But, of course, “character” is a Judeo-Christian value judgment.

[SteelChip]

​The following is a brilliant and insightful article that attempts to make the point that our politics are becoming dysfunctional because America, unlike its past, is operating on two distinctly different and probably mutually exclusive moral codes. ​These codes are referred to in the article as the Judeo/Christian Code and the Marx/Prog Code. I think the article is brilliant for seeing that as conservatives speak to liberals, they are using two entirely different ethical systems. If I would fault the article at all, it would be for not pointing out that, on a theoretical level, conservatives tend to operate in accordance with the Judeo/Christian codes but on a practical level, they tend to flip back and forth as a method of rationalizing their behavior. The article makes clear the hypocrisy of the left but glosses over the hypocrisy of the right.

I think it will help us all understand that we are confused in our politics and why we are at such an impasse.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/our_defining_moral_crisis_comments.html#disqus_thread

 

[oneforthebus]

I have to fault the article because most of my conservative beliefs are not based in JudeoChristian principles, or really even moral principles at all. It's pure practicality. When an individual has rights and responsibility for his own happiness, he tends to be a more productive individual. When an individual feels the fruits of his labors are going to be evenly divided among those who do not share in his industry, he has less motivation to be productive. The pie may be evenly divided, but the pie naturally shrinks, because people don't want to work as hard at building the pie, when others who don't contribute at all get the exact same share. If I can do less or nothing and still have everything you have, why wouldn't I do less or nothing? This is simple human nature, not morality or religion.

 

[JupiterBnG]

I have to fault the article because most of my conservative beliefs are not based in JudeoChristian principles, or really even moral principles at all. It's pure practicality. When an individual has rights and responsibility for his own happiness, he tends to be a more productive individual. When an individual feels the fruits of his labors are going to be evenly divided among those who do not share in his industry, he has less motivation to be productive. The pie may be evenly divided, but the pie naturally shrinks, because people don't want to work as hard at building the pie, when others who don't contribute at all get the exact same share. If I can do less or nothing and still have everything you have, why wouldn't I do less or nothing? This is simple human nature, not morality or religion.

I cannot agree more with this. There are places in the world that have never even heard of Judeo/Christian principles, and they can still arrive at the same value judgments as Judeo/Christians. I think it's human nature to be lazy and do the least possible work to get the same share of the proverbial pie, but I also think it's generally human nature that we are social creatures who recognize the benefits of community and occasional self-sacrifice and helping others. You don't have to be a Judeo/Christian to have "character," although Judeo/Christians like to pretend that they've cornered the market on it by retroactively defining "character" to mean "believing all the things that I believe in."

 

[SteelChip]

I can't argue with anything you said 'bus' and there are some points that I too disagree with in the article but the guy still makes some good points.

Thoughts about the basic differences like..

.

Whereas Judeo-Christians emphasize the virtues of thrift, rectitude and industry, and decry the corrosive impact of the seven deadly sins (including the envy and idolatry of materialism) on the soul, MarxProg solutions to society’s ills (think “social justice”) inevitably revolve around reapportioning power and material stuff, and stoking envy and resentment between groups so as to create “equalizing” forces. Ask a MarxProg what lies at the root cause of crime and violence and he’ll answer “Imbalances of power and wealth.” Ditto for foreign affairs, where the solution to every international crisis devolves into demands for material rectification, as if a Vladimir Putin can be enticed away from hundreds of years of Russian history and experience by the denial of stuff (i.e., economic sanctions).

..are stuff we see playing out everywhere. We also see this 'group over individual' scenario quite often.

The second aspect is the dehumanization of individuals subsumed into the group. Individuals defined by group identity become expendable. We see this at play when shooting victims have greater or lesser human worth depending on their skin color. More problematically, we see this MarxProgs’ historical fondness for eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, ethnic cleansing, and other schemes of social engineering to diminish or destroy individuals in the name of group “rights.”

 

[JupiterBnG]

More problematically, we see this MarxProgs’ historical fondness for eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, ethnic cleansing, and other schemes of social engineering to diminish or destroy individuals in the name of group “rights.”

Abortion seems out of place in that list. I see abortion as more of an individual "right" than a group one. Generally, it's not a group that decides that an individual should have an abortion... if anything, it tends to be a group trying to PREVENT someone from having an abortion.

 

[SteelChip]

Individual right yes and groups do not decide if an individual should have an abortion but there are plenty of groups and businesses ( funded heavily by groups ) like Planned Parenthood who can influence decisions to a degree.

Actually as I think about it, you are right. There are groups on both sides of the issue trying to influence the individual.

View attachment 517..........View attachment 516

 

[Rod Farva]

Individual right yes and groups do not decide if an individual should have an abortion but there are plenty of groups and businesses ( funded heavily by groups ) like Planned Parenthood who can influence decisions to a degree.

Actually as I think about it, you are right. There are groups on both sides of the issue trying to influence the individual.

View attachment 517..........View attachment 516

But what percentage of each "side" is taxpayer funded? I honestly don't know but have my suspicions as to which one may be more so.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Racist.
10 characters

 

[oneforthebus]

Abortion seems out of place in that list. I see abortion as more of an individual "right" than a group one. Generally, it's not a group that decides that an individual should have an abortion... if anything, it tends to be a group trying to PREVENT someone from having an abortion.

What about the most basic right of the unborn child to his own life?

 

[JupiterBnG]

What about the most basic right of the unborn child to his own life?

I didn't make the point to rehash the same tired arguments for and against abortion. You can have that retarded, pointless argument with yourself if you like, but I'm not going to take part. I simply pointed out that abortion hardly seems like something imposed by a group on an individual, as the other examples like eugenics, euthanasia, and so forth are. There might be examples of systemic forced abortions in history, somewhere in the world, but they hardly seem to represent any modern, American scenarios involving abortion, which is generally a matter of an individual woman making a choice that affects herself and a fetus.

 

[oneforthebus]

I didn't make the point to rehash the same tired arguments for and against abortion. You can have that retarded, pointless argument with yourself if you like, but I'm not going to take part. I simply pointed out that abortion hardly seems like something imposed by a group on an individual, as the other examples like eugenics, euthanasia, and so forth are. There might be examples of systemic forced abortions in history, somewhere in the world, but they hardly seem to represent any modern, American scenarios involving abortion, which is generally a matter of an individual woman making a choice that affects herself and a fetus.

Arguments for abortion and euthanasia are often predicated on what's best for "the group", over the fundamental right of the individual to his or her own life. It's not good for society to have unwanted people around who are expensive for society to care for. Therefore it's morally ok to subjugate the individual's right to life in favor of what's best for everybody else, the argument goes.

That was my point, and I believe, Steelchip's. Sorry it escaped you.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Arguments for abortion and euthanasia are often predicated on what's best for "the group", over the fundamental right of the individual to his or her own life. It's not good for society to have unwanted people around who are expensive for society to care for. Therefore it's morally ok to subjugate the individual's right to life in favor of what's best for everybody else, the argument goes.

That was my point, and I believe, Steelchip's. Sorry it escaped you.

It didn't escape me. I pointed out that abortion is not similar to the other things, because it is not forced on an individual "for the group." That is and was my only argument. And since when has anyone believed that women who have abortions are doing it so that society doesn't have expensive unwanted people to have to care for? Do you even have any idea how ridiculously tortuous your logic is because of your need to condemn abortion?

 

[oneforthebus]

It didn't escape me. I pointed out that abortion is not similar to the other things, because it is not forced on an individual "for the group." That is and was my only argument. And since when has anyone believed that women who have abortions are doing it so that society doesn't have expensive unwanted people to have to care for? Do you even have any idea how ridiculously tortuous your logic is because of your need to condemn abortion?

Obviously you haven't debated abortion much, because it's an argument that is commonly used to justify abortion. Not necessarily as "why women do it", but as "why society should accept it".

Again, my point is not to condemn abortion (although I do) my point was to refute your idea that support for abortion is about individual rights over group rights. Your argument ignores the individual rights of the unborn human. Now, you may argue that an unborn human has no rights, and many people do. The point is those who believe an unborn person is an individual, deserving of rights, do view it as the rights of the group (women, people who don't want to care for unborn babies) as trumping the rights of the unborn individual. You can only view abortion as an individual right of the woman if you believe the unborn child is not also an individual human being with rights.