The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(02-08-2020, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 02:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 06:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I understand your side could very well stage such a rebellion to protect your "right to bear arms" (and to keep your taxes low, immigrants out, etc.). I have laid out exactly when it might happen in my book. Such a rebellion would depend on if and when the liberals gain enough power to hike your taxes, enact gun control, allow immigrant rights, protect abortion rights, enact Medicare For All, force fossil fuel enterprises (including yours, I think) out of business or into new businesses, etc.

You are sure making it easy for me to use lunatic and make it stick as well.

People are not evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant for holding different values. Believing in something demonstrably wrong is evil, crazy, stupid, delusional, or ignorant.  

Exceptions about values can include evil, especially if one holds that murder, rape, theft, child abuse, treachery, drug trafficking, dangerous driving, abandoning the helpless, making fraudulent oaths, perjury, or persecuting people for their religious beliefs is acceptable. It is possible that Adolf Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews was a great boon for Humanity, or that slaveholders before the American Civil war thought that slavery was pure beneficence toward slaves. Such views were delusional evil.  



(Lawrence Kohlberg, 1927-1987)

Stage 1 is fear of consequences, which is good enough for convincing me to not jump into a zoo enclosure with bears or big cats, break into a dog-infested house, steal copper wiring from vacant houses, or pull a gun on a cop. Imprisonment and execution, or even speeding tickets are good excuses for not breaking laws that have regulatory or penal consequences. Such people as mobsters break the laws on the assumption that they will not be detected for the crime and that those involved will not "squeal".  Under a gangster regime one might treat helpless minorities (extreme example: Jews in Nazi Germany) on the assumption that one will not face retribution for such; after all (until the Battle of Stalingrad) most Germans believed that Nazi Germany would win the war.  People grow out of this level or they face severe consequences. Examples Henry Hill, gangster. Ted Bundy, serial killer. Pablo Escobar, drug kingpin. Josef Stalin, dictator. 

Stage 2 suggests that sensation is itself justification for doing certain things such as getting intoxicated, feeling relief from frustration by attacking a person, animal, or object. Of course most of the strongest delights offer intense, if ephemeral delight; if one overindulges in these one eventually shortens one's life, drains one's assets, harms one's reputation as a person, fails to develop as a person, puts oneself in jeopardy of imprisonment, or even risks sudden and pointless death. Painting "F--- THE POPE" on a Catholic Church might satisfy someone angry at the Catholic Church, but it is a bad idea. Examples: Aleister Crowley, esoteric mystic of the extreme self. Hermann Goering, Nazi war criminal. Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison -- rock musicians who died of drug overdoses. Evel Knievel and other daredevils. 



Many people were delighted to break the windows, steal the merchandise, and wreck the shop in Nazi Germany on Kristallnacht. This was the event that first demonstrated the viciousness of Nazi racism. 

Stage 3 suggests that personal image is to be protected from the observation that one is an evil rogue or someone out of control. It is higher than stages 1 or 2, but it falls short.  Be conventional and avoid trouble. This is not a good position for the promotion of liberty. So what if the convention is itself questionable, as in a place of religious persecution?  If it is conventional to loathe homosexuality and others think that it is acceptable to beat gays, then what is wrong with following the crowd? Conventionality is not morality in itself. Ideally society operates at a level in which conventional behavior is good for Humanity as a whole. 



If you were a compliant German between 1933 and 1945, you would have seen nothing wrong with this. Examples at worst:Irma Grese, a brutal Nazi guard , a type encountered  as enforcers in concentration camps. Werner von Braun, who could do evil for an evil cause and advance science for a good cause. Many people operate this way and get away with it because society keeps them in line. You know people like that. Donald Trump demonstrates why people at this level of moral development should not lead anything.


Stage 4 recognizes statutory authority as the arbiter of right and wrong. So long as the social order is itself just, such is adequate. Law and order is the most basic of civil rights, without which enumerated rights (including property rights vital to a prosperous society) are meaningless. having been threatened with gay-bashing, I have made the argument that gay-bashing is a lawless act suitable for sanctions by law. But what if the statutory law is itself corrupt, cruel, or otherwise unjust?

  

Some laws and practices that such laws permit are themselves unjust. We all have the obligation to obey just laws, but we also have the responsibility to judge laws for their justice and injustice and advocate against discrimination, police brutality, and judicial sadism. So if I am in a protest against police brutality I would take a photo of someone smashing a storefront window to grab merchandise and make that photo available to law enforcement. By doing so I recognize the legitimacy of basic decencies that the law must enforce while judging official misconduct. Examples: Bull Connor, Francisco Franco. Wojciech Jaruzelski. 

Stage 5 is the highest reasonable level for most people -- a social contract: I do good, you do good, and things go well. At this level one's personal dealings have the expectation of good for good. Prosperity and good feelings are the norm. Cultural differences are the spice of life. People respect the feelings of others and are delighted to see that others are happy (if not at personal expense). Brutality is rare and scandalous. People accept that integrity in ordinary dealings is the norm, and corruption hardly exists. Democracy is possible; lower levels of ethical behavior are compatible with 'alternatives' such as lawlessness, rigid conformity, oppression, and despotism.   Abraham Lincoln expressed this position when he said "As I would not be a slave I would not be a master". One looks not to the surroundings to see if the cops are around so that one can speed; one sees  the speedometer at 47 in a 35 zone and cuts one's speed to 35 with no other prompting. Where the political leadership operates on this level or on level 6 (see below) people can get away with living at levels #4 and #3.  Example: I would like to be there. Sir Winston Churchill. Barack Obama. 

Stage 6 is the level of jurisprudence -- deciding what the principles are, the study of high principles beyond the law. People at this level know why the laws are what they are. Among these are the great jurists, statesmen, theologians, and outright saints. Martin Luther King. Vaclav Havel. Nelson Mandela. Abraham Lincoln. Sophie Scholl. Oliver Wendell Holmes. Francis of Assisi. (Ask Protestants who their favorite Catholic saint is, and it will often be Francis of Assisi).   

Moral choice is not a matter of being able to get away with personal goodness because one has all the advantages. There are very good people in ghettos and barrios -- far better than the infamous "snakes in suits", let alone such a creep such as Jeffrey Epstein. There can be saints and criminals in the same family.

People failing to reach their ideals? That is commonplace hypocrisy. Welcome to the club unless you are a super-rare saint or an all-too-common type proud of one's own wickedness.

So far I have discussed morality, but not sanity, intelligence, rationality, or consciousness. Morality is good enough for one post.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_K...evelopment

Kiff (an old poster) used the stages of morality chart with me in the past as means to prove to me that she was above me in morality. She made a big mistake that she could not defend or argue against or refute and simply had to accept as the truth. At the time, it was obvious and very clear to everyone involved or reading our exchanges as to who represented universal principles (Stage 6) and who represented social orientation (Stage 5). Unfortunately for her, that was the beginning of her demise and eventual removal from the old forum. The group of more conservative Democrats who had assisted her and helped defend her arguments and protect her, began to question their loyalty and stopped doing it and began to side with me. The chart she used as proof at the time was much more detailed than that one. I'd say that your Stage 4.