Religious Liberals Unite!

[BrandonE]

Late to the party, but "Yes, I am a religious liberal."

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

The arguement is beginning to sound like people think liberals do not live by moral standards.
There is nothing further from the truth.
There is nothing wrong with any one suggesting and proposing their own moral values to any one else. But it remains a question of choice,and not enforcement.

I am suggesting no such thing. These are honest questions and you might be surprised to find out how close my personal belief is to the one I am questioning.

In truth, I think the question of when is it ok to assert your moral beliefs with others is an interesting one philosophically. like most people here, I do not think it is appropriate to shove one's moral disposition down everyone else's throats.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PureX

Yes. Or rather, you are trying to impose your morality on him. A "liberal" would tell his coworker that stealing is illegal. Thus, leaving the moral judgment out of it while still implying that they should not steal.

Ok, what if someone were blatently being deceptive or lying?

Originally Posted by PureX

There's nothing inconsistent about being intolerant of intolerance. Nor is it necessarily a moral position as it often implied. Tolerance may be a moral preference, or it may not be, to an individual, but it certainly is a social issue and can be promoted and protected on social grounds. So the inference that it's morally illogical to oppose intolerance is incorrect. Personally, I would tell you that you're being a jerk, rather than tell you that you're "wrong" (for shaming someone for wearing polka dots). But that's neither here nor there.

Don't get me wrong... I agree that there is nothing wrong about being intolerant of intolerance.

However, it is a different thing to believe something is immoral (like shaming someone for wearing polka dots) and asserting your morality on someone who is doing that immoral behavior (shaming the shamer).

[Nick Soapdish]

Just my random thoughts, but to me there are two circumstances that seem appropriate to assert morality on to someone:

1) If you hold a position of authority over that person. For example, disciplining my children for rude behavior, or councling an employee for unethical business practices.

2) If the person is victimizing someone else who is incapable of protecting themselves. This would include some kind of intervention based on a moral disposition--kind of the Spiderman ethic.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

Ok, what if someone were blatantly being deceptive or lying?

Again, I think such negative behaviors can be dissuaded on social grounds, rather then on moral grounds. Obviously, intentional deception is not going to be conducive to a productive work environment, or to relationships of any kind between people, so even though this behavior may not be illegal, it can be argued against on a social/functional basis. Personal morality codes need not be an issue.

Originally Posted by atofel

Don't get me wrong... I agree that there is nothing wrong about being intolerant of intolerance.

However, it is a different thing to believe something is immoral (like shaming someone for wearing polka dots)...

But believing that something is immoral does not require us to "shame" (inflict our morality on) anyone else for participating in that behavior. My believing that wearing polka dots is immoral only means that I should not wear them. It has nothing to do with someone else's decision to wear them. At least this is true of a "liberal's" position. That's because liberalism by definition embraces diversity. Whereas by definition, conservatism seeks to protect itself from the changes that come from being open to other ideas and methods of doing things.

Originally Posted by atofel

... and asserting your morality on someone who is doing that immoral behavior (shaming the shamer).

But "shaming a shamer" is not necessarily a moral action. I might shame a shamer for social/functional reasons rather than for moral reasons. I can oppose intolerance on social grounds: that it is antithetical to a free and open society. My desire for a free and open society is not necessarily the result of my moral position. It may well be the result of functional experience. I think moralists have a lot of trouble understanding this. It's why religious moralists have trouble recognizing that atheists can have strong moral codes of behavior, too.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

Just my random thoughts, but to me there are two circumstances that seem appropriate to assert morality on to someone:

1) If you hold a position of authority over that person. For example, disciplining my children for rude behavior, or counseling an employee for unethical business practices.

Interesting choice of words: having "authority over" others. In the case of children, I would see it more as having the responsibility of thinking for them (morally speaking) until they are old enough to establish their own moral codes. I wouldn't see this as a position of authority so much as a position of responsibility.

In the case of an employee, part of the bargain between the business and it's employee implies that the employee is representing the business when he's on the job. He is (or should be) voluntarily acting in the manner (including ethically) that the business chooses. Again, it's not about authority so much as it's about the employee's responsibility as a paid representative of the business that employs him. It's more of a contractual thing. Liberals don't generally like the idea of people imagining that they have "authority over" other people. While establishing and maintaining a chain of authority is usually very important to conservatives.

Originally Posted by atofel

2) If the person is victimizing someone else who is incapable of protecting themselves. This would include some kind of intervention based on a moral disposition--kind of the Spiderman ethic.

Not necessarily. The purpose of law in a free society is to protect individuals from other individuals and from groups of individuals. Individual freedom is based on establishing and maintaining an equality of rights. Whenever one person tries to be "more free" than everyone else, by denying others their equal right to be equally free, the laws and judicial system steps in and correct this imbalance. This is not necessarily a moral position, it's a social/functional position. The law doesn't care if we believe that freedom is a moral imperative or not. In fact, we are all free to decide for ourselves what we believe to be morally important. Whatever we decide, however, the laws exist to protect our rights and freedom from the encroachment and abuse of others, and to protect others from our abuse as well. It's not about anyone's morality. It's about social function.

If I step in to protect another human being from abuse, I may do so on moral grounds, but I also may do so on social grounds, regardless of my moral beliefs.

As an example, I believe that abortion is wrong. However, all that means is that I will not have an abortion. It does not mean that I have the right to insist that you never have an abortion. And as a citizen of a free society, I want you to have the right to decide for yourself if you want an abortion or not, even though I personally believe that abortion is wrong. So although I am against abortion personally, as a citizen, I am pro-choice. This is often difficult for conservatives to understand, as they feel that it's their duty to re-establish and protect their own ideas and ways of doing things.

[Mike182]

*** gentle reminder***

this is not a debate thread, i would kindly request that the debate on when it is appropriate to impose morality on another be taken to another thread

[Mike182]

i am a religious liberal, and i come incredibly close to the UU's on everything moral

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Mike182

*** gentle reminder***

this is not a debate thread, i would kindly request that the debate on when it is appropriate to impose morality on another be taken to another thread

Good idea

Btw, how does one know if a thread is a debate thread or not?

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by atofel

Btw, how does one know if a thread is a debate thread or not?

If it's in the debate forums