selling of drugs is a far more sensible option than people buying from shady dealers.
• Gun Control- Anti.
• Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)- Anti.
• Obamacare- I do support it even though its not applicable to me.

 

I agree with essentially all of that, but at some point i feel that if you applied some thorough reductionism to that system, between the cracks you would see slivers of subjective morality snuck in. I can't prove it, of course! but...

any system must have axioms
any axioms must have justifications

i reckon that some of the justifications for at least some of the axioms necessary for civilised life would have to involve some subjective morality.

 

Abortion?
Pro-choice. If a woman gets pregnant for whatever reason (I don't care what reason) but doesn't want the kid she should be able to get an abortion.
Death Penalty?
Against. I feel like there is no solid argument in favour of the death penalty. It's so medieval and in my opinion the death penalty is legalized murder.
No fault divorce?
I don't see the problem here. If it doesn't work... well then it doesn't work.
Stem Cell Research?
Pro.
Pornography?
Again, don't see the problem here. Pro.
Affirmative Action?
Pro, as long as it's not exaggerated.
Medical Marijuana?
Pro.
Marijuana legalization?
Marijuana is already kind of legal in the Netherlands and i wouldn't change it. If it's legal there are a lot less problems with it in terms of criminal stuff. Can't really explain it in English.
Gun Control?
I'm not too sure about the gun laws in the States but I'm definitely against any kind of gun possession. Unless you're a member of a shooting club or something, but then again I feel like guns should be left at the shooting range instead of people's houses.
Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)?
Wait, what? I think I don't really get this. I do think that religion and nation stuff should be separated.
Obamacare?
I'm not that up to date on Obamacare but universal healthcare is always a good thing.

And to add euthanasia... in favour of that too. But only if a person has made it very clear in his/her life that he/she wants to die if the suffering get's unbearable.

ALSO: add organ donation after death - I think all people should be organ donor by default, unless they clearly state they don't want to donate their organs.

 

That's why I sidestepped the whole debate over morality. Without taking things really off topic, my views on morality are both simple and complicated. Since I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God. I also don't embrace anything supernatural or a higher power. Without something greater than us imposing good and evil on the universe, these things don't exist - they're human constructs. This is why morality seems relative from individual to individual and culture to culture. It is entirely subjective because it doesn't really exist.

So, when you ask the question: "What type of society should we live in?" Someone who embraces morality might say, "I want to live in a moral and just society." To which I'd respond, "Morality is subjective and does not exist. So, again I ask what type of society should we live in?" So, accepting that premise you have to go back and really think about it. Ultimately, I think the most logical conclusion is, "I want to live in a society in which I am free to live my life with as minimal intrusion from outside forces as possible."

Freedom and oppression are not subjective terms. They can be measured. They can be identified by everyone. It has nothing to do with good or evil, right or wrong. A move toward greater freedom and liberty simply creates a more desirable society, and I would argue in the long term a more stable and safe society for everyone.

...and to be clear although it might appear that I embrace moral nihilism, that isn't the case. I simply reject moral absolutism and moral relativism, but I do not reject that certain actions are more valuable than others. The difference surrounding something of value is that it can be debated and measured, whereas subjective morality cannot.

Yeah, I know I'm an oddball who really doesn't fit into any easy to place categories. :icon_wink

 

Abortion: Entirely the woman's choice. The men on capitol hill should keep their hands out of my uterus. I'm not saying I could ever have an abortion, it would probably devastate me, but the option needs to be there for all women, regardless of the situation.

Death Penalty: Eh, I'm torn on this topic. Part of me is all "They deserve it", and some of them do. I mean, if it's some crazy serial rapist or killer. Or a child killer. Then, I may be for it. But I would hate to see an innocent man put to death.

No fault divorce? Eh, whatever. I don't care.

Stem Cell Research: I'm torn on this as well. I mean, stem cell research could cure a number of diseases...but I'm not really for that. I know, heartless, right? But, really, diseases are natural population control, and that's something we need.

Pornography: I'm a prude and porn has been the topic of many a fight in my relationship.

Affirmative Action: I don't care

Medical Marijuana: Legalize it completely

Marijuana legalization: Do it! Legalize it, then tax and regulate it just like you do alcohol. I really don't understand why it's such a big deal anymore. It's safer than alcohol, and every doctor I've ever been to has told me they're fine with my pot smoking as long as I quit smoking cigarettes. AND I'm still a dean's list student.

Gun Control? I don't really know how I feel about this. My brain tells me that stricter gun laws and less guns floating around would be excellent, but look at Canada...they have more guns per person, but they have less gun related deaths.


Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge): I think it should be taken out. I don't care how long it's been on the money or in the pledge. I grew up in the bible belt, and sure you could sit out of the pledge or the school prayers they said at pep rallies and football games, but do you know what it feels like to be one of three people out of over 2000 that gets up and walks away from a prayer? You aren't looked upon well.

Obamacare: Obamacare could have been a thousand times better. I think we need some type of universal health care system, but not one written by the for-profit insurance companies. The insurance lobbyists helped mold this bill into what it is today, and it's a mess. The only good thing about it is...under Obamacare, I'll be able to get insurance. Without it, no insurance company would ever take a chance on me.

 

I completely agree with this.

I mean, I can understand if people need an abortion if they were raped or their life is in danger. But other than that, there is no logical reason, in my view, to do it. As you said, put the kid up for adoption if you aren't ready to be a parent or the kid wouldn't be in the most ideal situation. In fact, I encourage it.

It's easy for someone that's already alive to make the decision to not give that child the same opportunity.